The on-site, above-ground storage for the close to 2 million\u2013and growing\u2013tonnes of intermediate- and high-level radioactive solid waste produced by traditional reactors is exceedingly vulnerable to accidents, societal disruptions (e.g., power grid loss, war), and\/or environmental changes (e.g., extreme weather, climate change, geological events). SMRs introduce additional concerns to their larger, traditional reactor cousins: they produce waste higher in radioactivity and the approval process for these SMRs is being rushed, driven by industry and politics rather than technical readiness.<\/p>\n
For decades, the proposed \u2018solution\u2019 to a nuclear reactor\u2019s intermediate- and high-level radioactive waste \u2018problem\u2019 has been the creation and use of Deep Geological Repositories (DGRs)\u2013what one could argue is a theoretical \u2018magic bullet\u2019 given: none are as yet operational; the few planned and being constructed are capable of only handling a small fraction of the waste that has been accumulating for close to 75 years (while planning to triple, or more, the nuclear reactor fleet); and, the long-term capability of DGRs is based upon \u2018best guess\u2019 models (yes, scientifically-informed but not actually tested, especially for long-term effectiveness).<\/p>\n
One can\u2019t help but conclude from this review that the current approach to nuclear waste is inadequate, in the extreme. I liken it to \u201cplacing a finger-sized bandage on a gaping, arterial wound\u201d. The plans to increase massively the world\u2019s nuclear reactor fleet while this waste problem exists, and expands, is irresponsible\u2013and significantly so. Like, WTAF?<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!xqyW!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F72d4871f-ee60-43b5-abcf-eb1f94f32ca7_702x527.png)
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\nEnergy Sources and Carriers\u2026Don\u2019t Conflate Them Keep this distinction at the top of your thinking with regard to energy generation and consumption. Electricity is a carrier, not a source; it must be generated from a primary source. Humans have created various complex and mass-produced industrial technologies to generate\/convert primary energy sources into electricity as it is a relatively versatile and transportable form of power.<\/p>\n Electricity, however, only provides about 20% of our complex societies\u2019 total energy consumption (and about 60% of this 20% is generated via hydrocarbons; mostly coal and natural gas). Hydrocarbons directly provide the other 80% of total societal energy consumption\u2013meaning, hydrocarbons provide about 92% of our total energy consumption; even more if one considers all the embodied hydrocarbons in the \u2018clean\u2019 technologies helping to generate electricity.<\/p>\n No matter how you wish to slice it, and what language manipulation you use to help convince yourself and others about \u2018clean\/green renewable\u2019 energy, human complex societies and virtually all their energy slaves<\/a> are significantly dependent upon a one-time, finite, and diminishing cache of hydrocarbons. [Note: yes, hydrocarbons are still being naturally created but not at a timescale that has any significance to human use and modern complex societies given the rate at which we are extracting it (See: here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and\/or here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n So, when \u2018electrify everything<\/a>\u2019 advocates make claims regarding a nation being powered completely (or close to it) by \u2018renewables\u2019, they are conveniently ignoring total energy consumption and referring exclusively to electricity consumption. While the 20\/80 split is a global average, every nation continues to depend significantly upon hydrocarbons for much if not most of their energy use\u2013directly (e.g., transportation and heating fuels) or indirectly (e.g., via goods that require significant hydrocarbon inputs for their production and distribution).<\/p>\n Electricity Production\u2026Hydrocarbons Still Rule Yes, for some nations electricity generated from \u2018renewables\u2019 has surpassed that provided by coal (something some are highlighting as a significant \u2018win\u2019 and doable by every nation), but this overlooks the electricity generated via natural gas and\/or oil globally, and ignores that significant amounts of hydrocarbons are required to create, distribute, and eventually recycle\/replace the \u2018renewables\u2019 technologies and their needed infrastructure.<\/p>\n Again, for advocates of the \u2018electrify everything\u2019 universe, the necessary scaling up of \u2018non-\/low-hydrocarbon\u2019 electricity generation to \u2018replace hydrocarbons\u2019 (that ignores all the embodied hydrocarbons in the technologies required; typically overlooks the backups\u2013hydrocarbon-based and\/or battery\u2013required for the intermittent systems of solar and wind; and avoids discussing the finiteness of hydrocarbons) is monumental. In fact, to put it frankly, modernity\u2019s ever-expanding complexities cannot function, grow, or be sustained without hydrocarbons\u2013no matter how much some wish this to be so.