Home » Posts tagged 'today’s contemplation'

Tag Archives: today’s contemplation

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CC–‘Olduvai’: What’s It All About?

March 14, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CC–
‘Olduvai’: What’s It All About?

Permit me some self-indulgence by way of sharing what my writing is all about for this my 200th Contemplation. This is especially intended for those relatively new to my writing but might also provide some ‘insights’ for those who have been following me for some time.

“Sometime in late 2010 I rented the documentary Collapse and my view of the world changed almost overnight.”

This is how I lead off the ‘About’ section on my personal website that I posted online more than a dozen years ago. It’s been one hell of a rollercoaster ride since that ‘fateful’ videotape viewing which subsequently altered my perspective on almost everything.

That ‘Star Trek’ future I believed our species and planet were headed towards began to fade rather quickly from my vision. I subsequently travelled through the various stages of grief as my view took on a new, far more uncertain and far less ‘utopian’ perspective.

I have tried to raise awareness with my family and close friends of the impending consequences for and the increasing fragility of our society’s complexities–not with much success, I might add; most prefer to hold onto the comforting narratives of modernity lasting forever and a day. Nowadays, I only discuss the topic within my personal social circle if someone else initiates some concerns.

I believe I have finally reached the stage of acceptance with the realisation that there’s little that our species can do to avoid the negative impacts of pursuing infinite growth on a finite planet (and has resulted in ecological overshoot)–a pursuit that seems to have started off unintentionally and innocently enough, but has become the dominant ‘force’ driving planetary ‘events’ for some time now. Even if humanity were to stop our ecologically-destructive behaviours immediately, the momentum that’s been initiated will ensure some of the worst consequences will still arrive regardless of efforts by our species.

My fall down the rabbit’s hole of Peak Oil and Ecological Overshoot have resulted in this journey of putting ‘pen to paper’ to express my thoughts. It began as a cathartic exercise with a few chapter drafts of a fictional sojourn by a number of Canadians caught up within and by the repercussions of a failing world. A ‘project’ I initiated due to my long-lived enjoyment of writing and wanting to express my thinking about my reading and ‘research’, even if it was just going to be for my personal use. This eventually transformed into the self-publication of a novel trilogy and the periodic online Contemplations I’ve posted for the last couple of years based on my ‘learnings’.

My view on things continues to morph and ‘muddy’ (there’s a reason for the saying ‘the more I learn, the more I realise how much I don’t know’). What began as a belief that we could ‘science-our-way-out-of’ the various predicaments we face–especially via our ingenuity and technology–is no longer where I find myself; in fact, far from it. Complexity of the universe and our species’ cognition (particularly its rationalising nature) has me currently questioning almost everything, but especially the dominant ‘stories’ that are told and are meant to help us comprehend (very poorly) the world and continue to pursue ‘business-as-usual’.

Whether my present beliefs are an accurate reflection of our exceedingly complex world is yet to be determined, I suppose–especially given all the psychological mechanisms, cognitive distortions, and machinations by others that influence my (and everyone’s) perceptions.

Regardless, below you will find what one of the Large Language Model ‘Artificial Intelligence’ programmes states my writings are all about. These summaries can serve as an introduction and/or detailing of my writing and its orientation for those relatively new to my work which–if the number of subscribers to my various platforms are accurate, and they’re not picking up too many ‘fake’ profiles–has been increasing nicely over the past year or two.

Before I share these, however, I’d like to take a moment to thank all the people that have purchased close to 700 copies of my novels over the years. I’d love it to be millions more with a television series or major motion picture in the works but, hey, I had a tongue-in-cheek goal of selling 423 copies when I set out self-publishing my initial novel (1 more copy than John Cusack’s character in the movie 2012) and reached that a couple of years ago so all is good. Dwindling sales don’t come close to covering the fees to keep the first novel in print and/or the ever-increasing website/internet fees; however, this was always more of a self-indulgent hobby so, again, all is good. I will, hopefully, continue to keep doing this enjoyable ‘obsession’ for some time.

As well, I’d like to thank Ron E. who a couple of weeks ago (completely unsolicited) asked how he could financially support my work beyond purchasing the trilogy and motivated me to add the option to ‘Buy Me A Coffee’. A special thank you to Ron and, of course, to the close to 800 ‘followers’ that have signed up to check in on my writing from time to time; I hope you find the writing informative and thought-provoking.

And, finally, a big thank you to the other writers/thinkers with whom I’ve had the pleasure to interact with in a variety of ways. From social media conversations to co-operative writing projects and to personal text messages; your feedback and thoughts are greatly appreciated–even if we don’t always see eye-to-eye.

Without further ado, I offer the following ‘AI’ summaries in chronological order of my writing. First off is my ‘fictional’ novel, Olduvai, penned mostly in 2012 but had its roots in 2011 after a year of reading all I could in an attempt to better understand the late Michael Ruppert’s claims made in the documentary featuring him, Collapse, mentioned above.

Second, is my website that was prompted by the company I self-published my novel through (see here) who suggested that I create an online presence to help market the book.

Finally, a summary of my Today’s Contemplations (Website; Medium; Substack) that I have been writing for the past couple of years.

I believe the summaries have captured relatively well the essence of my work. I leave it to those familiar with it to agree or disagree. For those relatively new to my work, you can check out a ‘mostly’ updated list of my ‘publications’ here.

Olduvai Novel

Steve Bull’s novel ‘Olduvai’ is a post-apocalyptic thriller that explores themes of societal collapse, survival, and the fragility of modern civilization. The story is set in a dystopian future where humanity faces a catastrophic breakdown of infrastructure and resources, often referred to as the ‘Olduvai theory’ or ‘Olduvai Gorge theory’. This theory, popularized by Richard C. Duncan, suggests that industrial civilization will have a lifespan of approximately 100 years, after which society will revert to a pre-industrial state.

In the novel, the Olduvai theory serves as the backdrop for a gripping tale of survival as the world descends into chaos. The characters must navigate a collapsing society, dwindling energy supplies, and the breakdown of social order. The story often focuses on the struggles of individuals and groups as they attempt to adapt to a world where technology and modern conveniences are no longer available, and survival depends on resourcefulness, resilience, and often brutal decision-making.

Bull’s ‘Olduvai’ is a dark and thought-provoking exploration of humanity’s vulnerability and the potential consequences of over-reliance on finite resources. It appeals to fans of post-apocalyptic fiction and those interested in speculative scenarios about the future of civilization.

Olduvai Website

Steve Bull’s website, olduvai.ca, serves as a platform for his writings and reflections on topics related to societal collapse, resource depletion, sustainability, and the challenges facing modern civilization. The site is heavily influenced by the ‘Olduvai theory’, a concept popularized by Richard C. Duncan, which suggests that industrial civilization has a limited lifespan and will eventually revert to a pre-industrial state due to the depletion of finite resources, particularly fossil fuels.

Key features of olduvai.ca include:

Essays and Articles: Steve Bull shares his contemplations on issues such as energy depletion, economic instability, environmental degradation, and the potential for societal collapse. These writings often critique the unsustainable practices of modern society and explore possible futures.
Olduvai Theory: The website provides an in-depth exploration of the Olduvai theory, explaining its implications for humanity and how it might play out in the coming decades.
Sustainability and Resilience: Bull discusses strategies for adapting to a post-collapse world, emphasizing self-sufficiency, local solutions, and the importance of community resilience.
Critiques of Modern Society: The site often critiques the over-reliance on technology, globalization, and economic growth, arguing that these systems are inherently fragile and unsustainable.
Personal Reflections: Bull shares his personal thoughts and experiences, offering a candid and often sobering perspective on the state of the world and humanity’s future.

Overall, olduvai.ca is a thought-provoking resource for those interested in peak oil, sustainability, and the potential collapse of industrial civilization. It encourages readers to think critically about the trajectory of modern society and to consider alternative ways of living that are more aligned with the planet’s limits.

Today’s Contemplation

Steve Bull’s ‘Today’s Contemplation’ is a series of essays or reflections that delve into themes related to societal collapse, resource depletion, and the challenges facing modern civilization. Drawing inspiration from the ‘Olduvai theory’—a concept popularized by Richard C. Duncan, which posits that industrial civilization has a limited lifespan and will eventually revert to a pre-industrial state—Bull’s writings often explore the fragility of our current way of life.

In ‘Today’s Contemplation’, Bull discusses topics such as:

‘Energy Depletion’: The reliance on finite fossil fuels and the potential consequences of dwindling energy resources.
‘Economic Instability’: The vulnerabilities of global economic systems and the potential for collapse as resources become scarcer.
‘Environmental Degradation’: The impact of human activity on the planet, including climate change, deforestation, and pollution.
‘Societal Collapse’: The possibility of a breakdown in social order, infrastructure, and governance as resources become increasingly strained.
‘Human Resilience’: Reflections on how individuals and communities might adapt to a post-collapse world, emphasizing self-sufficiency and local solutions.

Bull’s work is often critical of the unsustainable trajectory of modern society and serves as a warning about the potential consequences of ignoring the limits of growth and resource consumption. His contemplations are thought-provoking and appeal to readers interested in sustainability, peak oil, and the broader implications of humanity’s impact on the planet.

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.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCIX– Imperial Longevity, ‘Collapse’ Causes, and Resource Finiteness

March 7, 2025

I thought I would try something a little different in this Contemplation as I work on reading and summarising a chapter from a monograph–Peak Oil, Economic Growth, and Wildlife Conservation. Today’s Contemplation is a Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence-generated summary of three specific questions pertaining to the longevity of ‘empires’, what causes complex societies to ‘collapse’, and what role resource finiteness would play in the longevity of a complex society.

My limited understanding of these computer programmes is that they are exposed to vast datasets of information and then collate this in a summary directed at the query posed. Based upon my personal reading and understanding of the topics I inquired about, the summarised answers below provide a very good synopsis and great starting point for anyone interested in exploring them.

As an aside, I have to wonder how influencing mainstream narratives (something our ruling elite are very good at via numerous avenues) impacts the datasets such programmes depend upon, leading to less-than-accurate summaries/answers to many questions and especially in the sociopolitical and socioeconomic realms–the two areas I would argue that the elite are most interested in ‘managing’ beliefs/perceptions about. But even within areas where the ruling elite may have little skin-in-the-game, and depending upon the prevalent paradigm of the moment, AI-generated responses can simply result in further echoing of the ideas/worldview that are dominant without much critical or outside-the-box thinking involved.

As an example of this is the answer provided to the final question where the impact of finite resources on the longevity of a complex society is proposed to be addressed via increased technological innovation–especially the adoption of ‘renewable’ energy products, given the recognition that our societies are heavily dependent upon hydrocarbons. As I and a few others argue, an increase in mass-produced, complex industrial technologies exacerbates the predicaments we face and are not in any way a ‘solution’. The mainstream zeitgeist, however, is and will probably continue to be that human ingenuity and our technological prowess can address and solve anything that comes our way. There is, after all, a lot of wealth to be made through the pursuit of these technologies and attempting to sustain the unsustainable so it’s important to get that story out and about–repeatedly–and accepted without much in the way of questioning or critical thought.

Our world ‘leaders’ are, if nothing else, fairly consistent in their machinations to ensure they continue to draw revenue streams through whatever means they can control, expand, and/or leverage. And the majority of people outside of the ruling class would prefer to continue and/or improve upon our business-as-usual trajectory rather than think about a less-than-appealing alternative. In fact, my personal experience suggests that the overwhelming majority of people don’t even think about these issues to any degree. But, yeah, let’s put all our eggs in the basket of ecologically-destructive, mass-produced industrial technologies that humanity is so fantastic at spitting out and slap ourselves on the back for our brilliance–Wise Human indeed!

Anyways, without further ado here are the responses I received on my three questions.

How long do empires tend to last?

The lifespan of empires can vary widely depending on numerous factors, including their political structure, economic stability, military power, cultural cohesion, and external pressures. Historically, empires have lasted anywhere from a few decades to several centuries. Here are some examples:

1. Short-lived Empires:
– The Mongol Empire (1206–1368): Lasted about 162 years at its peak, though its fragmentation began earlier.
– The First French Empire (1804–1814/1815): Lasted about 10 years under Napoleon Bonaparte.

2. Medium-lived Empires:
– The Aztec Empire (1428–1521): Lasted about 93 years before falling to Spanish conquistadors.
– The Ottoman Empire (1299–1922): Lasted about 623 years, though its peak power declined significantly after the 17th century.

3. Long-lived Empires:
– The Roman Empire (27 BCE–476 CE in the West, and until 1453 CE in the East): The Western Roman Empire lasted about 500 years, while the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire endured for nearly 1,500 years.
– The Chinese Empires (various dynasties): Some, like the Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) or the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE), lasted for centuries, with periods of fragmentation in between.

4. Factors Influencing Longevity:
– Strong Institutions: Empires with stable governance, legal systems, and administrative efficiency tend to last longer.
– Economic Prosperity: Wealth and trade networks can sustain an empire through challenges.
– Military Power: The ability to defend against external threats and maintain internal order is crucial.
– Cultural Cohesion: Shared identity, religion, or ideology can help unify diverse populations.
– Adaptability: Empires that adapt to changing circumstances (e.g., technological advancements, shifting trade routes) are more likely to endure.

On average, empires tend to last between 200 and 300 years, though this is a rough estimate. Many decline due to overexpansion, internal strife, economic decline, or external invasions.

What causes complex societies to collapse?

The collapse of complex societies is a multifaceted phenomenon that can result from a combination of internal and external factors. Historians, archaeologists, and sociologists have identified several recurring causes, often interrelated, that contribute to the decline and fall of complex societies. Here are some of the most significant factors:

1. Environmental Degradation and Resource Depletion
– Deforestation, soil erosion, and overfarming: These can lead to agricultural decline, food shortages, and famine.
– Water mismanagement: Overuse or poor management of water resources can cause droughts and desertification.
– Climate change: Natural shifts in climate (e.g., prolonged droughts, cooling periods) can destabilize societies reliant on specific environmental conditions.

– Example: The collapse of the Maya civilization has been linked to prolonged droughts and deforestation.

2. Economic Instability
– Overextension: Empires that expand too quickly may struggle to maintain control over distant territories, leading to economic strain.
– Resource inequality: Extreme wealth disparity can lead to social unrest and weaken the economic foundation of a society.
– Trade disruption: Loss of trade routes or economic partners can cripple a society’s economy.

– Example: The Roman Empire faced economic troubles due to overexpansion, inflation, and reliance on slave labor.

3. Political Instability and Governance Failure
– Corruption and inefficiency: Weak or corrupt leadership can undermine governance and public trust.
– Succession crises: Power struggles or unclear lines of succession can lead to civil wars or fragmentation.
– Overcentralization: Excessive reliance on a central authority can make a society vulnerable if that authority weakens.

– Example: The fall of the Western Roman Empire was exacerbated by political instability and ineffective leadership.

4. Social Unrest and Inequality
– Class conflict: Extreme inequality between elites and commoners can lead to rebellion or civil war.
– Loss of social cohesion: Divisions along ethnic, religious, or cultural lines can weaken societal unity.

– Example: The French Revolution was fueled by widespread inequality and social discontent.

5. External Pressures
– Invasions and warfare: External attacks or prolonged conflicts can overwhelm a society’s defenses.
– Migration pressures: Influxes of migrants or refugees can strain resources and destabilize societies.

– Example: The fall of the Western Roman Empire was hastened by invasions from Germanic tribes and the Huns.

6. Cultural and Ideological Decline
– Loss of shared identity: A decline in cultural or religious unity can erode societal cohesion.
– Resistance to change: Societies that fail to adapt to new ideas or technologies may stagnate and collapse.

– Example: The decline of the Byzantine Empire was partly due to cultural and religious divisions.

7. Epidemics and Disease
– Population decline: Pandemics can devastate populations, leading to labor shortages and economic collapse.

– Example: The Black Death in the 14th century contributed to the decline of feudal systems in Europe.

8. Technological and Military Stagnation
– Failure to innovate: Societies that fall behind in technological or military advancements may be overtaken by rivals.

– Example: The Aztec Empire was outmatched by Spanish conquistadors due to superior European technology.

9. Interconnected Crises (The “Perfect Storm”)
– Often, collapses result from a combination of the above factors rather than a single cause. For example:
– Environmental stress can lead to food shortages, which trigger social unrest and weaken the state, making it vulnerable to external invasions.

– Example: The Bronze Age Collapse (c. 1200 BCE) involved climate change, invasions, economic disruption, and political fragmentation.

Theories on Societal Collapse

– Joseph Tainter’s “Diminishing Returns of Complexity”: As societies grow more complex, the costs of maintaining that complexity (e.g., bureaucracy, infrastructure) eventually outweigh the benefits, leading to collapse.

– Jared Diamond’s “Five-Point Framework”: In Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Diamond identifies environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbors, loss of trading partners, and societal responses to problems as key factors.

Conclusion

The collapse of complex societies is rarely due to a single cause but rather a combination of environmental, economic, political, social, and external factors. Understanding these dynamics can provide insights into the vulnerabilities of modern societies and the importance of resilience and adaptability.

How will the finiteness of resources impact the longevity of complex societies?

The finiteness of resources is a critical factor that can significantly impact the longevity of complex societies. Throughout history, the availability and management of resources—such as food, water, energy, and raw materials—have played a central role in the rise and fall of civilizations. In the modern era, the finite nature of resources poses unique challenges due to global interconnectedness, population growth, and increasing consumption. Here’s how resource limitations could affect the longevity of complex societies:

1. Resource Depletion
– Non-renewable resources: Fossil fuels, minerals, and metals are finite and will eventually run out or become prohibitively expensive to extract. Societies heavily reliant on these resources (e.g., for energy, manufacturing, or technology) may face economic and social instability as supplies dwindle.
– Renewable resources: Even renewable resources like fresh water, fertile soil, and forests can be overexploited, leading to scarcity and environmental degradation.

Impact: Resource depletion can lead to economic collapse, social unrest, and conflict over remaining supplies, undermining the stability of complex societies.

