By Bill Rees: On the Virtues of Self-Delusion—or maybe not!

Dr. Bill Rees, Professor Emeritus from the University of British Columbia, gave a presentation on our overshoot predicament earlier this month to a zoom meeting of the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome (CACOR).

I’m a longtime fan of Dr. Rees and consider him to be one of the most aware and knowledgeable people on the planet.

This is, I believe, the best talk I’ve seen by Dr. Rees and he covers all of the important issues, including topics like overpopulation that most of his peers avoid.

Presentations like this will probably not change our trajectory but nevertheless I find some comfort knowing there are a few other people thinking about the same issues. This can be a very lonely space.

The Q&A is also very good. I found it interesting to hear how much effort Dr. Rees has made to educate our leaders about what we should be doing to reduce future suffering. He was frank that no one to date, including the Green party, is open to his message. Not surprising, but sad. Also inspiring that someone of his stature is at least trying.

Summary

Climate-change and other environmental organizations urge governments to act decisively/rapidly to decarbonize the economy and halt further development of fossil fuel reserves. These demands arguably betray:

– ignorance of the role of energy in the modern economy;

– ill-justified confidence in society’s ability to transition to 100% green renewable energy;

– no appreciation of the ecological consequences of attempting to do so and;

– little understanding of the social implications.

Without questioning the need to abandon fossil fuels, I will argue that the dream of a smooth energy transition is little more than a comforting shared illusion. Moreover, even if it were possible it would not solve climate change and would exacerbate the real existential threat facing society, namely overshoot.

I then explore some of the consequences and implications of (the necessary) abandonment of fossil fuels in the absence of adequate substitutes, and how governments and MTI society should be responding to these unspoken biophysical realities.

Biography

Dr. William Rees is a population ecologist, ecological economist, Professor Emeritus, and former Director of the University of British Columbia’s School of Community and Regional Planning.

His academic research focuses on the biophysical prerequisites for sustainability. This focus led to co-development (with his graduate students) of ecological footprint analysis, a quantitative tool that shows definitively that the human enterprise is in dysfunctional overshoot. (We would need five Earth-like planets to support just the present world population sustainably with existing technologies at North American material standards.)

Frustrated by political unresponsiveness to worsening indicators, Dr. Rees also studies the biological and psycho-cognitive barriers to environmentally rational behavior and policies. He has authored hundreds of peer reviewed and popular articles on these topics. Dr. Rees is a Fellow of Royal Society of Canada and also a Fellow of the Post-Carbon Institute; a founding member and former President of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics; a founding Director of the OneEarth Initiative; and a Director of The Real Green New Deal. He was a full member of the Club of Rome from 2013 until 2018. His international awards include the Boulding Memorial Award in Ecological Economics, the Herman Daly Award in Ecological Economics and a Blue Planet Prize (jointly with his former student, Dr. Mathis Wackernagel).

I left the following comment on YouTube:

I’m a fellow British Columbian and longtime admirer of Dr. Rees. Thank you for the excellent presentation.

I agree with Dr. Rees’ prescription for what needs to be done but I think there’s a step that must precede his first step of acknowledging our overshoot predicament.

Given the magnitude and many dimensions of our predicament an obvious question is why do so few people see it?

I found a theory by Dr. Ajit Varki that provides a plausible explanation, and answers other important questions about our unique species.

The Mind Over Reality Transition (MORT) theory posits that the human species with its uniquely powerful intelligence exists because it evolved to deny unpleasant realities.

If true, this implies that the first step to any positive meaningful change must be to acknowledge our tendency to deny unpleasant realities.

Varki explains his theory here:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-25466-7_6

A nice video summary by Varki is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqgYqW2Kgkg

My interpretations of the theory are here:
https://un-denial.com/denial-2/theory-short/

https://un-denial.com/2015/11/12/undenial-manifesto-energy-and-denial/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

918 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ken Barrows
Ken Barrows
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
January 6, 2022 8:31 am

Does he want to reduce the number of cars on the road? Do I have to read the article to find out?