<\/p>\n Electricity Generation\u2026No Matter How You Spin It, It Ain\u2019t \u2018Clean\u2019<\/em> These electricity-generating technologies and their needed infrastructure are perceived as existing along a continuum in terms of how \u2018clean\/green\u2019 or carbon intensive they are. Given the industrial processes involved in creating the technologies required to generate electricity (all forms), and the infrastructure required to transport this electricity, none should be considered \u2018clean\/green\u2019 or \u2018low-\/no-carbon\u2019. None. Yet, many consider them so and argue endlessly about the environmental benefits of one over the other\u2013a debate framed by an Overton Window<\/a> that not only ignores the embodied hydrocarbons of \u2018clean\u2019 technologies but perhaps more importantly tends to avoid completely the existential concerns about limits to and the pursuit of growth (especially via mass-produced, industrial-based complex technologies) on a finite planet with a growing number of surpassed planetary boundaries<\/a>.<\/p>\n The embodied and extremely high hydrocarbon inputs and ecologically-destructive processes required to produce these industrial technologies and their infrastructure are monumentally \u2018dirty\u2019 (in the sense of being ecologically destructive). That some are viewed and referred to as \u2018clean\u2019 is the result of mass marketing\/propaganda and extremely restrictive carbon tunnel vision (See my Contemplation series on carbon tunnel vision and resource and ecological blindness: Part 1 Website<\/strong><\/a> Medium<\/strong><\/a> Substack<\/strong><\/a>; Part 2 Website<\/strong><\/a> Medium<\/strong><\/a> Substack<\/strong><\/a>; Part 3 Website<\/strong><\/a> Medium<\/strong><\/a> Substack<\/strong><\/a>).<\/p>\n Expansion of electricity consumption, no matter what technology is being used and how you spin it, will be massively destructive to the world\u2019s biosphere\u2013just as all growth that has gone before this desired increase has been. Believing otherwise requires one to engage in significant ignorance, denial\/bargaining, and\/or rationalisation\/justification that helps to avoid biogeophysical realities and the negative consequences of our species\u2019 growth.<\/p>\n Energy Consumption\u2026To Infinity, and Beyond ExxonMobil<\/a> believes that the share of total energy provided by oil and gas will drop over time, perhaps to 50% from the 80% that has been the level for some decades. It expects oil to remain the largest energy source but drop significantly over the coming decades, while predicting that natural gas consumption will more than double. DNV<\/a> also projects hydrocarbon\u2019s share of primary energy use to drop to about 50%, with its production plateauing prior to 2030. Finally, McKinsey and Company<\/a> do not see the same drop in use as ExxonMobil and DNV, believing that hydrocarbons will continue to provide the lion\u2019s share of primary energy beyond 2050, with natural gas growth providing significantly increasing market share. More recently, the IEA put out a scenario where hydrocarbon production actually increases 13% between now and 2050 (see: here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and\/or here<\/a>). [Note: there has been a growing narrative competition between \u2018renewables\u2019 and hydrocarbons with respect to their importance and where our societies should focus their attention and investments (including geopolitically), and this seems particularly so in the United States at this moment\u2013which is not surprising given the US Empire is the largest consumer of hydrocarbons on the planet.]<\/p>\n The \u2018Electrify Everything\u2019 Universe Is Upon Us\u2026They Said So!<\/em> Electricity provided by hydro plants and other \u2018renewables\u2019 (e.g., biofuels, biomass) can still grow, but they have little room to contribute much more than they already do. The lion\u2019s share of growth (if it is to occur at all) must fall to solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, and nuclear reactors. (See: here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and\/or here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n The percentage of electricity consumption provided by nuclear power reactors has varied since first introduced. It reached a high of providing over 17% of demand during the 1990s. This has fallen to close to half as much with the curtailment of new reactor construction in the shadow of several major accidents that have occurred, massive cost increases, and a significant surge in investments towards mass-produced \u2018renewables\u2019 (e.g., solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines), and currently sits at about 9%. (See: here<\/a> and\/or here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Despite all of the above, one of the arguments (amongst a growing number of marketing spins) made by nuclear power-generation advocates is that nuclear reactors are indeed a \u2018sustainable, green\/clean\/low-carbon\u2019 alternative to \u2018unsustainable, dirty\/high-carbon\u2019 fossil fuels and must be part of the \u2018electrify everything\u2019 universe. (See: here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and\/or here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n There are a variety of reasons why this universe should not (e.g., exacerbation of our ecological overshoot predicament and its numerous symptom predicaments) and cannot, to the extent being proposed (e.g., problems of scale, geological limits of resources, Laws of Thermodynamics), be pursued; but it is nonetheless [I would argue that perhaps the most salient reasons why massive electrification is being pursued are because it helps to: generate significant revenue streams\/profits for a number of individuals\/families\/businesses; and, keep the various monetary\/financial\/economic Ponzi schemes maintained\/expanding for a few more quarters\u2013more on this below].