2. Energy Transition Challenges
– Fossil fuel dependence: Many societies rely on fossil fuels for energy, transportation, and industry. Transitioning to renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind) is essential but requires significant investment, infrastructure, and time.
– Energy return on investment (EROI): As finite resources become harder to extract, the energy required to obtain them increases, reducing the net energy available to society.

Impact: A poorly managed energy transition could lead to energy shortages, economic decline, and geopolitical tensions, threatening the stability of complex societies.

3. Food and Water Scarcity
– Agricultural limits: Soil degradation, water scarcity, and climate change can reduce agricultural productivity, leading to food shortages.
– Water stress: Overuse and pollution of freshwater resources can exacerbate water scarcity, particularly in arid regions.

Impact: Food and water shortages can trigger mass migration, social unrest, and conflict, destabilizing societies and straining global systems.

4. Economic Instability
– Resource-driven economies: Societies dependent on finite resources (e.g., oil-exporting nations) may face economic collapse as resources are depleted or demand shifts.
– Inflation and inequality: Scarcity of essential resources can drive up prices, exacerbating economic inequality and social tensions.

Impact: Economic instability can weaken governance, increase poverty, and lead to societal breakdown.

5. Technological and Innovation Limits
– Substitution challenges: While technology can mitigate some resource limitations (e.g., renewable energy, recycling), it may not fully replace finite resources or address all environmental impacts.
– Innovation bottlenecks: Developing and scaling new technologies requires time, investment, and resources, which may be constrained in a resource-scarce world.

Impact: Failure to innovate or adapt to resource constraints could lead to stagnation or decline in complex societies.

6. Environmental Degradation
– Pollution and waste: Overexploitation of resources often leads to environmental damage, such as pollution, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity.
– Climate change: Resource extraction and consumption contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, driving climate change and its associated risks (e.g., extreme weather, sea-level rise).

Impact: Environmental degradation can reduce the carrying capacity of ecosystems, making it harder for societies to sustain themselves.

7. Geopolitical Tensions and Conflict
– Resource competition: Scarcity of critical resources (e.g., water, oil, rare earth metals) can lead to geopolitical tensions and conflict between nations.
– Inequitable distribution: Resource-rich regions may face exploitation or intervention by external powers, while resource-poor regions may struggle to meet basic needs.

Impact: Resource-driven conflicts can destabilize regions, disrupt global trade, and threaten the longevity of complex societies.

8. Social and Cultural Responses
– Adaptation and resilience: Societies that prioritize sustainability, resource efficiency, and equitable distribution may be better equipped to handle resource limitations.
– Resistance to change: Cultural or political resistance to reducing consumption or adopting new technologies can hinder efforts to address resource scarcity.

Impact: Societal responses to resource constraints will play a key role in determining whether complex societies can adapt and endure.

Historical Precedents
– Collapse of the Roman Empire: Overexpansion, resource depletion (e.g., soil degradation), and economic instability contributed to its decline.
– Easter Island: Deforestation and overexploitation of resources led to societal collapse.

– Modern parallels: Current trends in resource depletion, climate change, and environmental degradation raise concerns about the sustainability of modern societies.

Strategies for Longevity

To mitigate the impact of finite resources and enhance the longevity of complex societies, the following strategies are essential:

1. Sustainable Resource Management: Prioritize conservation, recycling, and efficient use of resources.

2. Transition to Renewable Energy: Invest in renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

3. Technological Innovation: Develop technologies for resource efficiency, alternative materials, and environmental restoration.

4. Economic Diversification: Reduce reliance on resource-driven economies and promote sustainable industries.

5. Global Cooperation: Address resource scarcity and environmental challenges through international collaboration and equitable resource distribution.

6. Social Adaptation: Foster cultural and behavioral changes that prioritize sustainability and resilience.

Conclusion

The finiteness of resources poses a significant challenge to the longevity of complex societies. While resource limitations can lead to economic instability, environmental degradation, and conflict, proactive measures—such as sustainable resource management, technological innovation, and global cooperation—can help societies adapt and thrive. The ability to balance resource use with environmental and social needs will be critical in ensuring the long-term survival of complex societies in a resource-constrained world.

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

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.

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

The Bulletin: February 27-March 5, 2025

March 5, 2025

The Bulletin: February 27-March 5, 2025

CLICK HERE

The “I Love CO2” campaign continues to gain momentum

The Super Rich Know We’re Doomed

The Psychology Behind the Misunderstanding Of Predicaments

The Milgram experiments: Findings on obedience

5 Things You Can Do This Weekend to Build Personal Resilience

The dark side of going green: Dark triad traits predict organic consumption through virtue signaling, status signaling, and praise from others – ScienceDirect

(Some of) The Central Questions of Our Time

A Monetary Reset Is Coming

A Debt Spiral and US Financial Collapse in the 2030s | NextBigFuture.com

‘Mini-Stagflation’ Will End With A Financial Shock | ZeroHedge

World War III Is Still On The Table: Europe Wants Boots On The Ground In Ukraine – Alt-Market.us

Global debt climbs $7 trillion to record-high $318 trillion in 2024

If Collapse Is A Process, Then So Is Rebuilding

The Local System Builds Community, The Global System Destroys It

The deep sea is a desperate place to drill for more – Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Trump, the Unavoidable – by Ugo Bardi – The Seneca Effect

No Escape from Fantasy Land – The Honest Sorcerer

Drill-Baby-Drill for 20 Years: US Natural Gas Production and Exports via LNG & Pipeline Rose to New Records in 2024 | Wolf Street

Trump Moves To Bolster Nation’s Lumber Supplies & Address National Security Risks | ZeroHedge

Europe is Falling & Needs War with Russia – Martin Armstrong | Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog

Science Snippets: Winter Fires, Frost Lost, Droughts Deepen, Precipitation Enhanced by Cloud Feedback

Three essential things to know about microplastics – and how to avoid them | Life and style | The Guardian

We need to stop feeding the beast – by Henrik Nordborg

Report Your Family For Wrong Think, Says German Government Initiative

Trapping Wild Pigs – Doug Casey’s International Man

The Energy Transition That Isn’t

Welcome to the Recession, Trump Hits Canada and Mexico with 25 Percent Tariffs – MishTalk

A chemical ‘trojan horse’: Polymers used in everyday products can degrade into toxic chemicals, study finds

#300: Revolutionary times | Surplus Energy Economics

Energy limits are forcing the economy to contract

Thank God For Shale Oil and Gas

The Biggest Tariff of Them All – George Tsakraklides

Plants Are Losing Their Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide as Emissions Rise – EcoWatch

Trump Threatens to Jail Participants of ‘Illegal Protests’ at Schools

The Coming Age of Territorial Expansion: Climate Change Will Fuel Contests—and Maybe Wars—for Land and Resources

Complex Societies Collapse

It Is All About Energy! US in Artificial Intelligence Race Driving Quest for Minerals – Global Research

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

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.

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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCVII–‘Renewable’ Energy: See, Hear, and Speak No Evil, Part 3

January 31, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCVII–‘Renewable’ Energy: See, Hear, and Speak No Evil, Part 3

In attempting to bolster the mass rollout of supposed ‘clean/green/sustainable’ ‘renewable’ energy technologies (and the necessary ‘investments’, particularly in terms of finite resources–especially energy), the marketers of these industrial products and their enthusiastic supporters have created and pushed a narrative/mythos surrounding them whereby the technologies are perceived as primarily environmentally-friendly but also capable of replacing our master resource: hydrocarbons. An increasing number of people have referred to this approach as ‘greenwashing’, a deceptive marketing strategy to persuade everyone that the technologies are legitimate and their production/use is environmentally-responsible.

As the chorus of critics of these industrial-based technologies has grown and increasingly exposed the erroneousness of their supporter’s assertions regarding the environmental ‘friendliness’ of their production, the cheerleaders have expanded the story surrounding these technologies to include their ability to address in a beneficial manner a variety of other issues humanity confronts: war, security, and prosperity.

My 3-part Contemplation attempts to demonstrate the falseness of these claims; or, at least, that the perspective that renewables are only of benefit is quite narrow and ignores/rationalises away some inconvenient realities. In Part 1 (see Website, Medium, Substack) I address two of the assertions made by those seeking to convince us to support mass production and distribution of these technologies: wars are not created as a result of them, and they do not pollute. In Part 2 (see Website, Medium, Substack) I look at the claim that their use results in greater ‘security’.

As I read the evidence, these assertions not only ‘overlook’ some uncomfortable negative consequences of our pursuit of ‘renewables’ but state the exact opposite of reality. The increasing and monumental ‘investments’ called for by ‘renewables’ supporters actually result in greater geopolitical competition (including war) over finite resources (including hydrocarbons) and significantly increases pollution of our planet–particularly due to the extractive and industrial processes required for their production.

In this post I will consider the claim that the use of ‘renewables’ is quite beneficial due to the jobs and wealth that are generated.

Jobs and Wealth are generated
As with any expansion of industrial production, jobs are created and wealth can indeed be generated. There is little to no debate regarding this observation. And there has been exponential growth in the production of ‘renewables’ experienced over the past several decades. So, yes, wealth is generated and jobs are created via the production of ‘renewables.’

There are several aspects of this growth that must be kept in mind while considering whether this and a massive scaling up of these products is actually ‘beneficial’ to humanity and our planet or not.

From a relatively narrow ‘economic/financial’ point of view, especially as it pertains to individuals and families that depend upon employment income to ‘survive’, growing employment opportunities are fantastic. And for the local to national (even global) economists and politicians that signal their ‘success’ via indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) and employment statistics, any economic growth is a benefit and must be pursued!

Such wealth ‘creation’ is particularly a motivating factor for the industrialists and ruling elite, who not only push persistently the pursuit of the infinite growth chalice but who have experienced a significant burgeoning of their personal/family wealth over the past few decades. So much so that they are leaving the masses well in the dust in terms of ‘income’, especially in the United States and China where close to half of the world’s wealth is concentrated (see graphic above). Coincidence? I think not.

Leaving aside the significant growth in inequality between the uber-wealthy and the hoi polloi that has accompanied global wealth production, the mythology that has been created surrounding the economic growth imperative is powerful. In fact, it may be one of, if not the most powerful to hold sway in our modern world zeitgeist. Within that worldview such growth is primarily perceived as only of benefit with economic contraction being seen as the most significant thing we must avoid at all costs.

Those ‘costs’, however, tend to be at the expense of the health of our planet’s ecosystems–among other negative aspects (especially socioeconomic disparity) that get left unsaid or rationalised away by our world ‘leaders’ when discussing the growth imperative and/or marketing their latest ‘solely beneficial’ policies. The graphic above shows the almost perfect correlation between the global material footprint (i.e., raw material extraction) and GDP. If one defines wealth generation via GDP, then it would appear that any increase in this metric coincides almost precisely with resource extraction–one of perhaps the most ecologically-destructive activities our species carries out.

Here I must ask critically: Is this really what we want for a species seemingly already well into ecological overshoot (due primarily to our expansion and its material-based requirements) and a planet experiencing the negative consequences of this overshoot, especially a loss of biosphere integrity, changes in freshwater, novel entity dispersal, etc.? When money/wealth–which are potential claims on future resources and their extraction, especially energy–is ‘created’, there is also created more resource extraction, refinement, and industrial production of some nature. More wealth = more ecosystem destruction. (see graphic above showing the material footprint relationship with GDP)

Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, based on analysis in Richardson et al 2023.

While wealth generation (especially through job creation) appeals greatly to the masses who hold out hope of achieving financial ‘prosperity’ through gainful employment, the illusory narrative about ever-greater prosperity for all seems to me to be mostly about sustaining the unsustainable and ensuring continued exploitation of our planet and continuing ecosystem destruction–and mostly for the benefit of those at the top of our power and wealth structures given that wealth tends to accrue extremely unevenly towards that class of our rather hierarchical complex societies.

So, the creation of evermore ‘wealth’ (via additional units of currency) added to our economies becomes ever-increasing potential claims on future energy and other finite resources (with their extraction and refinement requiring significantly ecologically-destructive processes). How is this in any way, shape, or form ‘beneficial’ except, and particularly for, the ruling elite who own and control the industries and resource lands that are supposedly generating ‘wealth’?

This is a troubling narrative for ‘renewables’ cheerleaders in the sense that the primary motivation given for transitioning to ‘renewables’ has been and continues to be one of reducing the negative consequences on the planet’s ecosystems of hydrocarbon use–especially the greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon.

But as I have argued and is perhaps the most obvious misinformed assertion, the continued and/or expanded pursuit of ‘renewables’ actually exacerbates the negative impacts on ecosystems due primarily to the extractive and industrial industries required for their production. How is this not recognised by those arguing in favour of the mass production of these industrial technologies?

In addition, I and others have tried to point out that the production of ‘renewables’ has been additive to our energy mix and serves to exacerbate our overshoot predicament. While the ‘renewables’ advocates often highlight the growing share of electrical-energy production these mass-produced industrial products provide, they leave out of any calculation the growth in electrical generation via hydrocarbons (especially coal)–particularly in those nations where much of the globe’s industrial production is carried out.

For example, in a recent post in the Facebook Group Peak Oil–Twilight of the Oil Age, a member highlighted a CarbonBrief article that focuses upon the plateauing of CO2 emissions in China and suggests that this ‘pause’ is directly due to the mass roll-out of ‘renewables’. Several members of the group challenged this interpretation, suggesting instead that it indicates an economic slowdown and has not been the result of ‘renewables’ being mass produced and adopted. What I pointed out was the additive nature of these technologies to China’s electrical energy production and that while China has been increasing their ‘renewables’, they have also been increasing their hydrocarbon-based electricity generation–reaching record levels (see graphic below).

And while China may indeed be experiencing an exponential increase in ‘renewables’ compared to hydrocarbon use, this is not unusual when a technology is in its infancy. The rate of growth is almost always larger when the base numbers are small. The point, however, remains: ‘renewables’ are adding to China’s energy mix and replacing little if any of that provided by hydrocarbons. This is true also for the world as a whole: ‘renewables’ are adding to the energy production and use by our species.

As for expanding or maintaining our financial and economic systems as constructed, these are among the most-impactful human systems that contribute to our continuing degradation of our planet and its ecosystems.

While the economic argument appeals to many (most?) and is often used by those pushing any number of agendas (especially the pursuit of the infinite growth chalice via economic expansion), it is probably the exact opposite of the trajectory our species needs to follow if we wish to focus upon long-term sustainability (or, at least attempt to mitigate somewhat the fallout of ecological overshoot). Degrowing these systems and the extractive and industrial processes they rest upon should be our primary ideology, not expanding them.

With ‘wealth’ (in the form of currency/money) being a potential claim on future resources (especially energy), the expansion of ‘renewables’ being called for necessitates destructive extraction processes to continue and grow substantially. Is this not paradoxical to the supposed reason for pursuing ‘renewables’? Are we having to destroy the planet to save it?

In the mind of many ‘renewables’ supporters it seems this paradox is ignored or rationalised away. They maintain such destruction is a ‘one-off’ or not anywhere near the negative impacts that hydrocarbons bring to the table (again, ignoring the hydrocarbon inputs into ‘renewables’).

Where is the alternative of halting our pursuit of the perpetual growth chalice or even reversing it via degrowth? It would seem to me that even the discussion of halting growth is mostly verboten in the public sphere except amongst a somewhat marginalised minority–who are often vilified by the perpetual-growth believers. The myth of infinite growth on a finite planet is not only alive and well but vociferously protected by its gatekeepers and adherents. The force shall not be disturbed.

These are not the droids you’re looking for…
As I stated to one of the ‘renewables’ advocates–whom I’ve had ongoing disagreement with over this issue–when I shared the arguments made by those who disagree with their positive assessment of ‘renewables’ (and who countered that all of the critics are obsolete thinkers, haven’t updated their knowledge, have not taken account of new data, and are simply old dogs who can’t learn new tricks): it could be that “the evidence points to a very different conclusion for those scientists/researchers. One of the perhaps most important learnings of my extended post-secondary education was that even the exact same observable ‘facts’ can be interpreted in very different ways; sometimes ways that are diametrically opposed.”1

We all believe what we want to believe, regardless of ‘facts’. For die-hard ‘renewables’ cheerleaders, the negative aspects will mostly be denied/ignored/rationalised away–a response entirely encouraged by the marketers of these technologies. They cannot see (for reasons perhaps of cognitive-dissonance reduction) that these industrial products carry with them exceedingly non-beneficial consequences. They accept, usually without question, the ‘solely beneficial’ assertions made by the products’ manufacturers and the echo chamber of supporters.

One of the aspects that gets lost in this mythos, unfortunately, is the larger issue of societal sustainability–or should I say unsustainability and the evidence suggesting that by pursuing these industrial technologies we are adding fuel to the fire and exacerbating the fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot, making any possible and marginal mitigations all the less likely to be helpful for our species (or any and all non-human ones and the ecosystems humans depend upon for their very existence).

And this is especially true for analyses that focus on singular and/or narrow aspects such as carbon emissions or energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI); the latter of which can be useful (if agreement can be had over how to calculate/measure it) in evaluating energy ‘costs’ but tend to ignore completely the environmental/ecological and/or societal ‘costs’. Just because something may appear to be capable of supporting the energy ‘needs’ of industrial society (at least for a relatively short-term duration), does not mean its use is ecologically justifiable. A societal-supporting energy source can (and probably does) carry great ecologically-destructive ‘costs’ with it but is left out of an EROEI calculation.

When I raise such issues as the environmental costs of ‘renewables’, the tendency of advocates has been to either ignore my concern completely or simply rebut that the costs of hydrocarbons are much worse, and we need to reduce carbon emissions regardless of all other ‘costs’.

Without getting deeply into the carbon tunnel vision such rebuttals raise, ignoring all the other negative aspects of ‘renewables’ is highly dangerous in my opinion.

Such responses, however, are not surprising given another argument that is often made by those supporting the widespread use and distribution of ‘renewables’: we need to do something! And that ‘something’ is almost invariably more technology. But maybe we shouldn’t be attempting to sustain the unsustainable via industrial products. Maybe the only thing we need to be doing is deconstructing complex societies, not chasing the (impossible) dream of techno-utopia.