AJ
AJ
January 3, 2022 9:10 am

Sometimes I don’t know what to think?
I understand (?) denial and MORT, or think I do. It just seems that when you are faced with brilliant individuals who have credibility (in their fields) that espouse crap you just have to shake your head.
I have over the years read the yearly column (more like a mini-book) of David Collum. Chris Martenson who I respect and has a lot of integrity, always posts Collum’s screed (unfair pejorative?) on his website at the first of the year. By posting it I think it calls into question his credibility too??
Oh well, here’s the link to Collum’s screed: https://www.peakprosperity.com/2021-year-in-review-crisis-of-authority-and-the-age-of-narratives-part-1/
Although I find that Collum has some interesting insights, what taints the whole thing is that he is basically a anthropogenic climate change denier. A few years ago he did an “analysis” of the climate change debate and came away with climate change is not a problem (am I wrong in this characterization?). I have problems with PhD’s making bold statements outside their fields of expertise (even Richard Feyman and Steven Hawking were wrong once in a while). Not that every consensus is correct and that the consensus must never be challenged, BUT if there is anything that appears close to ironclad it would be that humanity is in serious ecological overshoot and climate change is one of the results. Am I wrong?
Am I wrong about Collum? I’m not one to think that I have all the answers, but that I’m here to learn too.
AJ

Secretface2097
Secretface2097
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
January 5, 2022 1:31 am

Never heard of Collum before, but his constant self-congratulations in the article make it hard to read. I prefer the humble but informative style of Chris Martenson: https://www.peakprosperity.com/why-2022-is-going-to-suck/

Ken Barrows
Ken Barrows
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
January 6, 2022 8:30 am

He wants to grow his fucking investments

el mar
el mar
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
January 3, 2022 12:59 am

Are the official death-statistics confirming this 40 % up trend? Should be visible!

AJ
AJ
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 30, 2021 3:09 pm

Denial is amazing.
So is hopium, religion, and a multitude of other human foibles. Kinda depressing (or maybe its SAD – Seasonal Affective Disorder – weeks of no sunlight in the PNW). I too am amazed reading all the economic blogs where no one can see the problems with endless growth, limited resources, Ponzi schemes, rampant inequality or how it is all tied to declining low EROEI fossil fuel and it’s polluting byproducts.
Or Covid: where conflicts of interest are never mentioned (unless it is a blatant illegal kickback); integrity is a dirty word; and conformity to the dominant narrative is rewarded.
The whole of Western Civilization is a Megacancer (to borrow a phrase from James) in denial.
Maybe the sun will come out tomorrow (hopium).
AJ

AJ
AJ
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 31, 2021 5:13 am

Yes, the power walks for 5 or 6 miles (with some sun) are great. The fact that we have had 7 days of rain and snow straight are good for the drought but bad for walking. Have to get out soon for another (endorphins are great).
MORT makes the insanity easier to bare/understand on an intellectual level, but it is still psychologically isolating to see all the denial and lack of rationality.
AJ

Phil
December 30, 2021 4:47 am
AJ
AJ
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 27, 2021 11:08 am

After wasting an inordinate amount of time reading Patzek’s post I came to the conclusion he doesn’t understand how tribe oriented he himself is. He self-identifies with the Democratic party and makes them the intelligent tribe whereas the Republican party is the stupid tribe. I see this thinking in many Dems. The problem is not understanding the evolution of tribe identification, psychology, and group think. All tribe thinking has both stupid and intelligent thinking in it (with a lot of denial of opposing views having any legitimacy). Better to be a non-tribe person and look for other non-tribe people and then see if you can have a rational, not steeped in denial, conversation with them. It works at this website and a few others, but obviously not with Patzek.
AJ

Mandrake
Mandrake
Reply to  AJ
December 30, 2021 5:08 pm

So you think you’re special do you? Above it all? What do you think you’re doing when you’re attracting and curating the views of like-minded “rational” un-denial types? ya got yourself a little tribe here Robbie boy.