<\/p>\n Ramping Up Nuclear Power-Generated Electricity\u2026another thought experiment As of this moment, our world uses around 30,000 Terawatt Hours<\/a> (TWh) of electricity. This electricity consumption is expected to double by 2050, rising by about 3% or so per year. Given such a demand growth projection and government \u2018commitments\u2019, the global nuclear reactor fleet is being asked to triple its generating capacity over the next 25 years. (See: here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and\/or here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n A tripling of the current electricity generation provided by the world\u2019s 438 commercial, electricity-generating reactors over 25 years is a daunting task (impossible?) to say the least. Building almost 900 large reactors over the next two and a half decades requires, on average, 36 new reactors to be constructed and up and running every year\u2013about 1 every 10 days.<\/p>\n There are currently 71 new plants under construction with most, but not all, hoping to be operable and connected to their nation\u2019s grid within the next 5 years. However, such projects invariably fail to meet projected timelines (as well as going well over their original budgets) and a few of these have already encountered difficulties and seen their construction suspended for a variety of reasons. (See: here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Being generous, let\u2019s assume all 71 of these plants are online and operational within 7 years. This puts the goal of tripling the world\u2019s reactor fleet that governments and the industry have been highlighting already well behind schedule. 252 reactors would have been needed to be ready and operating by 2032 to stay on track for a tripling of generation by 2050. Oops.<\/p>\n Enter SMRs, the answer to speeding up the process with factory fabrication of components. Combined with what is looking like a much sped up approval process, these reactors can meet the challenge of tripling the generation of the nuclear fleet!<\/p>\n Well, not so fast.<\/p>\n Today\u2019s \u2018traditional\u2019 large reactors, on average, generate just above 6 TWh or about 1000 Megawatts (MWe) of electricity. Current SMR designs are capable of generating between 80 and 300 MWe of electricity.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s assume that SMRs with the highest generating capacity (300 MWe) will be constructed in place of the larger reactors to meet this tripling commitment going forward. We still have the equivalent of over 800 traditional reactors or about 2000 SMRs required to be built. Even if these get started in their construction by 2030, a tripling of generation would require 200 new builds per year for 20 years; or one every 1.8 days.<\/p>\n Such a goal must completely ignore\/overlook the material and mineral requirements\u2013and constraints\u2013for this entire endeavour (see this<\/a> on Peak Copper, perhaps the most fundamental and indispensable mineral to the electrify everything universe). And then there are the perils of Jevon\u2019s Paradox<\/a>, Entropy<\/a>, and the Maximum Power Principle<\/a>\u2026can you say \u201cDelusional in the extreme!\u201d<\/p>\n Well, maybe not so delusional\u2026.if enough credit money is thrown at the \u2018problem\u2019.<\/p>\n And who better to ensure such \u2018investment\u2019 is carried out \u2018for the people\u2019 than \u2018representative\u2019 governments and their never-ending access to capital via the public purse\u2013which brings me back to my series on how governments will save us (See: Part 1 Website<\/strong><\/a> Medium<\/strong><\/a> Substack<\/strong><\/a>; Part 2 Website<\/strong><\/a> Medium<\/strong><\/a> Substack<\/strong><\/a>; Part 3 Website<\/strong><\/a> Medium<\/strong><\/a> Substack<\/strong><\/a>).<\/p>\n A Tripling Of Nuclear Reactor Energy-Generation Really About \u2018Saving\u2019 Society? One of the stories they currently use to help legitimise their existence and maintain status quo structures is \u201cthe idea that governments shower their citizens with prosperity via perpetual economic growth, while the real intention of this pursuit is to enrich a small number of well-connected people and maintain status quo wealth and power structures. The economic policies implemented by governments are boundlessly marketed as benefitting the masses but their overriding goal is to grow the revenue streams of a powerful and influential minority of the population. While society\u2019s members do receive some \u2018benefits\u2019 from growing economic activity, a majority of such benefits are bestowed upon a \u2018ruling class\u2019. I explain how this story about good government is part of a historical pattern of justifying myths (e.g., divine right of kings, chain of being, civilising missions) to maintain power and wealth.