I find the entire narrative surrounding the ‘electrify everything’ mantra faulty–from top to bottom. From the energy-harvesting technologies to the products that would be powered by the stored power. None of it is ‘green/clean’ nor ‘sustainable’. Such claims are little more than marketing propaganda that has been turned into a mythology that cannot be questioned nor criticised.

Mythologies arise to try and help humans explain observed phenomena, and other complex societal issues in a relatively simplistic fashion. Those that meet this need (and especially if they appeal to broader wants/wishes/desires) tend to propagate through a society and become somewhat entrenched, oftentimes providing moral guidance.

It is difficult if not impossible to dethrone mythologies that have become rooted in a society, especially if they tend to alleviate powerful, anxiety-provoking thoughts–such as our complex societies are not sustainable and are actually destroying the ecosystems that we ultimately depend upon for our existence.

Creating a mythology about a product is one of many marketing strategies that seek to resonate with consumers and produce ‘brand’ loyalty. That ‘renewables’ are ‘clean’, ‘green’, and/or ‘sustainable’ are amongst the myths marketers have focused upon to sell their product. It resonates with consumers who recognise/acknowledge the impacts human society has upon our environment and allows them to reduce any cognitive dissonance that may arise. And for the majority that accept the narrative, it creates a sense of shared belief and identity: we, the ‘renewables’ advocates, care deeply about our world and support this industrial product as a ‘solution’ to human destructiveness–and those who challenge our mythos are part of an uncaring ‘other’ who must be silenced.

The myths that have arisen with regard to an energy ‘transition’ are another in a long line of stories told to soothe the savage beast that is Homo sapiens. In this vein, it is successful for the most part: there are a large number of people that believe the claims made about ‘renewables’ without question. But as with the many mythologies that exist and have preceded this one, when one digs below the surface claims the narrative is simple, inaccurate, and misleads.

Want to purchase an electric vehicle or put solar panels up on your property? By all means, do so but please don’t tell me, others, or yourself that you are doing it for any of the so-called ‘benefits’ that cheerleaders of these industrial products go on about–especially their marketers. That’s simply disingenuous.

‘Renewables’ are no ‘solution’ to our various predicaments. The idea that they are is part of a grand lie. A lie that ignores/denies/rationalises away all the glaring negative aspects that accompany them. The lie is readily accepted since it aids the story-telling apes who strive to avoid/reduce significant anxiety-provoking thoughts but it also adds to the height of the cliff directly ahead that our species is running full-steam towards, with the ‘leaders’ (who are actually at the back of the pack but projecting an air of ‘stewardship’ and ‘guidance’) urging on the masses…

As I did with Part 1, I will close with a passage from Charles Hugh Smith in a recent post on the various mythologies our societies hold with respect to technology, political institutions, and financial markets and their ‘ability’ to ‘solve’ all ‘problems’:

“We know we’ve entered the realm of mythologies when expressing doubts about the efficacy of tech, the market or the state unleashes an infuriated indignation that the gods of tech, the market and the state are being questioned, even as the proof of their powers are everywhere.

But once we’re embedded in a mythological structure, then we see play-acting as a legitimate solution.

Here is the real-world situation, stripped of mythology and play-acting: the majority of the core problems are either made worse by tech, the market and the state–Anit-Progress writ large–or they’re beyond the reach of these conventional tools.

This Venn diagram causes howls of protest and shrieks of agony: how dare you! Of course there are tech solutions, market solutions and government solutions to every problem under the sun. What else is there?

To state this out loud is deeply offensive, for we’ve been trained to worship at the altars of technology, the market and the state. It’s considered good sport to deride the limits of state solutions, but it’s anathema to question the limits of technology or the market.”

Recent Articles of Interest

Nevada’s Joshua Trees Bulldozed In Mesquite; Solar Company Defends Solar Farm

This Poet and Tribal Attorney is Being Sued by a Mining Company

Nickel Mines Threaten Indonesia Nomadic Tribes and Forests

Devil’s in the Machine–Driving Electric Car Fake Environmentalism

A Reality Check On Our Energy Transition

Europe: The Fall of the Holy Renewable Empire

‘Green’ Scottish Ferry Emits Far More CO2 Than Old Diesel Ship

Rare Earth Mining In Myanmar’s Chipwi Region Causes Socioeconomic Decline and Environmental Damage

Desert Tortoises Endangered by Approval of Rough Hat Clark Solar Project

Greenland’s Melting Ice Is Clearing the Way For a Mineral Gold Rush

Questioning lithium-ion batteries, fire risks & hydrating dry regions

When Renewables Meet Their Limits to Growth

Tesla is Killing the Planet

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

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.

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

I came to this observation after several years of interest in and extensive reading about hominid evolution, especially the physical markers that appear in skeletal remains. The exact same physical attribute was often perceived by different researchers in very different ways that resulted in very different interpretations as to the importance and meaning of the identified characteristic. And then there was the presentation by the university’s psychology department on human intelligence I sat in on where the guest professor began the gathering by asking the participants to consider that if one asks 100 psychologists the meaning of intelligence, you will likely get more than 100 different responses with each highlighting different aspects and resulting in different conclusions even using the same data. The point being that we see and interpret the world in a variety of ways that can sometimes be quite different from each other.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCIV–US Peak Shale Oil & Gas: When the Walls Come Tumblin’ Down.

December 30, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCIV–US Peak Shale Oil & Gas: When the Walls Come Tumblin’ Down.

This Contemplation has been prompted by a publication (see summary below) focused upon the apparent peaking of shale oil and gas production within the United States. The commentary on US shale extraction by the natural resources investment firm of Goehring & Rozencwajg began making the rounds within some of the Facebook Group circles I frequent upon its publishing on December 19th.

Here are a few thoughts I have had as I’ve read through the G&R analysis and taken some time to digest its implications and some of the accompanying commentary by others.

It’s quite possible that the peaking of extraction from US shale deposits could usher in a speeding up of some trends (especially geopolitical and economic) as we travel ever-forward towards global, societal collapse–especially given the consequences this will have for the global hegemon that is the United States since shale deposits decline very rapidly. And as much as some in the US like to believe that it is energy ‘independent’, it is not. Not even close. Despite the ‘shale miracle’, the US continues to import just under 10 million barrels of oil per day–it needs to import heavy and sour oil since most of its extraction is of the light type and its heavy oil production has been in decline since 1970.

I say ‘possible’ regarding the impact of this eventuality since the following thoughts are not absolute. It is my perception and interpretation of evidence based upon my years of reading and writing about societal collapse and related topics–particularly the peaking of our master resource, oil. But as with virtually everything, observations (even of agreed upon ‘facts’) are interpreted through the eyes of the beholder and can result in different conclusions, even diametrically-opposed ones.

In addition, no one can predict the future with much if any certainty so any assertions that I make must be kept in perspective. It could be these thoughts of mine are all sound and fury signifying nothing, or it could be a fairly accurate Nostradamus-like prediction–only time will tell. The evidence that supports a story of inevitable and impending societal collapse due very much to the also inevitable and impending end of the oil age is very compelling.

And this is not even our most dire predicament since resource depletion is but one of several symptom predicaments of our far more significant predicament of ecological overshoot–a predicament that has been expedited very much by our leveraging of a one-time, finite cache of photosynthetically-derived and ‘stored’ hydrocarbon energy.

Putting all that net surplus energy into the opposable-thumbed hands of a story-telling ape with significant anxiety and highly-complex brains was probably not the best of evolutionary ‘decisions’. Especially since the species was already on the path towards overshoot once it began experimenting with large, complex societies. Again, time will tell.

I have emphasised previously that energy is everything. Without it there is no life. Without the tremendous amounts of net surplus energy afforded humanity via hydrocarbons, the vast array of societal complexities (i.e., political, economic, cultural) and technologies that our modern societies currently have, depend upon, and take for granted would not likely exist. The human-contrived world would be a much simpler and smaller version of itself, and without much in the way of what we would define as modernity. It might resemble, if we were lucky, the eighteenth or early nineteenth century–just prior to the discovery of oil in the United States (and followed closely in other areas around the globe).

There certainly would not be 8+ billion of us, communities would depend upon their local resource base for the most part, and much (all?) of the energy-powered technologies we have would not exist. This is provided Nature was keeping our population growth in check and we hadn’t denuded our environments of its plant and wildlife, as seems to be our way as we continue our seemingly ever-present expansion. We would likely still be in overshoot in such a world, but certainly not to the extent we currently are. Our speed towards a much smaller cliff would be considerably slower. Hydrocarbons have afforded us the ability to speed up the journey tremendously and produce a cliff that is much, much higher than it would be otherwise.

So, it’s beginning to look like Peak Oil might be raising its ugly head again for an increasing number of people–not that it ever disappeared for some small number of us. Even when the shale ‘revolution’ began to pump up the volume about it being vanquished, some adherents drowned out that noise holding on to the geologic inevitability of a decline in production. The more dire consequences of Peak Oil had just been delayed, not avoided. You cannot forever ignore the increasing drawdown of a finite resource that becomes more and more difficult and expensive to retrieve–diminishing returns can be most unforgiving. But I have to say, a lot of people have tried and are still trying to deny biogeophysical reality, mostly by way of magical thinking–and I expect this to get even more prevalent as reality bites us ‘wise’ apes in the ass.

Peak Oil, in fact, arrived quite a number of years ago depending on what type of oil you are discussing; i.e., conventional vs. unconventional. Unconventional extractions (primarily deep sea drilling, bitumen mining, and hydraulic fracturing of shale deposits) have helped to kick-the-can-down-the-road for humanity (along with expansion of the Ponzi scheme that is our credit-/debt-based financial/monetary systems) but the time is quickly approaching (actually, it’s past time) when it’s going to have to face a major reconciliation with hard, physical limits.

Or is it? With the narrative management and distractions our ruling elite will employ, combined with the denial and bargaining that will take place amongst the masses, it may be that the notion gets buried in the stories of pending ‘saviours’ and hidden by the proliferation of distractions to keep the hoi polloi in ignorance and compliant.

‘Renewables’ will save us. Look over there, a war. Nuclear Fusion will save us. Look over there, aliens. A new ‘leader’ will save us. Look over there, another pandemic. Artificial Intelligence will save us. Look over there, enemy drones. ‘Free markets’ will save us. Look over there, Taylor Swift is performing again. Technology will save us. Look over there, it’s the first billion dollar contract for a sports player. Space travel will save us. Look over there, ‘democracy’ is at risk from within. Something will save us…because, heaven forbid, we should be open to and considering that maybe we need to be discussing not ‘saving’ industrial civilisation but preparing for the inevitable return to simpler living.

The implications of this analysis by G&R could be immensely monumental for our complex societies. It is a stark reminder of the finiteness of hydrocarbon resources and the increasing difficulty of facing this reality. It is not the first and probably won’t be the last of such reminders but, like previous ones, will be mostly ignored, denied, or rationalised away by those that don’t wish to face what is quickly approaching (or don’t want the masses to be aware).

The peaking of US shale and gas is particularly problematic given that it has been the marginal producer of oil production increases over the past decade or more. Virtually all demand growth has been met by this extraction.

A decline in the overall production of oil/gas hydrocarbons will derail not only utopian dreams of an energy ‘transition’ (since all material extraction, refinement, and manufacturing processes are reliant on these resources; including all non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies and electrical-based products–including artificial ‘intelligence’), but also ramp up geopolitical maneuvering (including hot wars) over hydrocarbon resource reserves.

In fact, some of the consequences of this disaster-in-waiting have actually been with us and building for decades. Some Peak Oil analysts have argued that our ruling elite have been quite aware of the coming ‘challenges’ and have ‘planned’ accordingly, acting on their knowledge in a variety of ways.

Much of the geopolitical gamesmanship of the past half a century or more, for example, has likely been focused upon controlling hydrocarbon reserves. And as these finite reserves get dearer (both in quantity and price), the geopolitical maneuvering has been increasing in intensity–particularly around and within those regions where the remaining reserves exist. The coming wars (or should I say expansion of current ones) may also come with increasing ‘othering’ of those who reside close to ‘our’ resources.

A reminder of which nation states hold the most oil/gas reserves and where regime change operations/wars have occurred, are occurring, or will soon occur…and it’s not over some completely bullshit justification like ‘bringing democracy’ or ‘freedom’ to a region; it’s about expanding the racket that is war and about resources, especially hydrocarbon ones–our ‘rulers’ want to take it from their ‘rulers’. Keeping the gravy train rolling for the entitled few and ensuring the hoi polloi receive some of the spoils so as not to rise up against their ‘leaders’ are paramount–regardless of the impacts upon the masses or ecosystems of our planet.

Proven Oil Reserves: Top 15 Nation States

Proven Gas Reserves: Top 11 Nation States

Accompanying this has also been a lot of denial and bargaining in the narratives being disseminated about the globe, such as the notion of finite limits being meaningless in light of human ingenuity and technological prowess–especially as it pertains to an energy ‘transition’. Depending upon who’s telling the story, everything will be electrified and powered by carbon-free ‘renewables’ and/or nuclear fission/fusion; or, if you really want to ‘jump the shark’, we’ll simply mine passing asteroids or migrate to another planet. Do you believe in magic?

The repercussions of Peak Oil/Gas and the loss of net surplus energy can only but alter our world in a myriad of ways–some of which can be imagined (simplification and localisation is approaching like a bat out of hell) but some that will be complete Black Swan Events for most.

The world is not going to be the same for A LOT of people once we are well into the consequences of Peak Oil/Gas. Not. Even. Close.

And the stories that will be told by us story-telling apes will be something to behold as things unfold–especially by those dominant apes that hold sway over the masses due to their positions atop our power and wealth structures. Our ‘elite’ wish to continue in those spots to maintain their privilege and prestige for as long as they possibly can by whatever means they have–and can get away with.

It is quite possible that the facade of ‘representative democracy’ will finally melt away as the elite consolidate their control over the wealth-generating/-extracting systems that provide their revenue streams (and thus positions of power and prestige). I expect to see the trend of increasing inequality continue and accelerate, as well as the expansion of narrative management to help justify/rationalise the above.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
― Johann von Goethe, 1809

Narrative control is their preferred method as it is less resource intensive and tends to be more effective, but they will not be afraid to use obvious and intentional violence and oppression (framing it in terms that will be more acceptable to those not targeted–at least, for the moment; ponder how some activists/protesters have been vilified and oppressed in recent years). If you think censorship and narrative management is bad now, just wait.

Societies will crumble. Wars will be waged. Billions may perish. It’s not going to be pretty. Not. At. All.

On the positive side, as some have argued, the decline in hydrocarbon reserves may help to slow–and eventually will halt–some of the detrimental consequences of its use due to our extraction and refinement industries and the industrial production of material goods that leads to significant sink overloading and ecosystem destruction.

A reminder that hydrocarbons–especially oil–is THE master resource that supports the growth and maintenance of our societal complexities through its surplus net energy. The loss of this net energy surplus has huge ramifications for almost all aspects of modern, human existence, let alone the creation, maintenance, and distribution of mostly unnecessaryl consumer goods and services.

The production/procurement and distribution of food, potable water, and regional-shelter material-needs all depend significantly upon hydrocarbons. For so-called ‘advanced’ economies, little of these important needs are produced locally or within the natural environmental carrying capacity of regions. Virtually all the people of these economies are significantly dependent upon hydrocarbons in one way or another, even though most have no idea whatsoever.

“There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”
– David Foster Wallace, 2005

Some questions that persist in my mind’s eye as I contemplate the future:

What happens when we no longer have the ability to control/contain/manage those dangerous complexities like the hundreds/thousands of nuclear power plants, chemical production and storage facilities, and biolabs?
What happens when competing polities, who hold thousands of thermonuclear weapons of mass destruction, feel threatened?
What happens when diesel fuels are unavailable or so exorbitantly priced that food production and distribution systems break down for most?
What happens in cold climates during winter when heating by hydrocarbons is unavailable?

As individuals, even relatively well-organized collectives, we have little if any agency in affecting what happens in the future with regard to these potential threats. Even the ruling elite have little were they actually to go against their baser instincts of protecting their personal/familial interests. The wheels are in motion and there’s likely no stopping the slow-moving trainwreck that seems to be our trajectory.

So, grab some popcorn and get ready for all sorts of things to go sideways in a variety of ways in the years ahead. Socioculturally. Sociopolitically. Socioeconomically. We are in for some interesting times for sure.

As I stated at the close of my last Contemplation:

NOTE: Peak Oil was the topic that first grabbed me by the short hairs and pulled me into the rabbit’s hole of societal collapse and ecological overshoot almost 15 years ago. I rented the movie Collapse starring the late Michael Ruppert as my personal pick on a Friday afternoon movie hunt for our weekend family movie night (for me to watch, not the family) at our local Blockbuster back in 2010 and I haven’t viewed the world the same since watching it.

Additional Articles of Interest

The Future of Oil Supply

Drill, Baby, Drill: Can Unconventional Fuels Usher In A New Era Of Energy Abundance?

The American Shale Patch Is All About Depletion Now

Predictions For 2025

US Shale Nears Limits Of Productivity Gains

Summary of German Armed Forces Peak Oil Study

2005-2018 Conventional Crude Production On A Bumpy Plateau With A Little Help From Iraq

Peak Oil is Officially Here! World oil production peaked November of 2018.