Mandrake
Mandrake
Reply to  Mandrake
December 30, 2021 5:11 pm

Edit. ha ha… I mean AJ. Follower of Robbie.

Mandrake
Mandrake
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 30, 2021 5:33 pm

I was pointing out what I see as an inconsistency/fallacy in AJ’s comment, “better to look for OTHER non-tribe people.” I dunno…sounds like a social group to me. Some would call it a tribe.

el mar
el mar
December 27, 2021 8:57 am

https://fpif.org/the-selling-of-degrowth/
“Last year, it was the pandemic,” William Rees agrees. “Before that it was climate change and before that it was the economy. The human brain evolved in very simple times when you only had a few people to deal with and you lived in a relatively small space that you couldn’t influence that much. There’s been no natural selection to think in systems terms. Humans cannot anticipate the nature of behavior of most complex systems. We don’t know about thresholds and tipping points until they occur. The COP negotiators, who were policy wonks, economists, and politicians not climate scientists, had no real understanding of the complexity of interacting climate, economic and ecosphere systems—or else they wouldn’t have come to the conclusions they came to.”

Phil
Reply to  el mar
December 30, 2021 3:02 am

el mar, great article, thanks.

AJ
AJ
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 24, 2021 5:15 am

Rob,
Thanks for this web site, it is a friendly harbor in the storm of collapse. I remember a post by someone years ago who lived in San Francisco. They talked about leaving work and going out to their 6oo sq.ft. house in the Sunset District (close to the beach on the Pacific ocean in SF). They talked about stopping at a small local market and after some time thinking about what they wanted for dinner buying a bottle of red wine some chicken and assorted vegetables. At his house he then prepared the dinner and thought that in his life (and the choices presented) he had more material comfort and satisfaction than almost any king in any age up until the present. AND he was satisfied.
Amazing what a little fossil energy will do for you.
Merry Christmas
AJ

AJ
AJ
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 23, 2021 4:15 am

This was a very interesting video. It’s sad the the video had to start with one of those terrible intros with Hawking making nonsense about god. This is a phenomenal feat of engineering. If it works it might even surpass the Martian landers. They too had engineering that had to work and had could never be tested on earth AND the Martian lander programs had many failures. Rob, I know you think putting people on the moon was tougher, but I think that is debatable. Sadly the lead engineer ends the program with all that Star Trek fantasy stuff (building telescopes in space in the future). NASA must have an official denial theme by refusing to see the impossibility of never enough energy for those dreams. Denial is strong.
AJ

Phil
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 30, 2021 3:06 am

Hi Rob, HNY, thanks for your blog, I’ve learned a lot here.

This telescope is fascinating. I keep thinking that mankind will figure it all out about 10 minutes we snuff ourselves out; the big AH HA moment followed quickly by the big KABOOM!

Phil
Reply to  Phil
December 30, 2021 3:09 am

10 minutes before

Mandrake
Mandrake
December 21, 2021 3:28 pm

And now for something completely different…..longtermism. Have ya heard of it? Denial dovetailing into SF fantasy? or is there something to it? My gloss on it…a lot of these dudes, Bolstom et al are channeling Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy and H. Seldon. The Galactic Empire wet dream. No need to worry about overshoot and global warming on planet Earth. Thems just growing pains.

Excerpt – Phil Torres:
“To summarise these ideas so far, humanity has a ‘potential’ of its own, one that transcends the potentials of each individual person, and failing to realise this potential would be extremely bad – indeed, as we will see, a moral catastrophe of literally cosmic proportions. This is the central dogma of longtermism: nothing matters more, ethically speaking, than fulfilling our potential as a species of ‘Earth-originating intelligent life’. It matters so much that longtermists have even coined the scary-sounding term ‘existential risk’ for any possibility of our potential being destroyed, and ‘existential catastrophe’ for any event that actually destroys this potential.

