{"id":69032,"date":"2024-12-29T19:55:58","date_gmt":"2024-12-30T00:55:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=69032"},"modified":"2024-12-29T19:55:58","modified_gmt":"2024-12-30T00:55:58","slug":"todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-cxlix-carbon-tunnel-vision-and-resource-energy-ecological-blindness-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=69032","title":{"rendered":"Today\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIX–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource\/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Today\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIX–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource\/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n

September 7, 2023 (original posting date)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/picture>\n
\n
\n
Mexico (1988). Photo by author.<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

In my attempt to \u2018market\u2019 the\u00a0article compilation that was recently published<\/a>, I joined a couple of Facebook Groups in order to post about the document. I subsequently posted\u00a0my last Contemplation<\/a>\u00a0(that shares my thoughts on the extreme difficulties, if not impossibility, of a \u2018managed\u2019 contraction by our species) and received some \u2018interesting\u2019 comments within one climate-change group, many of which I attempted to respond to (I\u2019ve included some of these conversations at the end of this post).<\/p>\n

Most comments were perhaps only marginally connected to my post. They tended to extoll the virtues of technological \u2018solutions\u2019 to climate change (not that I discussed climate change).<\/p>\n

In reflecting on the \u2018pushback\u2019 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 \u2018blinders\u2019, along with much in the way of rampant \u2018marketing\u2019 for technological \u2018solutions\u2019, have resulted in many viewing the world along the lines of: \u2018human ingenuity and technology\u2019 can, will, and is, saving us from ourselves. And, most certainly, the \u2018gate-keepers<\/a>\u2019 for this particular group.<\/p>\n

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 \u2018best\u2019 (and favoured) information available to us, and then we go to significant lengths to rationalise and \u2018protect\u2019 our beliefs. All of us.<\/p>\n

As this has become a much longer Contemplation than the \u2018ideal\u2019 short ones I aim for, it will be at least in two parts (it may be longer as I\u2019ve only jotted down a few brief notes for Part 2).<\/p>\n

Carbon Tunnel Vision<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is an evolutionary-advantageous tendency for humans to view our universe through rather narrow keyholes. It\u2019s quite normal and ubiquitous. It is the way we attempt to perceive, in relatively simple terms, the exceedingly complex world that we exist within.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0heuristics<\/a>\u00a0(mental shortcuts). This leads to us focussing upon a narrow array of information out of all that is available\u200a\u2014\u200ausually that which supports our \u2018needs\u2019 at the time\u200a\u2014\u200aand ignoring for the most part superfluous inputs.<\/p>\n

Once we\u2019ve 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 \u2018objective\u2019 individuals.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0Wikipedia states<\/a>: \u201cTunnel vision<\/strong>\u00a0metaphorically 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

The \u2018bias\u2019 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

As the following graphic demonstrates (with respect to particular aspects of the issue of \u2018sustainability\u2019) this tendency to narrow our perspective can prevent the acknowledgement of so many other aspects of our world\u200a\u2014\u200aand 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.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/picture>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

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 \u2018solutions\u2019 that are, in fact, exacerbating our situation.<\/p>\n

This rather narrowed perspective tends to be along the lines that if we can curtail\/eliminate carbon emissions\u200a\u2014\u200ausually through a shift in our technology to supposed \u2018carbon-free\u2019 ones\u200a\u2014\u200athen 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\u2019 transition to a \u2018sustainable\u2019 way of living.<\/p>\n

So, let\u2019s try for a moment to open up this rather narrow keyhole and take in a wider perspective. Let\u2019s look at how some of the other significant\u00a0planetary boundaries<\/a>\u00a0are being broached.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

This is not to say that the boundary of climate change is not important, it\u2019s to try to better understand why a hyper-focus on carbon emissions is problematic: it\u2019s 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:
\n\u00b7 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)
\n\u00b7 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
\n\u00b7 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)
\n\u00b7 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)
\n\u00b7 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<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/picture>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>
Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, based on analysis in Wang-Erlandsson et al\u00a02022.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

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\u2019s book on the subject but in \u2018skimming over\u2019\u00a0the summary notes I sent a link for<\/a>\u00a0he simply saw \u201ca bunch of vague assertions\u2026didn\u2019t learn anything\u2026probably heading towards a hard wall\u2026\u201d. He then added for effect: \u201cI don\u2019t 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

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 \u2018green\/clean\u2019 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\u200a\u2014\u200aeconomic 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.<\/p>\n

And the marketers of this particular point of view know full well the psychological mechanisms that are effective in \u2018persuading\u2019 the masses to hold it and support it\u200a\u2014\u200aespecially the human tendency to defer to expertise\/authority and engage in groupthink (see\u00a0my 6-part series on Cognition and Belief Systems<\/a>). 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.<\/p>\n