A handful of my most recent Contemplations that have touched upon Peak Oil/Energy:

-Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXV–Energy and Its Interconnections With Our Financialised Economic System. February 7, 2024. Website Medium Substack

-Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLVII–Overshoot, Hydrocarbon Energy, and Denial: Avoiding the Pain. October 28, 2023. Website Medium Substack

-Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLVI–Peak Oil, Complexity, Psychology, Magical Thinking, and War. October 26, 2023. Website Medium Substack

–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLV–Planetary Boundaries, Narrative Management, and Technology. October 23, 2023. Website Medium Substack

–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIX–Carbon Tunnel Vision And Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1, September 7, 2023. Website Medium Substack; Part 2. September 20, 2023. Website Medium Substack; Part 3. October 6, 2023. Website Medium Substack

–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXV–Collapse Now To Avoid The Rush: Our Long Emergency. June 6, 2023. Website Medium Substack

–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXV–Hydrocarbons And The Maximum Power Principle: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? April 22, 2023. Website Medium Substack

And a handful that have touched upon the consequences of ‘collapse’:

–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXV-Collapse = Prolonged Period of Diminishing Returns + Significant Stress Surge(s), Part 1. October 7, 2024. Website Medium Substack; Part 2. October 15. Website Medium Substack; Part 3. October 23. Website Medium Substack; Part 4. October 28. Website Medium Substack

–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXIX–Fiat Currency Devaluation: A Ruling Elite ‘Solution’ to Growth Limits. December 11, 2023. Website Medium Substack

–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXVI-Societal ‘Collapse’: Past is Prologue. November 27, 2023. Website Medium Substack

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

–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIII–Ruling Caste Responses to Societal Breakdown/Decline. August 3. Website Medium Substack

–Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXI–Sociopolitical Agency, Narrative Control, and Collapse. May 22, 2023. Website Medium Substack

The Depletion Paradox

Excerpt from Third Quarter Natural Resource Market Commentary
Goehring & Rozencwajg: Natural Resource Investors

December 5, 2024

https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox

-US shale oil and gas production appears to have peaked in November 2023

-G&R models suggest that the decline is set to accelerate

-most view this prediction skeptically, believing higher prices and more drilling will counter declines

-G&R assert that “The primary forces behind the current downturn are neither policy-related nor purely economic—they are geological and inexorable. Depletion, not market dynamics or regulatory overreach, is the central culprit.” (p. 7)

-US conventional crude oil production provides a historical example of what is likely to occur

-crude peaked in 1970 and the OPEC crisis occurred in 1973 prompting the US government to expedite permitting and increase drilling

-despite a significant increase in oil prices and drilling, production declined and history seems to be repeating for the US shale patch

King Hubbert–A History

-in 1956, MK Hubbert (Shell geologist) predicated a peak of US conventional oil extraction to take place in 1970; most were skeptical

-assuming hydrocarbon basins were finite in nature, Hubbert argued that extraction flow would follow a set trajectory–a bell-shaped curve

-Hubbert also developed a method (linearisation) of estimating ultimate recoverable reserve amounts that allowed him to predict a production peak (see Figure 2)

-production stopped growing due to production dynamics and basin depletion

Explaining Hubbert–From Macro to Micro

-Hubbert’s logistic curve has been powerfully predictive but criticised since no one understands why

-it appears that the growth curve results from new wells being added during the early phase of basin extraction with each new well adding to total production

-as time passes, however, mature wells begin to decline in productive capacity and overall growth of production only continues if new well production exceeds older well decline

-eventually, new well production cannot offset the decline of mature wells and extraction plateaus then begins to fall and cannot be reversed by investment in more wells

-“It underscores a fundamental truth: growth is bound not just by resources but by the interplay between new additions and inevitable declines. Higher prices and technological advancements may influence the pace, but they can’t alter the underlying dynamics that eventually lead to a plateau in production.” (p. 12)

-even when production appears robust, depletion is inevitable

More Realistic Examples

-extraction is constrained by two decisions: where and how much to drill

-cautious, slow drilling characterises the early drilling phase in a new basin with activity ramping up once potential is realised

-activity slows once the best spots have been drilled, with subsequent wells being less productive

Conventional US Production–A Case Study

-from 1900 to 1945, US drilling was steady as production soared

-during the 1950s, drilling activity grew (+70%) but productivity did not keep pace (+20%) as depletion rates of mature wells increased

-the 1960s witnessed a drilling focus upon the best basins resulting in a doubling of productivity

-this increase rolled over (peaked) in 1970 as the best regions matured and began declining (falling 75% by the mid-1980s) despite a surge in drilling

Turning to Shales

-shale basins require more drilling due to their extensive layout, with productivity varying widely across a basin

-their production profile begins with high extraction rates followed by a steep decline and prolonged low-rate output tail

-this defies Hubbert linearisation but instead shows a logarithmic relation allowing precise extrapolation of production and peak production timing

Enter Neural Networks

-G&R began developing their own AI in 2019 to help model shale production using well design, subsurface geology, and regional trends (and has been revised over the years to include a larger variety of more precise information)

-predictive curves perfectly match actual production and see peak/rollover around when 28% of recoverable reserves have been extracted; current extraction estimates are at or beyond this point

-“Indeed, total shale oil and gas production likely peaked late last year. Both are already down 1%, and our models predict year-over-year production declines will turn sharply negative within six months.” (p. 21)

Depletion Paradox Redux

-the coming decline in production is occurring at a difficult time given that since 2010, global oil demand has been met almost exclusively by shale extraction, helping to suppress US prices by 80% relative to global prices and grow natural gas-fired electricity production and LNG exports

-inferior geology cannot be remediated

-the 1970s saw production plummet despite higher prices and more drilling, and we are likely going to experience the same for shale

-“In the end, the paradox remains—depletion is an unstoppable force, and it is becoming harder and harder to keep up.” (p. 22)

The more detailed summary notes for this article can be found here.

A collection of graphs, charts, and text screenshots of interest. The data shows the significant increase in U.S. shale oil and gas production since the 1990s.

The rollover/peak of this production has huge implications for not just the US but the entire globe as most production increases over the past two decades have come as a result of US shale extraction. The notion that production can continue to meet increasing demand via investment, increased drilling, and/or new technologies is increasingly being questioned–especially by this G&R commentary.

The world is not prepared for a decline/fall in oil and gas production. It has been lulled into complacency, denial, and bargaining via mass marketing of a faulty narrative. The piper has finished playing and must now be paid. Humanity must now sit down at the banquet of consequences that have accumulated over the past two centuries…

Shit is about to get real…

OIL

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=847&t=6

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2019/0820

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-09-11/2005-2018-conventional-crude-production-on-a-bumpy-plateau-with-a-little-help-from-iraq/

GAS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_in_the_United_States

Natural gas production in the United States from 1998 to 2023 (in billion cubic meters)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265331/natural-gas-production-in-the-us/

If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Contemplation title hat-tip to John Mellencamp:

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CL–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 2

December 29, 2024 / 1 Comment on Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CL–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 2

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CL–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 2

September 20, 2023 (original posting date)

As I stated at the close of Part 1:

“We have, as a rationalising but not rational story-telling ape, created myths about our place in the universe and how we have contributed to it. Over the past several centuries, and certainly during the most recent one, we story-tellers have weaved narratives that it is our human ingenuity — particularly around technology — that has led to our expansion and apparent ‘successes’ (not the leveraging of a one-time cache of easily-accessible, storable, and transportable dense energy).

Along the way, we have lost sight of our place and dependence upon Nature, and how fundamentally important its complexities are to our very survival. As a result, many continue to cheerlead that which is most dangerous to our and every species existence on this planet; ignoring or rationalising away the signals being sent.”

This story-telling aspect of our species appears to be applicable to every sociocultural institution or school of thought that humans use to help them interpret, understand, and explain the universe and its workings.

As this paper that reviews the evidence surrounding the “…mainstream narrative for achieving socially just ecological sustainability” reminds:

“…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.”

Before unpacking the psychology behind this phenomenon, let’s consider the concept of ‘energy blind spots’.

Energy Blind Spots

The term ‘blind spot’ arises from the idea that there exists a “spot within one’s range of vision but where one cannot see”. It’s initial use was physiological in nature but just as the word ‘blind’ had become used to suggest confusion or not controlled by reason, ‘blind spot’ became a reference to other more figurative aspects of life (e.g., morals, intellectual pursuits, general understanding) that one could not see, was confused about, or just simply ignored — the ‘carbon tunnel vision’ I discuss in Part 1 is an example.

In the sense of ‘energy’, it’s the inability to connect the fact that energy is the fundamental underpinning of all life and life processes but also, as Nate Hagens argues (in this video), our tendency to misattribute or ignore the ‘power’ derived from the energy sources we depend upon: “To our ancestors, the benefits from carbon energy would’ve appeared indistinguishable from magic. And instead of appreciating this giant one-time windfall, we developed stories that our newfound wealth and progress had emerged purely from human ingenuity. We had become energy blind.”

Hagens goes on to point out that everything requires energy from animal physiological functioning to human economic systems and everything in between. The ‘benefits’ that energy — particularly the one-time cache of easily-accessible/recoverable, dense, storable, and transportable hydrocarbon fuels — provides to human complex systems is, in human time scales, virtually indistinguishable from magic (see this video).

One barrel of oil, for example, can provide the equivalent of 4–5 years of human labour, but since we have been growing the supply and creating enormous surplus energy we hardly — if at all — take note of the tremendous impact and benefits of this energy source. It has been taken for granted, particularly as it pertains to our expansion of complex socioeconomic systems and technology. And this extremely unique period of our human existence (where we are drawing down a finite resource to ‘power’ our expansion well beyond the natural environmental carrying capacity of our planet) has been normalised within our social zeitgeist. It is the way things have been and will continue to be…to infinity and beyond.

Much gets discounted/ignored/misattributed by most people in their thinking (or, rather, non-thinking) about the hydrocarbon energy that goes into our existence: the millions of years necessary to create it; the complexity of accessing, extracting, refining, and distributing it; the pollution streams that arise from our extraction and use; and, all the energy that is lost in these processes — let alone the significant complexities of the socio-economic and -political aspects (from financial/monetary manipulation to resource wars).

While we appear to have more of this resource each year, we are also growing in both our population and economies resulting in less actual energy available per capita (NB: this metric has plateaued since 2018 when oil production hit its peak) and the very important surplus energy it provides to ‘fuel’ our continuing pursuit of growth (see Dr. Tim Morgan’s website for great insight into this aspect). But rather than consider these aspects of our energy windfall, we instead tend to focus upon our technology and economies (especially in terms of money) believing our current living arrangements have no limit.

In doing so, we fail to consider the drawdown of this finite resource and also the diminishing returns we are encountering as the cheap and easy-to-access reserves have mostly been extracted. To counter this (and other stressors) we have greatly expanded debt and manipulated interest rates. These financial/monetary manipulations have aided our efforts to access perhaps the last of our reserves via tight/shale oil extraction[1].

This has also helped to make it appear that our reserves are boundless — it’s simply our technology and politics holding back endless extraction — ignoring, of course, the significant fall-off in extraction experienced with these shale wells and thus the necessity to increase exponentially the drilling to maintain rates[2]. As Hagens argues, we are simply widening the straw to drawdown more quickly a finite quantity of our most important energy resource.

In addition, these shale oil reserves are drawn from the source rock that feeds other deposits; and once these are used up there are no other places to extract from except perhaps bitumen deposits — an extremely ecologically-destructive and energy-intensive process[3].

Most people’s views of energy production — be it from hydrocarbons or non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technology — is rather simplistic; in fact, the vast majority probably don’t even think about it at all as with most complex processes in today’s world and thus the ‘magical’ nature that arises with our technologies.

Hydrocarbon refining is rather complex and energy intensive (with intensity and complexity depending upon the source material) with the various products the result of distillation, cracking, reforming, treating, and blending. Basically, crude oil is heated in a distilling column that vapourises the various chemicals with each condensing at different temperatures as it rises in the distiller. Collection trays then siphon off each product.

As some products are in greater demand than others, ‘cracking’ (so named as it breaks up longer hydrocarbon molecules) is used to convert certain liquids. ‘Reforming’ is the process used to increase product quality and volume for some of these liquids. Natural contaminants (e.g., sulphur, nitrogen, various heavy metals) are removed by binding them with hydrogen (produced by the reforming process) and then used in other industries. Finally, ‘blending’ of various refined liquids is carried out to create the different products that get used to power our vast array of technologies.

Another brick in this energy wall that gets lost for most people is the vast array of products that get produced from hydrocarbons[4]. It’s one thing to argue that non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies will replace our hydrocarbons, it’s quite another to then look at the products — some of them quite important to our modern complexities, others quite superfluous — and imagine how these will be produced without oil and gas.

There are compelling stories, especially from economic schools of thought, that virtually everything is ‘replaceable’ if there is the demand — ignoring/denying, of course, the biogeophysical limits that exist upon a finite planet (to say little of the Laws of Thermodynamics).

Perhaps among the most important hydrocarbon inputs (and ones that are most people are blind to) include those into our modern, industrial agricultural and transportation systems (especially those involved in our long-distance supply chains). While there exist competing narratives about whether these inputs can be replaced by non-hydrocarbon ones, the scale and economy of such a transition are often glossed over or completely ignored — I find this particularly true for those advocating for the immediate cessation of hydrocarbon energy extraction and use — and with no real plan in place for the consequences of this approach.

The ‘Green’ or ‘Third Agricultural Revolution’, for example, has been made almost entirely possible because of the Haber-Bosch Process. This industrial-scale process for the creation of agricultural fertilisers, herbicides, and pesticides (as well as other non-agricultural products) converts atmospheric nitrogen to ammonia by a reaction with hydrogen that is produced using natural gas as the feedstock but also requiring significant oil and coal inputs.

And while some have argued that the non-renewable hydrocarbon inputs for this undertaking can be replaced by ammonia production via concentrated solar energy (ignoring the same complexities and ecological destructiveness that accompanies the production, distribution, maintenance, and disposal/reclamation of these non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies), all such bargaining does is attempt to sustain a population well above the natural carrying capacity — a predicament created by our leveraging of hydrocarbons.

As Vaclav Smil highlights in this essay on our population explosion:

“What is the most important invention of the twentieth century? Aeroplanes, nuclear energy, space flight, television and computers will be the most common answers. Yet none of these can match the synthesis of ammonia from its elements…the world’s population could not have grown from 1.6 billion in 1900 to today’s six billion [over eight today] without the Haber–Bosch process.”

Removing the hydrocarbon inputs into our global food supplies would be catastrophic without a well-planned and in-place substitute readily available — and probably one that could not support current population levels, let alone be created in a short period of time. And, because of how the world works, such a withdrawal of these inputs would be felt most horrifically by the disadvantaged members of our species.

Blindness to the importance of hydrocarbon energy to almost all of our complex systems is leading us to offer narratives that most assuredly are making our predicament of ecological overshoot worse. They mostly depend upon tales that highlight human ingenuity, especially with respect to technology, and offer ‘solutions’ to maintain for the most part our status quo systems and complexities.

Perhaps the most mainstream stories are that that rally around alternative energy production and technologies but that continue to depend upon ecologically-destructive industrial processes.

Why do we do this? Why do we construct stories that, depending upon one’s perspective, could be considered suicidal in nature? This I will explore in Part 3.

NB: Note that I did not go into detail about our ‘resource- and ecological-blindness’ but remained focussed upon our energy blindness in this essay. My discussion was already getting longer than originally planned so I decided to leave those aspects since the principles are virtually identical.

In our attempts to simplify our perspective on complexities, we create stories to aid our understanding and then view the world through the lens of our socially-constructed narratives that tend to ignore/deny/rationalise away aspects that don’t fit into our preconceived paradigm/worldview/schema. This is as true for material resources and the ecological impacts of our extractive enterprises as it is for the energy aspect.

[1] See this recent article on US shale oil extraction.

[2] See this.

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

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

If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

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

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

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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIX–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1

December 29, 2024 / 1 Comment on Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIX–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIX–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1

September 7, 2023 (original posting date)

In my attempt to ‘market’ the article compilation that was recently published, I joined a couple of Facebook Groups in order to post about the document. I subsequently posted my last Contemplation (that shares my thoughts on the extreme difficulties, if not impossibility, of a ‘managed’ contraction by our species) and received some ‘interesting’ comments within one climate-change group, many of which I attempted to respond to (I’ve included some of these conversations at the end of this post).

Most comments were perhaps only marginally connected to my post. They tended to extoll the virtues of technological ‘solutions’ to climate change (not that I discussed climate change).

In reflecting on the ‘pushback’ to my post and my responses to comments, it would appear that the thinking behind the comments were mostly due to what could be viewed as resource/energy and ecological blindness, as well as carbon tunnel vision. These cognitive ‘blinders’, along with much in the way of rampant ‘marketing’ for technological ‘solutions’, have resulted in many viewing the world along the lines of: ‘human ingenuity and technology’ can, will, and is, saving us from ourselves. And, most certainly, the ‘gate-keepers’ for this particular group.

And the following is not to denigrate the perspectives that pushed back against mine (even if some of them wandered into ad hominem territory). We all believe what we believe based on the ‘best’ (and favoured) information available to us, and then we go to significant lengths to rationalise and ‘protect’ our beliefs. All of us.

As this has become a much longer Contemplation than the ‘ideal’ short ones I aim for, it will be at least in two parts (it may be longer as I’ve only jotted down a few brief notes for Part 2).

Carbon Tunnel Vision

There is an evolutionary-advantageous tendency for humans to view our universe through rather narrow keyholes. It’s quite normal and ubiquitous. It is the way we attempt to perceive, in relatively simple terms, the exceedingly complex world that we exist within.

In our attempts to understand the world, we rely upon experience, deductions, and external sources of information (e.g., social milieu). We make relatively quick assessments of the significantly complex world about us and make choices (e.g., should I flee or fight?) or form beliefs using a variety of heuristics (mental shortcuts). This leads to us focussing upon a narrow array of information out of all that is available — usually that which supports our ‘needs’ at the time — and ignoring for the most part superfluous inputs.

Once we’ve gravitated towards a decision or particular interpretation of our environment, we continue to view the world through this lens. We justify/rationalise our decision and/or cling to our beliefs, particularly if it has served us well or it is held by the majority of people. We tend to disregard that information/evidence that challenges our decision/beliefs, creating a bias that serves to reinforce our interpretation of things and maintain the image of ourselves as rational, perceptive, and ‘objective’ individuals.

As Wikipedia states: “Tunnel vision metaphorically denotes a collection of common heuristics and logical fallacies that lead individuals to focus on cues that are consistent with their opinion and filter out cues that are inconsistent with their viewpoint.”