Why do I think this ideology is so dangerous? The short answer is that elevating the fulfilment of humanity’s supposed potential above all else could nontrivially increase the probability that actual people – those alive today and in the near future – suffer extreme harms, even death. Consider that, as I noted elsewhere, the longtermist ideology inclines its adherents to take an insouciant attitude towards climate change. Why? Because even if climate change causes island nations to disappear, triggers mass migrations and kills millions of people, it probably isn’t going to compromise our longterm potential over the coming trillions of years. If one takes a cosmic view of the situation, even a climate catastrophe that cuts the human population by 75 per cent for the next two millennia will, in the grand scheme of things, be nothing more than a small blip – the equivalent of a 90-year-old man having stubbed his toe when he was two.”

h/t Thomas Metzinger

https://aeon.co/essays/why-longtermism-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-secular-credo?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0d691568e2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_10_18_05_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0d691568e2-69550449

Mandrake
Mandrake
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 21, 2021 8:14 pm

The needle on my optimism Geiger counter registered slight movement at the mention of pyramids. It must be the Christmas season that you are not forecasting total annihilation and leaving open the possibility of a Paleolithic future.

gwb
gwb
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 21, 2021 8:56 pm

I keep thinking of Richard Duncan’s Olduvai theory page on dieoff.com, with the quote by Fred Hoyle:

“It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only.” (cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle, University of Washington, 1964)

Secretface2097
Secretface2097
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 21, 2021 12:28 am

I have skimmed through the presentation. They sum up very well my primary doubts about the Pfizer vaccine trials:
1. Improper composition of participants (age and co-morbidities)
2. No effect on all-cause-mortality in the vaccine group

What they have missed from my point of view is the low number of participants that died due to or with Covid (only 3 out of 44000 people in a period of 6 months). This should also be an indicator that Covid is not that dangerous for younger, healthy people.

What was new to me is the issue with the large number of persons with a suspected but unconfirmed outcome. They dwarf the group of confirmed cases. How is this even possible?

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 20, 2021 9:36 am

Yep. The left’s current version of this is that “sustainable growth is possible and wind and solar will save us.” To their credit, it’s the consensus of experts who are in denial here and are primarily to blame.

monkmil
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 20, 2021 1:53 pm

The right have become really good at taking half a truth and adding another half of spin. For example, they’ll say our civilisation can’t work without oil (correct), so that means peak oil and climate change aren’t true (what logic!).
The left on the other hand, have trashed themselves over the last 10 years with nonsense and absolutism, e.g., sex is a spectrum, vaccines are 100% safe, solar panels can save the planet, blah blah blah…
I suspect that whichever parties get braver about telling the truth, will do better over the coming decade. But I ain’t taking bets on that LOL. I’m a swing voter so it always is hard for me to understand how people can be so loyal to a political side

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  monkmil
December 20, 2021 7:38 pm

I wish you were right (re: telling the truth). I have predicted and continue to expect quite the opposite: I expect rampant mass delusions. Our predicaments will be blamed on politics, gods, and any manner of idiocy.

AJ
AJ
Reply to  theblondbeast
December 21, 2021 4:42 am

Sadly, I think it will be mostly blamed on the “other” group (whatever tribe is not talking). Rarely does the left blame itself (it’s Trump!) or the right (left wing elitists!). When you are in the other group you are in danger.
AJ

Secretface2097
Secretface2097
Reply to  monkmil
December 21, 2021 12:34 am

There is a lot of denial going on in the whole political spectrum. At least the so called right wing sees that the current energy policy only leads into decline of living standards. Unfortunately, they do not draw the right consequences from this by insisting to just go on with burning the remaining fossil fuels and extend nuclear power, which brings with it its own major problems.

Secretface2097
Secretface2097
December 20, 2021 7:42 am

Another great video by JP Sears:

Mandrake
Mandrake
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 21, 2021 3:57 pm

uhh…does that mean it’s bad to wear two condoms at once? Maybe this is a better question for Dr. Ruth.