Even those aware of this issue can fail to see the connection to industrial technology, cheerleading \u2018sustainable\u2019 development\/practices and \u2018clean\/green\u2019 (and supposedly) non-fossil fuel-based technologies[1]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As the Energy Blind animated presentation on Nate Hagen\u2019s\u00a0The Great Simplification website<\/a>\u00a0suggests: \u201c\u2026To our ancestors, the benefits from carbon energy would have appeared indistinguishable from magic and instead of appreciating this one-time windfall\u00a0we developed stories that our newfound wealth and progress had emerged purely from human ingenuity<\/strong>. We had become energy blind.\u201d<\/p>\n

This energy blindness (along with ecological blindness) is what I will discuss in Part 2.<\/p>\n

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\u200a\u2014\u200aparticularly around technology\u200a\u2014\u200athat has led to our expansion and apparent \u2018successes\u2019 (not the leveraging of a one-time cache of easily-accessible, storable, and transportable dense energy).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

As I stated to another in a subsequent discussion about another post within the same FB Group that was, again, extolling the virtues of \u2018green\/clean\u2019 technology:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re going to have to agree to disagree over this. Ideally we would not be debating which industrial-produced transport vehicles or energy sources are \u2018better\u2019; they are all horrible. We can\u2019t even get a handle on the growth that is killing our planet so this debate, in that context, is meaningless\u200a\u2014\u200aespecially 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

Some examples of comments that suggest \u2018narrow keyhole\u2019 perspectives:<\/p>\n

Electric Vehicles<\/strong><\/p>\n

KFT: DS what really annoys me is the belief that someone\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Me: EVs are no help to ecological overshoot; in fact, they are as bad as ICE vehicles.<\/em><\/p>\n

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\u2019t anticipate that. By the way people who won\u2019t charge an ev sure as hell won\u2019t ride a bicycle. Just FYI I was bike commuting while you were very likely still in diapers so I know a bit about it.<\/p>\n

DS: that\u2019s def not true unless you cherry pick emissions and ignore externalities. in fact, it\u2019s literally impossible for an car to \u201ccancel out\u201d their emissions, that\u2019s literally not scientifically possible and a gross misunderstanding.
\nand 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\u2019t survive a 7,000lb truck at 45 MPH or higher<\/p>\n

Me: I think you need to scratch below the surface of the \u2018green\/clean\u2019 marketing of EVs and the entire \u2018electrification of everything\u2019 narrative. I suggest starting with this article by Dr. Bill Rees:\u00a0https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/1996-1073\/14\/15\/4508<\/a>. I would also suggest this compilation of articles by a number of writers on ecological overshoot (in particular read Max Wilbert\u2019s entitled \u2018Climate Profiteers Are the New War Profiteers\u2019):\u00a0https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?page_id=65433<\/a>. PS\u200a\u2014\u200ayou must be quite old given I\u2019m 10+ years into retirement.
\nAlso:\u00a0https:\/\/www.skynews.com.au\/opinion\/chris-kenny\/weve-got-a-problem-here-electric-vehicles-require-a-lot-of-minerals-to-produce\/video\/e6e3a6c000f8a7890657d5cba2f17324<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

Overshoot and Food Production<\/strong><\/p>\n

Me: It would appear that you don\u2019t understand that overshoot is a predicament without a solution. The best we might hope for is to mitigate some of the inevitable consequences.<\/em><\/p>\n

DS: I don\u2019t agree with that, you may not like the solutions but they are available. apathy is the biggest problem we face in society now<\/p>\n

Me: DS I don\u2019t agree that there is a \u2018solution\u2019 to overshoot except what Nature is going to provide. Most of the \u2018solutions\u2019 proposed by homo sapiens make our predicament worse, particularly if they involve more complex technologies\/industrial production. In an \u2018ideal\u2019 world we could degrow our species and its impacts; unfortunately, we don\u2019t live in an ideal world and most of the \u2018decision-makers\u2019 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\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

DS: the world currently produces enough food for 16 billion humans
\nyou think reducing food production to 8 billion peoples will make the predicament worse?<\/p>\n

Me: Our food production is going to be reduced a lot more than 50% once fossil fuels are no longer available\u2026and the estimates of how many we can feed currently vary tremendously:\u00a0https:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/article\/2230525-our-current-food-system-can-feed-only-3-4-billion-people-sustainably\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

DS: I have no idea why you think that
\nearth\u2019s agricultural capacity is\u00a0\u2026..insane\u2026. the Netherlands is the second largest exporter of food in the world next to the USA.<\/p>\n

Me: Look into fossil fuel inputs into agricultural. Pesticides. Fertilizer. Herbicides. Diesel machinery. The list goes on. Here\u2019s a paper just on inputs in the UK:\u00a0https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC2935130\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

DS: I can literally do this for ever
\nindoor agricultural reduces herbicides and pesticides by 95\u2013100%<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

Technology<\/strong><\/p>\n

DS: you literally said there is no solution to prevent overshoot, I have to assume you\u2019re a techno-solutionist, basically you\u2019re in the same group as elon musk who believes the future of humanity is on mars<\/p>\n

Me: No, technology is what has put us in Overshoot. More of it only exacerbates the predicament.<\/em><\/p>\n

DS: technology is the only way to survive overshoot, I think overshoot should be avoided. you said we can\u2019t stop overshoot<\/p>\n