The ‘bias’ that many people (not all) seem to have, including those that have concerns about the impacts of a changing climate and/or atmospheric sink overloading, is what appears to be a hyper-focus upon carbon emissions. To oversimplify, there appear to be two main viewpoints on the issue. There exist many who hold that carbon emissions are not a problem at all because not only have they been higher in the past but they are what our planet’s vegetation requires as food. In stark opposition are those who argue that our fossil fuel burning is leading to excessive emissions that are causing both extreme weather events and long-term global climate anomalies, especially global warming.

As the following graphic demonstrates (with respect to particular aspects of the issue of ‘sustainability’) this tendency to narrow our perspective can prevent the acknowledgement of so many other aspects of our world — and the graphic only includes some of the many others that could be considered, such as land-system change and biogeochemical flows. Perhaps most relevant is that this tunnel vision keeps many from recognising that humans exist within a world of complex systems that are intertwined and connected in nonlinear ways that the human brain cannot fathom easily, if at all.

My own bias leads me to the belief that this hyper-focus on carbon emissions is leading many well-intentioned people to overlook the argument that atmospheric overloading is but one symptom predicament of our overarching predicament of ecological overshoot. As a result, they miss all the other symptom predicaments (e.g., biodiversity loss, resource depletion, soil degradation, geopolitical conflicts, etc.) of this overshoot and consequently advocate for ‘solutions’ that are, in fact, exacerbating our situation.

This rather narrowed perspective tends to be along the lines that if we can curtail/eliminate carbon emissions — usually through a shift in our technology to supposed ‘carbon-free’ ones — then we can avoid the negative repercussions that accompany the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, most prominently climate change. For many this is the only (or, at least, the most prominent) issue that needs to be addressed to ensure our species’ transition to a ‘sustainable’ way of living.

So, let’s try for a moment to open up this rather narrow keyhole and take in a wider perspective. Let’s look at how some of the other significant planetary boundaries are being broached.

When one opens the keyhole wider, the concern with carbon emissions/climate change may be seen as an outsized one in comparison to boundaries that appear to have been more significantly broached, such as: novel entities, biosphere integrity, land-system change, biogeochemical flows, and fresh water change.

This is not to say that the boundary of climate change is not important, it’s to try to better understand why a hyper-focus on carbon emissions is problematic: it’s one of several tipping points that need our attention, and not even the worst. The most pressing areas that we appear to have overshot beyond climate change include:
· Biogeochemical flows: agriculture and industry have increased significantly the flow of phosphorous and nitrogen into ecological systems and overloaded natural sinks (e.g., atmosphere and oceans)
· Novel entities: geologically-novel (i.e., human-made) substances that can have large-scale impacts upon Earth system processes (e.g., chemicals, plastics, etc.) have grown exponentially, even to the point of some existing in all global water supplies
· Biosphere integrity: human demand for food, water, and natural resources are decimating ecosystems (clearing land for mining and agriculture, for example, may have the worst impacts)
· Freshwater change: global groundwater levels in particular have been significantly altered by human activity and expansion (especially our drawdown of aquifers that exceed significantly their replenishment)
· Land-system change: human conversion of land systems (e.g., solar farms, agriculture, etc.) has impacts upon several of the other boundaries (i.e., biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, freshwater change) and the significantly important hydrological cycle

Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, based on analysis in Wang-Erlandsson et al 2022.

Carbon tunnel vision tends to help minimise, or at worst, ignore these other predicaments of our ecological overshoot. In fact, what I sense and what some of my conversations did suggest is that the issue of ecological overshoot itself is completely off the radar for these commenters. One, in fact, admitted he had never read Catton’s book on the subject but in ‘skimming over’ the summary notes I sent a link for he simply saw “a bunch of vague assertions…didn’t learn anything…probably heading towards a hard wall…”. He then added for effect: “I don’t see any solutions from you. I do see almost entirely your focus on smearing renewables with the exact same material the Deniers and carbon pollution people do. Exactly the same.”

Again, my own bias suggests to me that the reason for this hyper-focus (perhaps the most significant one) has been manufactured by a ruling caste and others that have created a means of monetising carbon emissions, mostly through carbon taxes and cheerleading greater industrial production via a narrative around ‘green/clean’ energy technologies. For, if we were to address those boundaries that have been more severely broached and that require curtailing of the causes contributing to this overshoot (which is human growth — economic and population), we would need to curtail industrialisation and its associated revenue streams significantly; something that would undermine greatly the power and wealth structures that benefit a large but very privileged minority class of humans.

And the marketers of this particular point of view know full well the psychological mechanisms that are effective in ‘persuading’ the masses to hold it and support it — especially the human tendency to defer to expertise/authority and engage in groupthink (see my 6-part series on Cognition and Belief Systems). It should be no surprise, given these tendencies, that the profit-/revenue-seekers amongst us have leveraged them to market the narrative, and associated industrial products, extolling the virtues of them while downplaying/denying/obfuscating the ecologically-destructive nature of what they are marketing.

Even those aware of this issue can fail to see the connection to industrial technology, cheerleading ‘sustainable’ development/practices and ‘clean/green’ (and supposedly) non-fossil fuel-based technologies[1].

As the Energy Blind animated presentation on Nate Hagen’s The Great Simplification website suggests: “…To our ancestors, the benefits from carbon energy would have appeared indistinguishable from magic and instead of appreciating this one-time windfall we developed stories that our newfound wealth and progress had emerged purely from human ingenuity. We had become energy blind.”

This energy blindness (along with ecological blindness) is what I will discuss in Part 2.

We have, as a rationalising but not rational story-telling ape, created myths about our place in the universe and how we have contributed to it. Over the past several centuries, and certainly during the most recent one, we story-tellers have weaved narratives that it is our human ingenuity — particularly around technology — that has led to our expansion and apparent ‘successes’ (not the leveraging of a one-time cache of easily-accessible, storable, and transportable dense energy).

Along the way, we have lost sight of our place and dependence upon Nature, and how fundamentally important its complexities are to our very survival. As a result, many continue to cheerlead that which is most dangerous to our and every species existence on this planet; ignoring or rationalising away the signals being sent.

As I stated to another in a subsequent discussion about another post within the same FB Group that was, again, extolling the virtues of ‘green/clean’ technology:

“We’re going to have to agree to disagree over this. Ideally we would not be debating which industrial-produced transport vehicles or energy sources are ‘better’; they are all horrible. We can’t even get a handle on the growth that is killing our planet so this debate, in that context, is meaningless — especially in a world where the dominant species is in Overshoot. Degrowth, especially in our technologies and industries is where our focus should be. Relocalising everything but especially food production, potable water procurement, and regional shelter needs. All else is superfluous at this point.”

Some examples of comments that suggest ‘narrow keyhole’ perspectives:

Electric Vehicles

KFT: DS what really annoys me is the belief that someone’s time is far too precious to spend it charging an ev. Clearly way more precious than the quality of life of their children. You are correct, people refuse to use their agency.

Me: EVs are no help to ecological overshoot; in fact, they are as bad as ICE vehicles.

KFT: nonsense. Evs cancel out their manufacturing carbon in the first year of driving. ICE vehicles add carbon for their lifetime. By the way evs are likely to last much longer than ICE vehicles further reducing their manufacturing footprint. Ev batteries are 95% recyclable, gasoline is 0% recyclable unless they perfect carbon capture. I don’t anticipate that. By the way people who won’t charge an ev sure as hell won’t ride a bicycle. Just FYI I was bike commuting while you were very likely still in diapers so I know a bit about it.

DS: that’s def not true unless you cherry pick emissions and ignore externalities. in fact, it’s literally impossible for an car to “cancel out” their emissions, that’s literally not scientifically possible and a gross misunderstanding.
and even then, lithium mining still causes drought and leaches brine into natural habitat. mining still chops down rainforests and kills animals. electric vehicles are even more deadly than gas vehicles, even very large animals can’t survive a 7,000lb truck at 45 MPH or higher

Me: I think you need to scratch below the surface of the ‘green/clean’ marketing of EVs and the entire ‘electrification of everything’ narrative. I suggest starting with this article by Dr. Bill Rees: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/15/4508. I would also suggest this compilation of articles by a number of writers on ecological overshoot (in particular read Max Wilbert’s entitled ‘Climate Profiteers Are the New War Profiteers’): https://olduvai.ca/?page_id=65433. PS — you must be quite old given I’m 10+ years into retirement.
Also: https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/chris-kenny/weve-got-a-problem-here-electric-vehicles-require-a-lot-of-minerals-to-produce/video/e6e3a6c000f8a7890657d5cba2f17324

Overshoot and Food Production

Me: It would appear that you don’t understand that overshoot is a predicament without a solution. The best we might hope for is to mitigate some of the inevitable consequences.

DS: I don’t agree with that, you may not like the solutions but they are available. apathy is the biggest problem we face in society now

Me: DS I don’t agree that there is a ‘solution’ to overshoot except what Nature is going to provide. Most of the ‘solutions’ proposed by homo sapiens make our predicament worse, particularly if they involve more complex technologies/industrial production. In an ‘ideal’ world we could degrow our species and its impacts; unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world and most of the ‘decision-makers’ are steering us in an unsustainable and destructive trajectory because there are power and wealth structures that provide their revenue streams and must be maintained regardless of costs (especially environmental). Given that the ruling castes of large, complex societies have been doing this for the 10,000+ years, I see no chance we will do anything different. Of course, only time will tell…

DS: the world currently produces enough food for 16 billion humans
you think reducing food production to 8 billion peoples will make the predicament worse?

Me: Our food production is going to be reduced a lot more than 50% once fossil fuels are no longer available…and the estimates of how many we can feed currently vary tremendously: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2230525-our-current-food-system-can-feed-only-3-4-billion-people-sustainably/

DS: I have no idea why you think that
earth’s agricultural capacity is …..insane…. the Netherlands is the second largest exporter of food in the world next to the USA.

Me: Look into fossil fuel inputs into agricultural. Pesticides. Fertilizer. Herbicides. Diesel machinery. The list goes on. Here’s a paper just on inputs in the UK: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935130/

DS: I can literally do this for ever
indoor agricultural reduces herbicides and pesticides by 95–100%

Technology

DS: you literally said there is no solution to prevent overshoot, I have to assume you’re a techno-solutionist, basically you’re in the same group as elon musk who believes the future of humanity is on mars

Me: No, technology is what has put us in Overshoot. More of it only exacerbates the predicament.

DS: technology is the only way to survive overshoot, I think overshoot should be avoided. you said we can’t stop overshoot

Me: Please read some of Erik Michael’s work at: https://problemspredicamentsandtechnology.blogspot.com/?m=1.

DS: I’m sorry but this is bullshit
“This new series is critical of the Just Stop Oil Movement, specifically for how the movement makes no real sense to anyone who understands the predicament we are actually part of. Just stop oil means stopping the energy that civilization rests and depends upon — do this and civilization also stops, meaning that 7 billion people and countless millions of other animal species die in rather short order.”
“Just Stop Oil is a British environmental activist group. Using civil resistance, direct action, vandalism and traffic obstruction, the group aims for the British government to commit to ending new fossil fuel licensing and production”
Steve Bull let me repeat that to make sure
“THE GROUP AIMS FOR THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO COMMIT TO ENDING NEW FOSSIL FUEL LICENSING AND PRODUCTION”
I really don’t think it’s worth my effort to debunk this gish gallop, I specifically used my self agency to live in a 15 minute city and it’s possible if people choose it
you should honestly stop reading this bullshit blog

Me: Your 15 minute city is based and depends upon fossil fuels. It cannot survive without it.

DS: that’s also bullshit, buses can run on biofuel, buses can literally run on garbage. my neighbor Mesa Arizona literally fuels their garbage trucks with garbage, they make a fuel from gases.

Me: And the production of said buses and garbage trucks?

DS: most of the production can be done with materials like hemp and because hemp is efficient at phytoremediation it creates a completely closed carbon cycle.
by the way, carbon neutrality does not require eliminating 100% of fossil fuels, we can create strict environmental standards and reduce production by 90% -100%

KP: Advanced technologies helping humankind reduce our footprint is what Ecomodernism is about.
Without killing billions we can reduce the population footprint and travel to the stars. This preserves wild spaces and restores natural biodiversity.

And to top it all off:

Space: The Final Frontier

JN: You said, “technology is what has put us in Overshoot. More of it only exacerbates the predicament”
Yes, because and as long as we are trapped on this ‘closed system’ planet we call Earth. But if we can escape the gravity trap we will have unlimited resources in Space.
Interesting statement:
“‘Opting out’ in today’s world is more difficult as there are no more ‘New Worlds’ to exploit for their resources”
Comment: Collapse Cometh? Yes, unless we do something! But why in 148 years? Not sure if this is saying that opting out is ‘giving up’ or a ‘solution’? Yes, we need a new frontier to explore — and we don’t have any territory left on Earth to do that. The areas still remaining ‘unexploited’ must be preserved to save the biosphere and cannot be used for ‘exploitation’.
And why using the term ‘opting out’? Why not word it as part of a solution instead?
There are new worlds to exploit in Space. 148 years is plenty of time to set that up — as long as we have an economic system that will allow it! We need a space colonization and mining program as a solution to the human dilemma — which is lack of territory on Earth to ‘exploit’ and to ‘blow the fuse’…
Our species needs to become a space faring species, with future colonization in space and with mining of minerals on the Moon, Mars, and the Asteroids.
‘Why the human race must become a multiplanetary species’
(https://www.weforum.org/…/humans-multiplanetary-species/)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

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

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

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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXI–Sociopolitical Agency, Narrative Management, And Collapse

December 29, 2024 / 1 Comment on Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXI–Sociopolitical Agency, Narrative Management, And Collapse

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXI–Sociopolitical Agency, Narrative Management, And Collapse

May 22, 2023 (original posting date)

Today’s reflection is a comment I left in response to an article by Bruce Wilds at his Advancing Time site that discusses the increasing anger building across the planet with respect to growing government oppression and the media’s role in suppressing this through purposeful omission of it.

My comment:
Having studied pre/history for some years I’ve come to the conclusion that none of this is novel or unique. It’s just different than in the past as the ruling caste’s scope is wider and the tools they manipulate/leverage are different.

One avenue has been the manipulation of our sense of agency (something all humans desire to have). The elite have sold us the narrative that we have such agency because of our ‘democratic’ sociopolitical systems and the ‘choices’ we make at the ballot box. That’s simply nonsense.

As is the idea that our ruling caste (especially their frontline propagandists — the political system) puts front and foremost the welfare and prosperity of the hoi polloi. Their primary concern/motivation is the control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that ensure their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige.

This has been the way since our first large, complex societies provided differential access to and control of net surpluses to a minority of ‘functionaries’ that helped to organise re/distribution of these resources.

I am also convinced that as we run up against the diminishing returns inherent in resource extraction/use (especially energy, the fundamental resource supporting all these complexities) we will (and are) witnessing a tightening-of-the-screws by the elite since they can no longer rely almost exclusively upon narrative control (their preferred method as it tends to be more efficient and economical, and prevents social unrest) but must increase their use of coercion (mostly via legislation) to keep the masses in ignorance and feeding their insatiable desires for power and wealth.

How this ends is anybody’s guess but in every iteration to date in our experiments with large, complex societies, diminishing returns has led to eventual ‘collapse’ where the masses find the ‘costs’ of remaining in the elite-controlled system greatly outweigh the ‘benefits’ and opt out in whatever way they can.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

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

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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIII–Ruling Caste Responses to Societal Breakdown/Decline

December 29, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIII–Ruling Caste Responses to Societal Breakdown/Decline

August 3, 2023 (original posting date)

Today’s Contemplation is composed of my comments on two different FB posts I came across yesterday.

The first is a reply to a comment to a MSN article regarding a possible Covid-19-type lockdown scenario based upon the declaration of a climate emergency. The second to an observation regarding Big Tech narrative management.

EF:
Warning: Doomer Alert…. IMHO Carter is the only prez in my living memory that ‘got it’ and tried (very unsuccessfully) to push an agenda of reasonable austerity to curb consumption growth rates. Almost 50yrs later and while trending along predicted curves (a la Club of Rome), we’re deeper in the muck than the 1970s predictions. This rumoured ‘climate emergency’ response is suspiciously a thinly veiled cover for “oh crap, there really is no more cheap energy and we can’t get away with unjust resource wars anymore, the sheeple are on to us”. How would the White House propose moving forward? Are they going to demand all nations take action? Let’s see them try that with China, etc. (or a small town😉), or perhaps Biden’s handlers are just ignorant enough to think they can launch a political solution that only addresses national actions. It’s all likely irrelevant anyhow. The lag in climate response to radical step function changes its decades long, and we haven’t yet even experienced the fallout from GHG warming from the time of Carter’s presidency. People think this is a hot, dry, fiery summer? Pffft. Hold my beer. The only ‘solution’ in the pipeline is one that’s neither voluntary, nor negotiable and deferrable. Collapse (due to PO) is going provide the radical step function change needed for the climate to respond. But, those of us alive today will never see the warming reversal, we’ll just be the last generation to experience life awash with the fruits of petroleum’s positive effects and be the first to experience exponential declines in late life standards of living as supply chains dry up or rot from corruption among the elites pining for control and insulation to their own losses. Our offspring will ride an accelerating journey over the cliff, and maybe some of their offspring will experience some reversal in 50–60yrs. Doubtful they’ll take notice, life is likely to be days filled with foraging for nutrition and fending off would be pillagers.

Me:
Yes, we (the entire globe) needed to step down our expansion and frivolous habits decades ago (probably even longer, like with the first few complex societies millennia ago) but the narratives at the time of Carter’s attempt and the Club of Rome’s warning were increasingly influenced (and directed) by profit-seekers selling a Star Trek-type future full of technology and human ingenuity to counter the ‘doomers’[1].

It was difficult if not impossible to offset the ‘hopeful’ stories that were already circulating and those that arose in response to these warnings. Just as it still is today. The tales pushing ‘sustainability’ and/or further growth ‘powered’ by ‘renewables’ and those repeated ‘breakthroughs’ in fusion power and the like are ever present and everywhere — and they receive one hell of a lot more airtime than those that challenge the utopian future (to say little of most people’s propensity to be optimistic and/or hopeful, and defer to the tales weaved by the ‘experts/authority’ figures peddling them).