\u201d<\/p>\n The magical thinking that is required to have the tripling of nuclear reactor energy generation make sense and be doable is massive. Not only must the ecological impacts, Laws of Thermodynamics, and physical limits be ignored, but the ability of a world constrained by politics and economics must be viewed as supernatural\u2013thus my growing sense that all of this is not about serving the best interests of the masses or environment, but about maintaining\/expanding revenue streams to the businesses\/corporations involved (via government subsidies and private\/retail investment)\u2013at least for a few more quarters,.<\/p>\n The narratives about this being possible and necessarily pursued are also about keeping the masses distracted by optimistic promises of \u2018tomorrow will be better\u2019 while the profit-takers pillage national treasuries and Nature. It is yet another in a growing list of \u2018solutions\u2019 being offered up to the public but is in reality another in an expanding catalog of ventures\/enterprises\/rackets that siphon wealth up the status quo power structures that exist in our complex societies in the here and now, with little to no regard for the longer-term future\u2026<\/p>\n And has anybody mentioned the exponentially building waste \u2018dilemma\u2019 associated with nuclear power generation recently?<\/p>\n When one considers the longstanding role of governing institutions, it solidifies my growing suspicion that almost everything our \u2018leaders\u2019 push\/advocate\/support aligns with the motivations of the ruling elite: maintenance\/expansion of wealth-extraction\/-generation systems to provide revenue streams. Or, as I have argued before: Everything is a racket (See my Contemplation on this: Website<\/strong><\/a> Medium<\/strong><\/a> Substack<\/strong><\/a>).<\/p>\n The nuclear energy industry is perfect for this. It can be leveraged\/marketed as beneficent for the masses, support (at least for the short term) the economic growth agenda, and allow the elite to siphon wealth from national treasuries (including resource \u2018wealth\u2019). Like much (everything?) we are exposed to by the ruling elite, it is overhyped and under-delivers, while increasing wealth inequality and environmental destruction.<\/p>\n The snake oil salesmen of the world win again with our pursuit of this \u2018solution\u2019 to our energy \u2018problem\u2019.<\/p>\n Recent and relevant articles:<\/p>\n UK Greenlights First Rolls-Royce SMR Project Despite U.S. Pushback | OilPrice.com<\/a><\/p>\n Modular Reactor Tide Rising: Nano Nuclear To Study Siting Multiple MMRs To Generate 1GW Energy In Texas | ZeroHedge<\/a><\/p>\n Moving From Carry to Anti-Carry<\/a><\/p>\n The Nuclear Waste Disposal Dilemma | Earth.Org<\/a><\/p>\n The Nuclear Golden Calf | Art Berman<\/a><\/p>\n What If We Just Start Now<\/a><\/p>\n The Coming AI Bust: Why Trump-O-Nomics Is Riding a Time Bomb<\/a><\/p>\n Primary, secondary, final, and useful energy: Why are there different ways of measuring energy?\u200a\u2014\u200aOur World in Data<\/a><\/p>\n AI Wants Your Job\u200a\u2014\u200aAnd Now It Wants Your Electricity Too | ZeroHedge<\/a><\/p>\n Electricity Price Squeeze: Something\u2019s Going to Give\u200a\u2014\u200aresilience<\/a><\/p>\n Oil, AI, Electrification and the Next Big Crash\u200a\u2014\u200aresilience<\/a><\/p>\n No more PJM data centers unless they can be reliably served: market monitor | Utility Dive<\/a><\/p>\n DOE\u2019s Hyperspeed Reactors | ZeroHedge<\/a><\/p>\n U.S. data center power demand could reach 106 GW by 2035: BloombergNEF | Utility Dive<\/a><\/p>\n America\u2019s great build-a-thon comes with a price tag\u200a\u2014\u200aBond Vigilantes<\/a><\/p>\n Jensen To Rogan: \u201cNext 6\u20137 Years You Will See A Bunch Of Small Nuclear Reactors\u201d | ZeroHedge<\/a><\/p>\n \u2018Atoms for Algorithms:\u2019 The Trump Administration\u2019s Top Nuclear Scientists Think AI Can Replace Humans in Power Plants<\/a><\/p>\n When the Apocalypse Strikes, What Will Save Us?<\/a><\/p>\n The Sunset of the Renewable Dream | Art Berman<\/a><\/p>\n How Private Interests and the Banking Dynasties Control Washington\u200a\u2014\u200aGlobal Research<\/a><\/p>\n Richest 0.001% Now Own Three Times More Wealth Than Poorest Half of Humanity Combined | Common Dreams<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/em>Primary energy<\/a> sources are natural resources that have not been subjected to human transformation for societal consumption. Examples would be coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, sunlight, and wind. Energy carriers<\/a>, also known as secondary forms of energy<\/a>, are the substance or system that transports energy from the primary source to human use. Electricity is such a carrier and is generated from a primary source (as is hydrogen for those believing that a hydrogen economy<\/a> is also a \u2018sustainable and clean\u2019 energy saviour).<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!XuER!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd3ad8d60-67be-47db-9d30-26cacc56e0b1_714x505.png)