Me: Please read some of Erik Michael\u2019s work at:\u00a0https:\/\/problemspredicamentsandtechnology.blogspot.com\/?m=1<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

DS: I\u2019m sorry but this is bullshit
\n\u201cThis 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\u200a\u2014\u200ado this and civilization also stops, meaning that 7 billion people and countless millions of other animal species die in rather short order.\u201d
\n\u201cJust 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\u201d
\nSteve Bull<\/strong>\u00a0let me repeat that to make sure
\n\u201cTHE GROUP AIMS FOR THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO COMMIT TO ENDING NEW FOSSIL FUEL LICENSING AND PRODUCTION\u201d
\nI really don\u2019t think it\u2019s worth my effort to debunk this gish gallop, I specifically used my self agency to live in a 15 minute city and it\u2019s possible if people choose it
\nyou should honestly stop reading this bullshit blog<\/p>\n

Me: Your 15 minute city is based and depends upon fossil fuels. It cannot survive without it.<\/em><\/p>\n

DS: that\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Me: And the production of said buses and garbage trucks?<\/em><\/p>\n

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.
\nby the way, carbon neutrality does not require eliminating 100% of fossil fuels, we can create strict environmental standards and reduce production by 90% -100%<\/p>\n

KP: Advanced technologies helping humankind reduce our footprint is what Ecomodernism is about.
\nWithout killing billions we can reduce the population footprint and travel to the stars. This preserves wild spaces and restores natural biodiversity.<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

And to top it all off:<\/p>\n

Space: The Final Frontier<\/strong><\/p>\n

JN: You said, \u201ctechnology is what has put us in Overshoot. More of it only exacerbates the predicament\u201d
\nYes, because and as long as we are trapped on this \u2018closed system\u2019 planet we call Earth. But if we can escape the gravity trap we will have unlimited resources in Space.
\nInteresting statement:
\n\u201c\u2018Opting out\u2019 in today\u2019s world is more difficult as there are no more \u2018New Worlds\u2019 to exploit for their resources\u201d
\nComment: Collapse Cometh? Yes, unless we do something! But why in 148 years? Not sure if this is saying that opting out is \u2018giving up\u2019 or a \u2018solution\u2019? Yes, we need a new frontier to explore\u200a\u2014\u200aand we don\u2019t have any territory left on Earth to do that. The areas still remaining \u2018unexploited\u2019 must be preserved to save the biosphere and cannot be used for \u2018exploitation\u2019.
\nAnd why using the term \u2018opting out\u2019? Why not word it as part of a solution instead?
\nThere are new worlds to exploit in Space. 148 years is plenty of time to set that up\u200a\u2014\u200aas 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\u200a\u2014\u200awhich is lack of territory on Earth to \u2018exploit\u2019 and to \u2018blow the fuse\u2019\u2026
\nOur 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.
\n\u2018Why the human race must become a multiplanetary species\u2019
\n(https:\/\/www.weforum.org\/…\/humans-multiplanetary-species\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n

If you\u2019ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my \u2018fictional\u2019 novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my\u00a0website<\/a>\u00a0or the link below \u2014 the \u2018profits\u2019 of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).<\/p>\n

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).\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Costs (Canadian dollars):
\nBook 1: $2.99
\nBook 2: $3.89
\nBook 3: $3.89
\nTrilogy: $9.99<\/p>\n

Feel free to throw in a \u2018tip\u2019 on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents\/dollars helps\u2026\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/paypal.me\/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US\u00a0<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me:\u00a0olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton\u2019s Overshoot and Tainter\u2019s Collapse: see\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

It Bears Repeating: Best Of\u2026Volume 1<\/strong><\/p>\n

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s Tristan Sykes & Dr. Kate Booth; Kevin Hester; Alice Friedemann; David Casey; and, Steve Bull.<\/p>\n

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\u2013and most certainly than what mainstream media\/politics would have us believe.<\/p>\n

Click here<\/a>\u00a0to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

[1]<\/a>\u00a0See\u00a0this<\/a>,\u00a0this<\/a>,\u00a0this<\/a>,\u00a0this<\/a>,\u00a0this<\/a>, and\/or\u00a0this<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLIX–Carbon Tunnel Vision and Resource\/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1 September 7, 2023 (original posting date) Mexico (1988). Photo by author. In my attempt to \u2018market\u2019 the\u00a0article compilation that was recently published, I joined a couple of Facebook Groups in order to post about the document. I subsequently posted\u00a0my last Contemplation\u00a0(that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3,4,5,6,7],"tags":[34133,141,150,22093,1535,3197,30370,33947],"class_list":["post-69032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-energy-2","category-environment","category-geopolitics","category-liberty","category-survival-2","tag-carbon-tunnel-vision","tag-climate-change","tag-collapse","tag-ecological-overshoot","tag-hydrocarbons","tag-overshoot","tag-todays-contemplation","tag-todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69032","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=69032"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69032\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":69033,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69032\/revisions\/69033"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=69032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=69032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=69032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}