The various world governments, however, have known about this endgame of energy decline and eventual ‘collapse’ probably some time ago[2] but have (as sociopolitical ‘leaders’ tend to do with virtually every impending consequence of stupid decisions they have ‘led’, particularly economic) kicked-the-can-down-the-road while continuing to skim and scam what they can while they can, as has happened for millennia with every societal decline. They most certainly seem to be using the ‘climate emergency’ as ‘cover’ to continue their extractive schemes, dialling it down for the masses while attempting to sustain (possibly expand) their share of an ever-disappearing energy pie. And, I would argue that they have fastened upon carbon emissions as THE devil to trounce upon because they not only discovered a means of monetising this ever-present element but they have latched upon profit-gaining technologies that they have marketed as THE ‘solution’ to this particular aspect of human existence.

No surprise since pursing a ‘degrowth’ world (a powering down and simplification of pretty well everything in our complex societies) would put all their current wealth-generation/-extraction schemes in jeopardy — too say little about undercutting the foundation of the Ponzi-type scheme our financialised economic systems have become. Admitting that our overarching predicament is ecological overshoot and that in order to mitigate (or at least begin to reduce) the unavoidable fallout of this phenomena would require killing the goose laying the golden eggs for the ruling caste — as well as for all of us caught up in the scam.

Pre/history, however, shows pretty convincingly that we will experience the typical patterns that accompany all such declines. For example, living standards for the masses will deteriorate due to ever-increasing price inflation (mostly due to currency debasement as a result of money ‘printing’/credit creation) and because taxes will expand as the ruling caste attempts to sustain/expand their own standards. And, it is likely we will witness an increase/expansion of authoritarian/totalitarian sociopolitical systems as sociobehavioural control is attempted and expanded to deal with increasing unrest.

SH:
This is interesting… I posted a link to a Dr. John Campbell video in which he goes over some recent peer reviewed scientific research, from a noteworthy science journal… and Facebook warns that their “independent fact checkers have identified the research as being “false information”… Under the video in question, YouTube posts a notice that recommends consulting the CDC for the verity of the scientific research he’s reading from. Apparently Facebook and YouTube don’t know how science works… If the CDC and “independent fact checkers” are not getting their information from the latest peer reviewed science, then there’s something terribly wrong…

Me:
Unfortunately, and as like so much else in our world, science has become quite politicised. It has not only been ‘infiltrated’ (like media) by those seeking to ‘manage’ social narratives but has increasingly controlled ‘incentives’ (i.e., grants, tenure) to ensure supportive ‘evidence’ exists. Perhaps worst of all it has attacked one of the foundations of the scientific process: skepticism. Big tech and ‘science’ have become tools of the ruling caste to steer the beliefs and thus behaviours of the masses. I expect this trend to continue and worsen as our decline speeds up.

Both of my responses (as is much of my thinking around these and related topics) are guided by archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s text The Collapse of Complex societies. Most importantly, in the case of these posts, is what the archaeological record suggests are the responses to societal breakdown/decline by the ruling caste.

Some of what Tainter argues as far as sociopolitical ‘collapse’ is concerned include:
-increasing numbers of citizens detaching from the larger sociopolitical entities and pursuing their own goals as they perceive the costs of participation as outweighing significantly the perceived benefits
-greater legitimisation activities and/or control (especially sociobehavioural) in an attempt to decrease inefficiencies and thereby prolong/sustain complexities; although, this becomes increasingly difficult as rising marginal costs due to declining resources sap economic strength
-this economic decline sees a concomitant rise in peasant revolts or, more often, apathy towards the well-being of the polity increases resulting in local entities breaking away from the centre (perhaps even militarily toppled)
-societal reserves are used to counter unexpected stresses or even just to maintain ‘normal’ operations
-greater investment is made in education and research and development but inflation and increased taxes increase the likelihood of collapse due to ever-increasing diminishing returns

The cyclical ‘collapse’ of complex societies is a result of our ‘success’. In addressing the ‘problems’ that arise from living in large, complex societies we not only create greater complexity (and thus fragility and dependency) but we increasingly drawdown the various resources we depend upon for supporting our living and we contribute, through our waste production, to a polluting of our environment. All of this results in diminishing returns on our investments in this ‘problem solving’ approach to living. These diminishing returns increase over time leading to an eventual ‘pillaging’ of surpluses and reserves, resulting in decreased living standards — particularly for the masses. Unrest increases leading the elite to implement increasing draconian approaches to their ‘rule’. Eventually more and more citizens opt out of the system through either migration or withdrawal of support for their ‘rulers’. Inevitably, sociopolitical collapse ensues requiring just the passage of time or a stress surge that can no longer be offset as societal reserves have been exhausted.

Throw ecological overshoot onto this inevitable decline process and not only are the cards irreversibly stacked against global industrial society but the possibility of any further such complex society arising from our ashes is significantly depressed given the level of resource drawdown and environmental degradation.

Infinite growth. Finite planet. What could possibly go wrong?

[1] See this and/or this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

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

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

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

December 29, 2024 / 1 Comment on Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLVIII–What Do Previous Experiments in Societal Complexity Suggest About ‘Managing’ Our Future

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

September 1, 2023 (original posting date)

What Do Previous Experiments in Societal Complexity Suggest About ‘Managing’ Our Future

Viewing ‘degrowth’ through my archaeology/anthropology lens (and primarily via archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s thesis laid out in The Collapse of Complex Societies[1]) there are a number of societal factors that stymie, if not make impossible, the idealised ‘managed contraction’ advocates tend to market it as. Purposeful ‘simplification/decline’ has never been wantonly experienced for a complex society outside of short-term, imposed ‘austerity’ (e.g. wartime, when the chairs are rearranged to ‘support’ the military[2]). All ‘contractions/collapses’ appear to have been ‘imposed’ by systemic ‘forces’ beyond the scope and control of the people experiencing it.

First, there is the ruling caste of a large, complex society that is HIGHLY motivated to maintain its power/control, especially over the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide its revenue streams. The notion that any of this class of society would willingly give their privileges up for the benefit of society-at-large is naïve at best[3]. In cases of ‘collapse’, society’s power-brokers place the burden of ‘contraction’ upon the masses via currency devaluation, increased taxes, forever wars, increased totalitarianism, narrative management, etc.. They continue to ensure their slice of the pie by taking from the disadvantaged/non-influential masses. While I guess one could call this ‘managed’, it is ‘managed’ in a way that protects the elite and their privileged positions but continually leads to a degradation of the living standards for most[4]. Of course, since ‘collapse’ is invariably unstoppable, the ‘rulers’ are simply amongst the last to experience societal decline, and usually because the support systems that sustain society’s complexities (and, thus, their positions atop the power/wealth structures) have been weakened beyond repair as more and more citizens ‘opt out’ due to the costs to remain outweighing the perceived benefits. And once a tipping point of withdrawn citizen support is reached, collapse of complexity ensues.

Second, there is Tainter’s contention that it is primarily diminishing returns on investments in complexity (i.e., problem solving via increased sociopolitical complexity) that invariably leads to ‘collapse’ [5]. This occurs because humans tend to employ the easiest and cheapest ‘solutions’ when first addressing ‘problems’. Our ‘solutions’ not only intensify complexity (i.e., result in more ‘problems’ that require attention) but grow our material/resource requirements (especially energy) thus increasing the ‘cost’ of our problem-solving behaviours. As costs increase and more issues arise that require attention, we experience diminishing returns on our investments and are forced to direct increasing amounts of material resources towards our problem solving, eating into surpluses. Once surpluses are exhausted, everyday operating ‘costs’ begin to suffer and living standards for the majority begin to wane. A gradual decline in complexity ensues. Any unexpected stress surge can push society off the cliff towards a complete breakdown of societal complexity. Alternatively, it is simply the passage of time before things have broken down to a point when one could label the situation an example of ‘collapse’.

Third, Tainter’s thesis is basically economic in nature. As societal investments encounter the Law of Marginal Utility due to ever-increasing costs of problem solving and its associated complexity, society experiences declining living standards. Eventually, participants opt out of the arrangement (i.e., social ‘contract’) — usually by migrating — resulting in a withdrawal of the support/labour necessary to maintain the various complex systems. ‘Opting out’ in today’s world is more difficult as there are no more ‘New Worlds’ to exploit for their resources, nor seemingly endless reserves of fossil fuels to support humans living beyond the natural environmental carrying capacity — to say little about the loss of skills/knowledge to survive without the complex systems in place (particularly procurement of potable water and food) and the overloading of sinks and biodiversity loss that reduces the carrying capacity of an area. Leaving the workforce or ‘downsizing’ significantly seems to be how some are ’opting out’ given modern constraints.

Fourth, to offset our increasing experience with diminishing returns, especially as it pertains to energy, we have employed significant debt-/credit-based fiat currency expansion to increase our drawdown of important resources among other perceived ‘needs’ — just as past societies have accomplished via geopolitical expansion and/or currency debasement. In the modern iteration, this has resulted in our globalised and financialised, highly-complex economic system increasingly taking on a Ponzi-like nature. Such schemes require perpetual growth to prevent them from imploding, not only to deal with the increased debt of ‘borrowing/creating’ currency, but to expand the resource/energy base. Maintaining this approach, however, will and is bumping up against limits to what is possible. Infinite growth is not possible (except via magical thinking) on a finite planet.

Fifth, to sustain a society’s complexity as it bumps up against limits to expanding its problem-solving ability (particularly its finite resource requirements), surpluses are drawn upon as mentioned above in the second point. The drawdown of these surpluses puts society at greater risk of being incapable of reacting to a sudden stress surge that may expedite the ‘collapse’ of complexity. A true Seneca Cliff-type decline/simplification/unravelling/collapse that cannot be ‘managed’, regardless of wishes.

Sixth, Tainter raises the unprecedented aspect of today’s technological innovations, but they too are susceptible to the Law of Marginal Utility (diminishing returns). He stresses that using a new energy source to help fund continuing economic growth can help stave off, but not eliminate, declining marginal productivity. Perhaps more importantly, a new energy source may not help eliminate diminishing returns in other areas (e.g. agricultural production). And once diminishing returns sets in for a society, collapse requires merely the passage of time. New energy sources, however, do little to address the issues that arise from expanded technology use–particularly the finiteness of the materials required and the overloading of planetary sinks that occur from their extraction and processing (see more on this below).

Seventh, pre/historic evidence also demonstrates a peer polity competition trap where competing ‘states’ drive the pursuit of complexity (regardless of environmental and/or human costs) for fear of absorption by a competing state. In such situations, ever-increasing costs create ever-decreasing marginal returns that end in domination by one state, or collapse of all competing polities. Where no or an insufficient energy subsidy exists, collapse of the competing states occurs at about the same time.

Little to none of the above takes into consideration our current overarching predicament: ecological overshoot (and all of its symptom predicaments such as biodiversity loss, resource depletion, sink overloading, etc.).

Having significantly surpassed the natural environmental carrying capacity of our planet, we have strapped booster rockets to the issue of complex society ‘collapse’.

We have chosen to employ a debt-/credit-based economic system to more quickly extricate finite resources from the ground in order to meet current demands rather than significantly reduce stealing them from the future. We have created belief systems that human ingenuity and finite resource-based technologies are god-like in their abilities to alter the Laws of Thermodynamics (especially in regard to entropy) and biological principles such as overshoot.

It is my contention that no amount of purposeful contraction can alter the trajectory we are on. We might, at best, mitigate to some marginal degree the coming storm for small, local regions/communities. But we cannot halt the consequences that accompany overshoot.

There are many (most?) that will remain in denial about all of this. Our propensity to avoid anxiety-provoking thoughts guarantees it. Magical thinking, particularly in regard to human ingenuity and our technological prowess, will continue. We cannot help ourselves. By denying our biological nature and proclivities, we guarantee failure in ‘managing’ a ‘graceful’ fall from our elevated heights.

I would love to see homo sapiens extricate themselves and the planet from the ecological overshoot trap we have set for ourselves through our expansionary ‘successes’. I have next to no faith that we can escape, however, particularly on a global scale. Not only does the ‘average’ individual have little to no agency in any of this but adaptive systems become ever more complex as they grow requiring increasing resource inputs and becoming more fragile as a result.

Add to this growing complexity the fact that large, complex systems with their nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena are, by their very nature, impossible to control. Every attempt to control/manipulate such systems invariably leads to more ‘problems’ and thus more ‘solutions’ leading to more complexity and further finite resource drawdown, sink overloading, biodiversity loss, etc.. And this says little about the sociopathic ruling caste whose primary motivation is to sustain current power/wealth structures regardless of human and environmental costs; or even if it results in thermonuclear war.

Given we cannot control complex systems, we also cannot predict them well (if at all) and thus we cannot forecast the future with any certainty. But there exist physical laws and limits, biological/evolutionary principles, and pre/historical examples/experiments that all point towards a future quite different from the optimistic ones painted by those who believe we have control over such things.

So, I repeat my ‘advice’ from my last Contemplation:

Yes, spread the message about ‘degrowth’. Encourage a managed contraction of the human experiment. But understand, we’re in a predicament without solutions and time is not on our side. Get through the grieving as quickly as you can and move on to some actions that will help to mitigate the inevitable consequences for your family/friends/local community. And, make as certain as you can that the actions do not exacerbate our predicament by feeding the monster that is continued growth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

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

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

[1] See: https://olduvai.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Collapse-of-Complex-Societies.pdf

[2] Actually, it’s the armament manufacturers producing the weapons and the financial institutions providing the capital that receive the lion’s share of any ‘support’ (i.e., funding). The masses are ‘persuaded’ to sacrifice for the ‘greater good’, ignoring Brigadier General Smedley Butler’s assertion that war is a racket to help enrich a few at the expense of the many. See: https://ia801004.us.archive.org/6/items/warisaracketelectronicresourcetheantiwarclassicbyam/War%20is%20a%20racket%20[electronic%20resource]%20%20the%20antiwar%20classic%20by%20Am.pdf

[3] Although they constantly virtue-signal that this is exactly what they are doing with their policies and ‘investments’, such declarations actually serve to help legitimise their power/control.

[4] Remember George Carlin’s warning: “It’s a big club and you ain’t in it!” See:

[5] ‘Collapse’, here, is defined as a loss/decline of sociopolitical complexity that results in other systems failing, such as the rule of law, economic interactions such as energy-averaging systems/trade, art and literature, etc..

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXV–Collapse Now To Avoid the Rush: The Long Emergency

December 26, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXV–Collapse Now To Avoid the Rush: The Long Emergency

(Original posting date: June 6, 2023)

Collapse Now To Avoid the Rush: The Long Emergency

Today’s Contemplation has been prompted by yet another conversation I have had with a person who prefers not to believe the stories I tell about our predicament. Which I am totally fine with. I attempt to present my case and once the person devolves into personal attacks, childish suggestions, or simply ignores/denies the evidence (usually by way of never actually addressing the points I raise), I tend to end the dialogue with an agreement to disagree. We all believe what we want to believe so little point in belabouring the discussion with someone entrenched in their narrative.

Of the rhetorical fallacies that tend to be used against me when I highlight skepticism towards certain narratives, the latest is something along these lines: You want/wish for ‘collapse’ and a massive die-off…why don’t you start by eliminating yourself.

The thing I wish to stress is that I DO NOT wish for any type of decline/collapse, and I’ve most certainly never advocated for it to happen. I am as dependent upon our complexities as the next person, although I am working to lessen that.

As I more-or-less replied to the person: I do not want what I am writing about to occur; I am a student of pre/history observing the world and sharing my story about what I see and occasionally making suggestions on what might be wise actions to help mitigate it. In other words, ‘collapse’ appears to be happening so let’s try to prepare for it.

Do I argue for certain ‘strategies’ that would seem prudent given the biological and pre/historical precedents that suggest where our future is likely headed? Absolutely. If you have the slightest appreciation of the precautionary principle, and even some awareness of what has befallen previous complex societies throughout pre/history and how they have ‘handled’ similar situations, you would too.

But this does not mean I am looking forward to the long emergency/long descent (or worse) that appears increasingly to be where humanity is headed. In fact, given the argument that we are significantly into ecological overshoot this time around the argument for preparatory actions is quite called for. In fact, much of what I argue for is because I believe it would be wise for humanity to pay heed to John Michael Greer’s advice to ‘collapse now and avoid the rush’ so that we are better prepared for the future that we are likely going to get, whether we wish it or not.

If you’re not familiar with Greer’s reasoning for this phrase, I suggest reading the above linked post. For those who wish my take, here it is…

Industrial society (and all the complexities it entails) has been possible primarily because of the “…immense supply of cheap, highly concentrated fuel with a very high net energy…” To replace this foundational energy source in order to maintain our complex, industrial society “…has turned out to be effectively impossible.” While a ‘managed descent’ may have been possible 50+ years ago, sociopolitical decisions (along with continuing unchecked population growth) have closed off that option and instead pushed us significantly into overshoot.

Rather than thoughtfully descend (i.e., the type of ‘managed’ decline the Degrowth movement advocates), we have burned through our fundamental energy resource believing a story that the laws of physics and geology can be suspended via socioeconomic abstractions, human ingenuity, and our technological prowess.

Pre/historical evidence suggests our ‘fall’ will not be sudden in nature (commonly thought of as a ‘collapse’) for “…civilizations take an average of one to three centuries to complete the process of decline and fall…”. This ‘fall’ — that appears to have already begun and will pick up steam — will not be smooth but a series of crises across space and time, with relatively stable interludes (perhaps even some ‘recovery’) between them.

There are still choices to be made in the face of this, particularly between clinging to current lifestyles until the floor drops out from beneath that to learning the knowledge and practising the skills necessary to live well in a world of declining energy and complexities.

“Collapse now, in other words, and avoid the rush.”

What are some of the suggestions Greer makes?