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/em>Regardless of claims to the contrary (and as mentioned above), electricity production is still provided mostly by hydrocarbons across the planet. And, while \u2018renewables\u2019 have been increasing in their contribution to electricity production over the past 25+ years, the quantity of hydrocarbons (especially coal and natural gas) used to generate electricity continues to increase as well with each form hitting new highs in such inputs year after year.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!5pxt!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F733d1f64-57ce-4e6b-b4d5-46a142d275eb_697x507.png)
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\nAll of the technologies and infrastructure needed to carry out our electricity generation and transport it are complex, extremely materially\/minerally-dependent and -intensive, and require ecologically-destructive industrial-scale processes (i.e., mining, refining, production, distribution, maintenance, and reclamation\/disposal) up and down their supply chains and to perform as required.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!S7YM!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbd2a719a-b298-483e-b36d-0a98f0d04f93_472x470.png)
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!u_z1!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F63f166ca-1118-457b-b7ab-0f1913b97c5b_743x421.png)
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/em>Regardless of resource limits (especially that of hydrocarbons, but also of many critically-important minerals\/materials) and the ecological destruction that would accompany continuation of growth trends (especially via the extraction, processing, and industrial processes required), various analysts project that energy consumption is going to continue to expand far into the future\u2013and significantly so, especially via electricity; thus the clarion call for massive growth in electrical power generation, particularly via the \u2018clean\u2019 technologies of solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, and nuclear reactors.<\/p>\n
\nAccording to some, the combination of economic and population growth alongside hydrocarbon\u2019s decreasing role in electricity generation will lead to a significant growth in demand for electricity generation, and will supposedly be met by a continuing and significant expansion of \u2018renewable\u2019 energy sources (i.e., solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines) and low-carbon sources (i.e., nuclear power). Both of these alternatives to hydrocarbon generation are expected to at least double their role in electricity generation between now and 2050. Nuclear power is highlighted as being necessary to provide a steady baseload power source given the intermittency of \u2018renewables\u2019. (See: here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and\/or here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!1YZx!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb1e73e97-28c6-46e1-b1e3-71b5ba2594dd_427x196.png)
<\/picture>\nRoad to Net Zero (<\/span>manchester.ac.uk<\/a>)<\/span><\/h6>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/strong>Let\u2019s ignore for a moment the significant ecological destruction that would result from this proposal of expanding the globe\u2019s nuclear reactor fleet (immediate, in terms of the material and mineral extraction and industrial processes required\u2013virtually all hydrocarbon-based; and future, in terms of the massive amounts of radioactive nuclear waste produced) and think about what would be required to meet the increase of nuclear reactor-generated electricity its advocates have proposed.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!_nkL!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff82c20e0-a63c-431b-a74a-e70e50d49453_424x229.png)
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!Pr8o!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0558192a-3035-4f9a-9edc-cf44d8250676_763x349.png)
<\/picture>\n(<\/span>stock.adobe.com<\/a>)<\/span><\/h6>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!lLaC!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4e699232-be7b-4af4-95fb-0cc459401113_343x323.png)
<\/picture>\n(<\/span>blog.inkyfool.com<\/a>)<\/span><\/h6>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/strong>In my series on government, I argue that pre\/history shows us that governing institutions are not benevolent systems in service of their citizens but are \u201cstructures of power that arose from exploitation and coercion to serve the interests of a ruling \u2018elite\u2019\u200a\u2014\u200aan undertaking that they continue to perform to this day.\u201d I further show that \u201cthe elite depend upon a variety of manipulations to maintain such systems, including controlled redistribution of \u2018benefits\u2019 and pervasive narrative management.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!bWO9!,w_424,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F28fdc999-df74-4db7-815c-843ae2304b0a_399x292.png)
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n