Figure out how to live after the next crisis arrives and begin to live that way now. For example, if your income may be in jeopardy, begin living with less now. Get out of debt. Find much less expensive shelter. Learn practical skills so you can meet your own needs or barter with others. Weatherise your home so utilities cost less. Begin growing some of your own food.

While some envision living on an off-grid homestead away and insulated from the various crises, it is better to look at where one lives currently and how that can be made more resilient and/or self-sufficient. Take note of local resources, including human ones.

As for the utopian dream of a fanciful, high-tech future, Greer argues “There’s quite a lot of money to be made these days insisting that we can have a shiny new future despite all evidence to the contrary, and pulling factoids out of context to defend that increasingly dubious claim; as industrial society moves down the curve of decline, I suspect, this will become even more popular, since it will make it easier for those who haven’t yet had their own personal collapse to pretend that it can’t happen to them.”

And as he concludes: “… if you’re trying to exempt yourself from the end of the industrial age, nothing you can do can ever be enough. Let go, let yourself fall forward into the deindustrial future, and matters are different.”

I would tend to agree with Greer as far as the idea of a cataclysmic future being improbable, not impossible, just highly unlikely on a global scale. There are such issues as nuclear war or a large meteor strike that could occur but are far less likely (although nuclear war is appearing more probable than a large meteor hitting the planet for when hasn’t the latest, greatest weaponry not been used during war).

The highest possibility of ‘collapse’ comes from the process that archaeologist Joseph Tainter lays out in The Collapse of Complex Societies. Basically, as we encounter increasing diminishing returns on our investments in complexity, fewer and fewer benefits are accrued from our support of/investments into the sociopolitical systems that organise our society and a point arises where more and more people withdraw that support until the complexities can no longer function properly and supportive subsystems begin to fail.

As Tainter points out, a society can go a very long time experiencing this decline, with each step down in living standards being relatively minor and, with time, are accepted and adapted to as the ‘new normal’.

I have highlighted in a few multipart posts what may befall humanity as we stumble into the unknowable future:
Infinite growth. Finite Plant. What could possibly go wrong? Parts One & Two.
Energy Future. Parts 1, 2, 3, & 4.
That Uncertain Road. Parts 1 & 2.

And how the psychological mechanisms we have evolved impact our beliefs around all this:
Cognition and Belief Systems in a ‘Collapsing’ World: Part One
Cognition and Belief Systems: Part Two — Deference to Authority
Cognition and Belief Systems: Part Three — Groupthink
Cognition and Belief Systems: Part Four — Cognitive Dissonance
Cognition and Belief Systems: Part Five — Justification Hypothesis
Cognition and Belief Systems: Part Six — Sociopolitical ‘Collapse’ and Ecological Overshoot

And please note that I do refer to this inevitable simplification as ‘collapse’ not because I believe it will be a sudden, punctuated, and global event but because I tend to view the process in a broader, temporal perspective. While our ‘collapse’ may play out over a number of human generations (and be barely noticeable to many except in the sense of the past being ‘better’), in the grand scope of human 200,000–300,000 year existence, a century or three is a bump in a long and winding road.

View the following graph. If you feel this is sustainable and growth can continue because, you know, human ingenuity, you can ignore everything I’ve written above and carry on. If, however, this suggests to you an impending (or passed) tipping point of unsustainability, then you need to consider the story I’ve shared…and how you will react and act.

As I conclude in one of the posts linked above:

“And, I offer no ‘solution’ to any of the above. I have increasingly come to hold that this is all one humungous predicament without a ‘solution’. The best we might hope for is to increase local self-sufficiency of communities and cross our fingers that some might make it through the impending transition that will be the result of complex society collapse compounded by ecological overshoot. On the other hand, all the other species on our planet might be hoping for our extinction given our track record of destructive tendencies…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXV–Hydrocarbons And The Maximum Power Principle: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

December 26, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXV–Hydrocarbons And The Maximum Power Principle: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

(Original posting date: Apr 22, 2023)

Hydrocarbons And The Maximum Power Principle: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Today’s Contemplation is a sharing of the response by a Facebook Friend, Schuyler Hupp, whose occasional commentary on posts in our mutual Facebook Group, Peak Oil, I have come to appreciate for their insightfulness and conciseness regarding humanity’s predicament. I could share a number of these going back for some time but felt this latest one was particularly good.

Question.

[Global Warming] You have a substance that when burnt releases a gas that makes it warmer, you burn as much as you can to make your car go broom broom and feed 8 billion people. Would it get warmer?

In response to the above question posed by a mutual FB Friend, Schuyler had the following to say:

Schuyler Hupp

Burning hydrocarbons on a massive scale, and for a century or more… That’s exactly what an army of engineers would propose if you actually wanted to warm the climate… Though they would warn that the long term outcome would be difficult if not impossible to predict or control, due to the complexity and the number of variables, both known and unknown… However, they would also warn that there would be a very real possibility for the climate being forced into a new steady state equilibrium that might not be compatible with human life. They would also be the first to point out that fossil hydrocarbons, i.e. ancient sunlight, are a finite mineral resource, and that their quality and the net energy return would become uneconomical after about 150 years or so, and thus it would not represent a sustainable energy paradigm, not to mention all of the damage to ecosystems that would result from the pollution, or the population growth that would result from their introduction, with humans essentially being slaves to their innate Maximum Power Principle behavioral instincts… and that population Overshoot would ensue, thus condemning the entire planet to a future of ecological collapse…

I have little to add to Schuyler’s response, except to stress that we appear to be in a predicament of ecological overshoot that has only an outcome, not a possible ‘solution’ — something almost everyone wishes to have laid out before them, seemingly to help them in their denial of reality to abolish the stress such an inevitable trajectory brings. This is usually accomplished through a kind of magical thinking that humans stand above and beyond nature, and can thus control it — usually via our technology — and then demand that the dominant, story-telling apes within our sociopolitical systems act to save us.

[NOTE: the links in the above paragraph will take you to articles by another FB Friend, Erik Michaels, who has been doing deep dives into these subjects for a number of years and posts at Problems, Predicaments, and Technology — a site I highly recommend.]

I’m pretty certain that there is no Plan B possible; in fact, I’m not even sure there was ever a Plan A…except, perhaps, to pursue our reproductive ‘success’ in adapting to our immediate environment of the moment for as long as possible (and this does not imply there is a predetermined evolutionary ‘goal’ involved aside from successful gene duplication).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCIII—Societal Collapse, Abrupt Climate Events, and the Role of Resilience

December 13, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCIII—Societal Collapse, Abrupt Climate Events, and the Role of Resilience

Tulum, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.

This Contemplation comments upon and summarises two short archaeology articles on societal collapse.

The first raises the increasing evidence of abrupt climate events being a precipitating factor in societal collapse over the past dozen millennia.

The second discusses the possibility of identifying Early Warning Signals that indicate declining societal resilience and could be used to suggest when preparations for ‘collapse’ would be advisable.

Summaries of both of these articles follow my introductory comments directly below.

Climate shifts happen. Not only do we have evidence that these shifts occurred long, long before our hominid species evolved (100,000-300,000 years ago) but have been occurring with regularity since we appeared. The planet’s orbit around our star, its geology (tectonic plate shifts and volcanic activity), and solar radiation fluctuations have all contributed to past climate changes.

The last dozen millennia have tended to be seen as a period of relatively stable climate which helped to give rise to large, complex human societies. However, there is increasing evidence suggesting that this is not so and that abrupt climate shifts occurred and contributed to both the emergence of these societies and their eventual collapse.

The argument that relatively sudden climate shifts during the past dozen or so millennia may have been more significant in leading to societal collapse than some acknowledge is interesting on a number of levels, not least of which is the concern over the speed with which our current climate system appears to be shifting.

Archaeologist Joseph Tainter argues that complex societies themselves emerge as a result of our problem-solving strategy of increasing complexity. The innovation of sedentary agriculture, around 12,000 years before present (BP), is perhaps one of our species’ more significant ones. It has been theorised that the main impetus to this particular adaptation was a changing climate–people migrated from drying environments, gathered in more suitable areas (particularly in terms of water availability), and these denser populations eventually led to groupings requiring food production innovations and organisational complexities.

The research evidence presented in the first article argues that, regardless of where and when during the past dozen millennia, abrupt climate shifts have served to disrupt this relatively new food acquisition technique to the extent that prehistoric societies that depended upon it were unable to adapt and subsequently collapsed–settlements were abandoned with populations dispersing or dying off.

While the article focuses upon possible disruptions to food production for those that continue to engage in subsistence and small-scale agriculture (a still substantial number on our planet) and the consequences for them, it fails to consider the negative impacts for those in modern complex societies.

Rather than an abrupt climate event being problematic for modern, industrial societies, the authors conclude that they have an advantage over past ones and current small-scale agriculturalists of being capable of tracking and thus predicting potential deleterious environmental changes that would negatively impact food production and thus respond appropriately.

What ‘appropriate responses’ might be is not delved into by the authors but rather they close with the suggestion that strategies be designed to minimise the impacts for those areas to be impacted by impending climate events.

Without getting into the psychological mechanisms that suggest such a proactive and widespread shift in human behaviour and action in the face of impending environmental shifts is unlikely (the second article touches on some of these), complex systems by their very nature are virtually impossible to predict with much accuracy–particularly with regard to timing–and thus why some dismiss modelling predictions of climate change as mostly fear mongering. So there’s this not unsubstantial hurdle.

And, even if we could predict where and when such impacts may occur with precision there may not be adequate time nor capacity for adaptation–particularly given the significantly increased population densities of our modern world and lack of fertile, arable lands to shift to as some past societies did–and, of course, there are some models that suggest that future climate shifts will be of an amplitude that is unadaptable.

The past practice of simply migrating our food production system to suitable areas for agriculture is not only inhibited by political borders and vested interests, but humanity has already leveraged all the best food production regions of the planet and there is little, if any, in the way of rich, arable lands to shift to should significant and/or abrupt climate shifts disrupt currently-used regions.

The standard option of increasing complexity via technological innovation is also problematic given the limits that such an approach has encountered in terms of resources–especially energy–but also the tendency to experience diminishing returns on the investments made: innovations are becoming ever more costly and less effective.

Throw on top of these basic impediments that our current industrial system of food production is destroying the present environments and ecosystems it is using via significant water drawdown of underground aquifers and application of massive amounts of petrochemical-based products, and our societies are in even more of a dire position with regard to feeding everyone in the present let alone at a future time that may experience an abrupt climate shift.

To say we are on a knife’s edge with regard to our global food production systems being capable of adapting to significant environmental disruptions is not hyperbole, particularly in the face of a growing global population and increasing geopolitical turmoil as we encounter limits to growth and resource extraction–especially of our master resource: oil.

The ability to adapt successfully to such changes raises the issue of resiliency, which the second paper discusses. It suggests using Early Warning Signals (EWSs) to identify periods of low resilience in a society so that preparations for impending collapse can be made proactively.

While a commendable suggestion, the roadblocks to the successful widespread adoption of such preparations are in all likelihood insurmountable–for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the vast chasm of disagreement over the recognition or acknowledgement of low societal resiliency and impending ‘collapse’.

It is quite likely our modern, complex societies are well into a low-resilience regime and there exist a number of EWSs that could confirm this. It is also likely that the recognition of and ‘preparations’ for impending and widespread collapse should have begun decades ago.

Instead, as I have argued previously, we have pursued a doubling/tripling of our propensity to pursue more complexity via investments in technological innovations and institutional growth rather than consider the alternative of choosing less complexity and avoiding the pursuit of perpetual growth.

Regardless, in a somewhat hubristic and narcissistic manner, many humans in today’s societies hold on to the notion that our species stands above and separate from Nature, and that we can conquer and control what is for all intents and purposes a completely unpredictable and chaotic world–including threats to our food production systems from a changing climate. There is, then, no need for heeding any warning signals nor preparing for impending collapse through any kind of resilience building nor simplification. For some, the entire ‘impending collapse’ narrative–especially as it concerns resource limits–is a conspiracy by the world’s elite to maintain and extend control over the masses.

For those that perceive there are no limitations to humanity’s increasing prosperity, it is through the pursuit of greater complexity via human ingenuity, technological innovation, and institutional growth that humanity will ‘solve’ any potential societal stresses. The issues of finite resource limits and ecosystem destruction are for all intents and purposes meaningless in this worldview: should resource limits hinder our progress and forever-increasing prosperity, we will simply leave this planet for others.

Perhaps, rather than expending resources and time to identify low-resilience regimes as the authors suggest (that I would argue we are well into), we might be ahead by identifying what constitutes high-resilience behaviours and actions, encouraging the widespread adoption of these at this point in our journey, and attempting to ensure these are maintained in perpetuity. I know, I’m dreaming in technicolour here but it does align somewhat with what I’ve been advocating for some years now.

The best one might do given the circumstances of our existence is to encourage and facilitate the increasing need for one’s local community to be as self-sufficient/-reliant as is possible. Particularly in terms of food production, potable water procurement, and regional shelter needs.

We have no agency in what is happening globally, nationally, and/or province-/state-wide. Probably not even much, if any, in one’s local community depending upon its size and/or the people who compose it. Most people are caught up in day-to-day struggles and don’t even ponder the issues raised in this post. And in our so-called ‘advanced’ economies, the majority hold tightly to the mainstream belief that human ingenuity and technology will ‘solve’ our more pressing issues and predicaments, and they have no interest in simplifying their lifestyles or pursuing self-sufficiency.

The denial, bargaining, and purposeful ignorance among many in our complex societies is astounding…but not surprising given the human proclivity to suppress anxiety-provoking thoughts.

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.

What Drives Societal Collapse?
H. Weiss and R.S. Bradley
Science, Jan. 26, 2001, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 5504, pp. 609-610
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3082228

The authors argue that there is a significant amount of archaeological evidence demonstrating rather quick collapse of past societies. While social, political, and economic factors have traditionally been identified as the root cause(s), increasing research and improved techniques are pointing the finger at abrupt climate events being a precipitating factor.

They cite several examples from across the planet and throughout the past 11,000 years where sudden changes in environmental conditions due to a changing climate led to settlement abandonment. They assert that “[m]any lines of evidence now point to climate forcing as the primary agent in repeated societal collapse.” (p. 610)

The climate during the past dozen or so millennia has tended to be viewed as relatively stable but paleoclimatic data is now showing this not to be true and that there was significant instability. This unstable situation appears to have repeatedly disrupted food production with societies unable to adapt to the rapidity, amplitude, and duration of the changing conditions.

Models of future change suggest that modern societies may face environmental shifts of even greater magnitude as a result of human activity and for a greatly increased and more dense population. And despite modern technology and industrial agriculture, many communities in the world continue to live as subsistence or small-scale agriculturalists who may be greatly affected by such changes.

The habit-tracking adaptations of past societies and communities will not be an option in our increasingly crowded world. Modern societies may have some advantage in their capacity to track these changes and possibly predict where issues may arise. The authors conclude by suggesting that data be used to design strategies to minimise the impacts of these shifting conditions otherwise unprecedented social disruptions are likely to occur.

The more detailed summary notes for this article can be found here.

Anticipating Societal Collapse; Hints From the Stone Age
M. Scheffer
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 113, No. 39 (September 27, 2016), pp. 10733-10735
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26471823

New research has demonstrated that just prior to collapse prehistoric societies exhibit reduced resilience. Several examples are cited where growing societal stress caused by a variety of factors builds over a number of years/decades. This reduces the resilience of the society with a sudden stressor tipping it into a fairly abrupt collapse.

The author wonders if there may be indicators of such a loss of resilience that might signal that collapse is imminent and thereby provide some time to prepare.

This research is based upon systems theory that proposes subtle changes occur in a complex system’s dynamics as it approaches a tipping point. Systems naturally experience fluctuations in their conditions with fairly quick recovery when their resilience is high, but when their resilience is low recovery is much slower. When this occurs near a tipping point, the chances of “an avalanche of self-propelling change” increases. Tipping points, therefore, may be signalled by a noticeable loss in resilience. See Figure 1.

A 2016 paper by Downey et al. claims to have found evidence of such signalling about 8000 years ago. Agricultural societies that spread out from the Tigris-Euphrates region showed rapid growth followed by collapse with population densities just prior to collapse showing rising variance suggesting declining resilience. The data further shows a cyclical boom-bust cycle lasting 400-1000 years.

If it is a case of a user-resource cycle, the declining conditions should have alerted communities to alter their economies and institutions to adapt prior to collapse. However, a number of factors led to societies resisting the necessary change to avoid a crash (i.e., sunk-cost effect, bystander effect, vested interests). These factors may actually become stronger with a more complex and elaborate society.

It may be impossible for a society to avoid collapse via adaptation, if it is in a low-resilience situation. Identifying resilience indicators and scanning for them to determine a society’s level and vulnerability may be a useful endeavour.

The more detailed summary notes for this article can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCII–Sorry, folks, but ‘renewables’ are NOT going to save humanity or the planet.

December 1, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCII–Sorry, folks, but ‘renewables’ are NOT going to save humanity or the planet.

Tulum, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.

In a truly stereotypical Canadian way, I begin with an apology to those who might disagree with or be affronted by what I am about to argue…

I’m sorry, but non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (aka ‘renewables’) are NOT going to save humanity’s modern complex societies from impending ‘collapse’ or the planet’s fragile ecosystems from continuing breakdown.

I could back this up with the increasingly evidence-based assertion that we are so far into the predicament of ecological overshoot (and the vast array of negative consequences that will flow, or should I say are already flowing from this) that there is nothing we can do to avoid the impending ‘population collapse’ that accompanies a species when a finite, primary resource (in our case, hydrocarbons) can no longer support the growth of, or even sustain at its present size, the population–and for humans, this also includes the complexities that support our various societal institutions and modern living standards.

I could also add the burgeoning empirical observations and data that demonstrate the ecosystem destruction being wrought by our attempts to ‘power’ our energy-intensive complex societies and maintain much of our food production.

Yes, hydrocarbons have contributed to and caused the vast majority of this but the industrial processes necessary for ‘renewables’ are only adding to it and not improving things as most believe thanks to massive marketing propaganda–especially the ideas that they are ‘green/clean’ and can be an adequate substitute for hydrocarbons.

But I won’t say much about these things because, for the most part, you either accept what I am arguing or you don’t–evidence be damned. So, the following will either support your confirmation biases or it will challenge them. In fact, chances are that ecomodernists and technocornucopians that hold onto the idea that ‘renewables’ are some sort of technological saviour for our species haven’t even read this far; instead, they probably stopped after the second paragraph.

Regardless, I believe it’s past time for all of us to move beyond the initial grieving stages of denial, anger, and bargaining, and to accept that we are in a self-made predicament that has no ‘solution’ and recognise that it’s all over but the crying. Perhaps, as a result, we should do as Erik Michaels advises: Live Now! Or, as John Michael Greer has argued: Collapse now, and avoid the rush.

Of course, being who and what we are (along with increasing avenues for disseminating our beliefs and defending them), we find ourselves increasingly enmeshed in ‘narrative wars’ about what our issues are and how we might ‘solve’ or ‘mitigate’ them. One of those narrative battles we are caught up in concerns the role of non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies and the industrial products that they would power.

I offer a brief introduction and then comment I posted on a Facebook post in a group I help to administer regarding this conundrum.

The post in question is the sharing of a clip making the social media rounds for those engaged in our energy dilemma from the new television series Landman starring Billy Bob Thornton and as imdb.com states about the show, it is “A modern-day tale of fortune seeking in the world of West Texas oil rigs.”

Here is a link to the youtube video clip that was shared as well as a transcript of the dialogue in the clip. It gets right to the point of what some of the critics of ‘renewables’ have been arguing for the past number of years. And, of course, raises the hackles of those that support these technologies.

“Do you have any idea how much diesel they have to burn to mix that much concrete or make that steel, and haul this shit out here and put it together with a 450 foot crane? You wanna guess how much oil it takes to lubricate that thing or winterize it? In its 20-year lifespan it won’t offset the carbon footprint of making it.

And don’t even get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Tesla battery. And never mind the fact that if the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don’t have the transmission lines to get the electricity to the cities. It would take 30 years if we started tomorrow. And unfortunately for your grandkids, we have a 120-year petroleum-based infrastructure. Our whole lives depend on it.

Hell, it’s in everything… that road we came in on, the wheels on every car ever made, including yours, tennis rackets, lipstick, refrigerators, antihistamines, anything plastic, your cell phone case, artificial heart valves, any kind of clothing that’s not made with animal or plant fibers, soap, hand lotion, garbage bags, fishing boats, you name it… every fucking thing. And you know what the kicker is… we’re gonna run out before we find a replacement.

And believe me, if Exxon thought them fucking things were the future, they’d be putting them all over the goddamn place. Getting oil out of the ground is the most dangerous job in the world, we don’t do it because we like it, we do it because we’ve run out of options. And you’re out here trying to find something to blame for the danger besides your boss. There ain’t nobody to blame but the demand that we keep pumping it.”

As is typical when ‘renewables’ are criticised, a response to the post stating that all of the above was completely untrue and oil industry propaganda was made.

Now, I understand this ‘instinctual’ response to a firmly held belief. It’s so easy and natural to dismiss/deny the criticisms made about ‘renewables’ as simply oil industry propaganda–especially given the rising awareness that all monied interests engage in such marketing propaganda to sell their products: they highlight and repeat the supposed benefits of their product and/or the drawbacks of any competition (this holds true for ideas and narratives as well).

Only it doesn’t make much sense for this issue since the large hydrocarbon-extraction companies are heavily invested in ‘renewables’…but that’s a whole other kettle of fish that gets overlooked by many/most.

Anyways, humans tend to be loathe to hold conflicting thoughts, almost as much as anxiety-provoking ones. The internal stress due to the cognitive dissonance created ‘motivates’ us to reject ideas that challenge our beliefs/preconceived notions. It doesn’t matter how ‘true’ or reflective of ‘objective’ reality the challenging beliefs/notions are. We deny/ignore them. We then tend to double down on our own beliefs to reduce the stress/anxiety that arises and protect them, sometimes quite vociferously (oftentimes simply internally), against the ‘offending’ opinion/idea/argument.

But the assertions made in the show’s dialogue are not untrue. In fact, virtually every statement is true once one moves aside the opaque curtains that have been drawn around the ‘renewables’ industry by its marketers and supposedly well-meaning, environmentally-supportive advocates of them.

These items are not ‘green/clean’ but finite resource-dependent, industrial products requiring massive energy and material inputs, and creating significant ecosystem destruction and gargantuan waste streams (and again, sorry, but recycling doesn’t eliminate these).

In particular, these ‘renewables’ require significant quantities of hydrocarbons up and down their production chains, meaning the carbon footprint is huge, as is the ecosystem destruction beyond carbon emissions–especially if one considers the massive mining and material refinement necessary (and, no, you can’t electrify most of the equipment or processes required–to say little about the scale of such an undertaking that would be needed, sorry).

In addition, there do not exist the mineral resources to scale these ‘clean’ technologies up and build out the infrastructure to supply the electricity they would produce to the extent being suggested by their advocates (and yes, sorry, but attempting this would create massive ecological-systems destruction–massive).

The reality is that hydrocarbons, and especially oil, are the master resource for the vast array of complexities our modern world has developed over the past 125+ years. They are indeed in almost everything and help to ensure most food production, potable water procurement, and regional shelter needs–the truly fundamental things we need.

Without hydrocarbons our modern, industrialised world and its many complexities are fully and completely fubar. And given it is a finite resource that has encountered significant diminishing returns on our investments in its extraction, the writing is on the wall for what lies ahead…and it’s not pretty, not at all. Sorry.

This is in no way to suggest that we need to or should encourage ‘drill, baby, drill’ for more hydrocarbons. I am not a ‘fossil fuel shill’ as I have been repeatedly accused of when I criticise ‘renewables’.

What I believe we should be doing (but won’t except for some small pockets here and there) is using our knowledge about ecological overshoot and pre/historical episodes of societal collapse to inform our path going forward. For me that means encouraging purposeful ‘simplification’ so that we have some kind of say in our inevitable contraction–as minimal as this input may be.

We should not be (as we seem to be) doubling/tripling down on our standard problem-solving strategy of attempting greater complexity, especially via increased growth and technological innovation. I say this because this approach results in an exacerbation of our drawing down of finite resources and overloading of compensatory sinks that are contributing to an even more precipitous ‘collapse’ when it inevitably appears at our doorstep.

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, I would encourage everyone to be making one’s local community as self-sufficient/-reliant as possible.

Finally, sorry if this argument challenges your beliefs, but that is what the overwhelming evidence shows–not that I need to stress that here at the end of my thoughts given that if you’ve read this far, you probably agreed with most I’ve what I’ve had to say here and already know this.

I close with my comment on that post discussed above:

The ‘electrify everything’ via an ‘energy transition’ narrative is a ruse. It is designed to market industrial products and the idea that we can and will replace hydrocarbons with ‘clean/green’ energy then carry on with our business-as-usual trajectory…growing, expanding, improving, etc., etc..

It is making a shitload of money for those that already sit atop our wealth and power structures while exacerbating our finite resource drawdown and ecological systems destruction. It is not doing any of the beneficial things its marketers claim.

Just as we have been repeatedly lied into wars through massive propaganda, we are being led astray about the efficacy and ‘sustainability’ of ‘renewables’ so that a few can benefit from what is for all intents and purposes just another profiteering racket.

It also attempts to create an Overton Window where the necessary but neglected concept of degrowth with its economic contraction aspect is overlooked/dismissed/ignored.

The ‘renewables’ industry is NOT a friend of the planet nor any kind of saviour. It is a big industrial business selling products.

See: https://stevebull.substack.com/p/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-16f

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXC–Beyond Collapse: Climate Change and Causality During the Middle Holocene Climatic Transition

November 15, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXC–Beyond Collapse: Climate Change and Causality During the Middle Holocene Climatic Transition

Tulum, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.

This Contemplation comments upon and summarises a paper that considers prehistorical periods of rapid climatic transition and societal-level responses to the resulting environmental changes. I thought it interesting to review this research article given the significant concern many have regarding how humans may respond to current/future climatic shifts and the changes that result from them.

Many variables of significant, possibly existential, importance to human existence will increasingly be impacted by a changing climate, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, extreme weather events, disease propagation, altered geographies, and resource availability and distribution–especially water and arable land. Whether our species, or any for that matter, will or can adapt to these changes in either the short-term or long-term is unknown–there exist diametrically-opposed views on this, from widespread extinction of all life to a ‘clean’ and ‘sustainable’ techno-utopia in balance with nature.

The research article in question looks at the changes that took place during the Middle Holocene Climatic Transition (MHCT), a glacial-interglacial transition period of rapid climate change, and how human societies of the time responded to the resulting environmental shifts.

As the author makes clear the comparison is not perfect, primarily because of the differences in the nature of the climate shifts and the human population density and distribution dissimilarities. However, he also points out that it is somewhat analogous in that complex societies were in existence during the changes, so we can draw some parallels based upon how past societies responded to unpredictable and chaotic changes in their environment.

What’s interesting to me is that the evidence can be interpreted as hopeful for some form of successful adaptation as our world changes due to a shifting climate. While some groups were forced to disperse and others perished in the face of a rapidly changing climate, the emergence of urbanisation and complex societies as a result of adapting to environmental shifts occurred as well. There are, of course, significant caveats that suggest modern-day complex societies will not be so lucky as to adapt to changes in anything like their present form and/or population densities.

There exist a number of impediments for our present-day societies and their adaptability to environmental shifts in comparison to those of the past. Below are three of these.

First, there is a very large segment of today’s global population that is enormously reliant upon industrial technologies for maintenance of a vast array of complexities, particularly food production and distribution. These technologies, in turn, are dependent upon a finite energy resource (hydrocarbons) up and down their supply chains. Disruptions in the complex array of supports to maintain our energy-intensive technologies put many modern human populations at risk.

Second, there are few resource-rich regions left on the planet for human societies to expand into and exploit relative to the past. The hyper-charged population densities and distribution we currently have (thanks to the significant surplus energy of easy-to-access hydrocarbons) make the successful adaptations that past societies exhibited far less likely–to say little about the increasing loss of fertility of much of our arable land due to excessive use of hydrocarbon-based chemicals upon them. There was much greater capacity for growth during shifts in the past with smaller population densities, more sparsely distributed settlements, minimal complexity, and resource abundance. The latitude available for past societies to adapt to environmental changes is gone for 8+ billion (and growing) of our species. Add to this the reality of having encountered diminishing returns on investments whereby greater and greater resources (especially energy) must be used to meet current needs, let alone growing ones.

Third, there exists for large swaths of our global population a general lack of skills and knowledge to survive without our energy-intensive technologies and various logistical/organisational systems. In the past, the vast majority of people were involved in food production and could support themselves and/or their families without complex societal systems sustaining them. That is certainly not the case today with few within our populations capable of providing anyone with the basic necessities of existence–potable water, food, and/or regional shelter needs.

Overall, things do not bode well for modern-day societies to rely upon the adaptations of the past that proved successful in the face of rapid environmental changes.

I, personally, am as confident as I can be that ‘collapse’ of our global, industrialised complex societies is in our future–many argue that it has already begun. I am unsure, however, of what arises in terms of human existence from this predicament; if anything given the degree to which we appear to be in ecological overshoot.

With our propensity to double down on our pursuit of technological innovation and economic growth in the face of perceived problems (rather than pursuing a simplification and contraction of our lifestyles) we are exacerbating our predicaments and creating a situation whereby the likelihood of adapting to changing conditions is being made significantly more difficult and unlikely by the day.

Only time, of course, will tell what the future holds for humanity…

Below is a summary of the research article. The longer summary notes can be found here.

Beyond Collapse: Climate Change and Causality During the Middle Holocene Climatic Transition, 6400-5000 Years Before Present

Nick Brooks
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography
2013
Vol. 112, No. 2, 93-104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2012.741881

Our changing climate is expected to mirror the shift witnessed during glacial-interglacial transitions, only more quickly and possibly reach global average temperatures not seen for millions of years. While changes to our oceanic and atmospheric currents are not precisely known, previous transitions do suggest that the availability and distribution of key resources (especially water and arable land) will be altered and likely affect human societies.

Analogues exist from the past 10,000 years, when cyclical climate disruptions have occurred every 1000-2000 years lasting 100-300 years. These are characterised by cooling at high and middle latitudes, and increased aridity at lower ones–especially in the northern hemisphere. These changes have been linked to warfare and population collapse, and the collapse of several complex societies (e.g., Arkkadian, Egyptian Old Kingdom, Neolithic cultures, and others).

The Middle Holocene Climatic Transition (MHCT, 6500-5000 BP) witnessed a significant environmental reorganisation due to an acceleration of cooling and increasing aridity trends. Some regions experienced sudden arid conditions, others glacial advance. Monsoons weakened with rains moving southward, and El Niño reappeared after a prolonged absence. The global climate system appears to have been impacted by summer solar radiation weakening outside of the tropics due to a rotational axis shift.

The present day is different from the MHCT in several ways: warming vs. cooling, increasing greenhouse gasses vs. a solar insolation shift, and retreat of ice and snow vs. glacial advance. The distribution of changes will be different as well and the present day may experience greater aridity, especially outside of monsoon regions.

The societal contexts are very different (e.g., population densities and distribution) but also similar (e.g., large urban centres and state-level societies with hierarchical structures and political institutions, as well as some small-scale agriculture and pastoralism).

All regions studied exhibited societal shifts that coincided with rapid climate shifts. In Mesopotamia, egalitarian village-level farming communities coalesced into a hierarchical culture and agricultural settlements were abandoned with the rise of urban centres. In Egypt, many migrated to the Nile River Valley, and in some areas cattle herding increased but in a mobile sense with populations seeking appropriate pastures due to an unpredictable environment. In the Indus Valley, pastoral societies arose with cyclical migration.

Migration patterns, livelihoods, and settlement and occupation patterns all changed in light of increased aridity. In particular, increasing aridity led to movement towards reliable water sources and/or arable lands, the rise of nomadic pastoralism in order to follow grazable pastures, and increasing exploitation of riparian environments (ecosystem along the edge of water bodies).

“Worsening environmental conditions may well have altered patterns of productivity, resulting in the abandonment of some areas, the agglomeration of populations in others, increased competition over resources, and widespread social disruption.” (p. 98)

Near the end of the MHCT (5300-5000 BP) some cultures in Mesopotamia (e.g., Uruk) collapsed with nomadic pastoralism arising, while some areas witnessed dispersed populations coming together to form urban centres (e.g., Uruk-Warka). Resource competition between protostates in Egypt resulted in a larger, complex society centred on the Nile River Valley, while some regions experienced settlement abandonment and populations perishing. A shift towards greater transhumance (seasonal pastoralism) in the Indus Valley led to the emergence of urbanisation. Migration towards the Yellow River in China witnessed a shift from early complex societies to larger and more complex ones. The river valleys of coastal Peru also saw the emergence of urbanisation as people gathered in such resource-rich locations.

Aridification appears to have impacted migrations towards reliable water sources, where many gathered and resulted in urbanisation and complexity, including social stratification, class/caste systems, and formal political power.

The archaeological evidence points to some complex societies collapsing as a result of environmental changes due to a changing climate. On the other hand, there is also evidence that some complex societies appear to have emerged as a consequence of climate change. It would appear that different contexts had different, even the opposite, outcome when climate changes occurred in the past.

During the MHCT some regions experienced sudden arid conditions, others glacial advance. Monsoons weakened with rains moving south, El Niño reappeared after a prolonged absence. Summer solar radiation weakening outside the tropics due to a rotational axis shift that impacted the global climate system. The present day is different. Rather than cooling and glacial advances due to a solar insolation shift we are experiencing warming with snow and ice retreat due to greenhouse gasses.

The societal contexts are different in terms of population densities and distribution but similar in terms of large, urban centres and state-level societies with social hierarchies and political institutions along with some small-scale agriculture and pastoralism).

All regions studied exhibit societal shifts that coincide with rapid climate changes. In Mesopotamia, egalitarian village-level farming communities coalesced into a hierarchical culture. Migrations to the Nile River Valley in Egypt occurred alongside a rise in nomadic pastoralism that required movement to follow suitable pastures during a time of unpredictable environments. Meanwhile, in the Indus Valley, pastoral societies emerged defined by seasonal migrations.

Depending where one looks, there is strong evidence to support the interpretation that rapid environmental change led to societal-level changes. Migration patterns, livelihoods, and settlement and occupation patterns all changed in light of increasing aridity. In particular, increasing aridity led to: movement towards reliable water sources and arable lands; increasing nomadic pastoralism to follow suitable pasturelands; increasing exploitation of riparian environments; and the abandonment of settlements.

“The evidence from the Middle Holocene discussed here suggests that rapid climate change played a role in the emergence of complex societies, as well as their collapse, and that similar climatic stresses might result in very different outcomes in different societal contexts.” (p. 100)

In some instances, climate change overwhelmed other drivers of societal change and adaptation was not possible. Depending upon the circumstances, however, other societies adapted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Tag Archives: today’s contemplation

Content

Post categories

Economic Links

Energy/Resource Links

Environmental Links

Geopolitical Links

Liberty Links

News Links

Other Links

Survival Skills

Post Archives by Category

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CC– ‘Olduvai’: What’s It All About?

The Bulletin: February 27-March 5, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCVII–‘Renewable’ Energy: See, Hear, and Speak No Evil, Part 3

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCIV–US Peak Shale Oil & Gas: When the Walls Come Tumblin’ Down.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CL–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 2

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIX–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXI–Sociopolitical Agency, Narrative Management, And Collapse

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIII–Ruling Caste Responses to Societal Breakdown/Decline

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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXV–Collapse Now To Avoid the Rush: The Long Emergency

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXV–Hydrocarbons And The Maximum Power Principle: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Post navigation

Latest Posts

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CC–
‘Olduvai’: What’s It All About?