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 20, 2021 7:28 pm

That sounds about right!

scarr0w
December 19, 2021 6:15 am

Varki and MORT get a nod over at Albert Bates site this morning, amongst some other dark broodings.

AJ
AJ
Reply to  scarr0w
December 19, 2021 9:18 am

Wow, even a link back to this site in Bates’ broodings. https://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/
He did a decent job of discussing T. Murphy’s textbook also. However, I think his conclusions – a possible 3rd way- of transitioning into some kind of “metaverse” were delusional. But then he pedaled that back with the: “while resources are still available to support the energy-intensive meta-infrastructure, and, oh, climate catastrophe could still be averted” rejoinder. Nonsense it seems to me.
AJ

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 19, 2021 7:24 pm

…and destroy the control group!

AJ
AJ
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 18, 2021 12:44 pm

Knowing next to nothing about economics. . . these guys explanation about what is driving “inflation” – energy prices, vehicle prices and helicopter money seems to make sense. They didn’t say high energy prices were due to the falling EROEI for fossil fuels – i.e. depletion. They also didn’t address asset price inflation (housing & the stock market) which would seem to be based on the Fed. I think Mac10 has a more accurate take on both regular “inflation” and asset price inflation and how this is all going to play out. Am I wrong or is my ignorance showing??
AJ

Ken Barrows
Ken Barrows
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 20, 2021 8:36 am

And because he doesn’t, the only reason to follow is for entertainment

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 19, 2021 7:32 pm

I’ll beat my drum again here – why does he only talk about birth rates, not death rates? Birth rates are lower than ever – let’s knocke ’em down a bit more, but primarily raise the death rates! Half kidding.

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
December 17, 2021 9:15 am

I have to strongly disagree with his denial here:

43:48 “We need to implement a non-coercive family planning/population program starting with better education and economic independence for women.”

This is both logically and physically impossible. For instance, much of the world lives under conditions in which education and independence for women is limited by law and culture in societies which can’t be influenced without coercion on the international level.

Even if this were possible it would be way too slow.

Not only that, but we are behaving irrationally by subsidizing the continuation of overpopulation by supporting the poor, especially the poor with children.

Furthermore, increases in education and independence are the consequences of increasing prosperity, which will be unable to be continued.

A third problem is that any increases in energy for education or governmental intrusion into the labor force and private relationships requires coercion of taxation, indoctrination or force.

A fourth, and by no means final, problem is that many peoples “plan” is to have a large family and rely on various forms of government support to get by.

I think anyone wanting to be a clear thinker has to admit that coercion is necessary for any change to happen. Stop lying about it and admit who one is willing to coerce and with what means.

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  theblondbeast
December 17, 2021 9:30 am

…The other side of the population issue is the death rate. I’d also add that it should be considered. Something like “We must stop providing life-extending health care to those who are not able to physically labor in the economy.”

My basic point is that people who discuss population try retain a moral high ground through the out of assuming we can have a birth reduction policy. We cannot – people are going to suffer and die at higher rates in the future than in the recent past. This is going to happen even if we do nothing. Any of our interventions will change the mix of who is going to suffer, and how soon they are going to do so. So suck it up and be honest.

Personally, I think we have to do it all if we want hope:

Decrease birth rate
Increase death rate

by

Encourage no children or small families financially
Let all large families live without recourse to outside aid (this will increase all-cause mortality and crime)
Allow the death rate to increase naturally by limiting medical care

If one thinks this is harsh I agree, but it pales in comparison to the alternatives as I see it.

For instance, if we pursue these solutions in a weaker way than our military opponents they will attack and destroy us and solve the problem their own way.

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 19, 2021 7:14 pm

Have we talked about pet ownership here? Forgive me if I’ve forgotten – it’s a dismal subject when you consider the amount of domestic dogs and cats (especially) we have in terms of resource use.

monkmil
December 16, 2021 8:57 pm

Well I just got my second jab, so fingers crossed for the best 🙂 I have decided I will not be getting boosters. Just want to be covered when covid rips through NZ, then learning to live with it. Plus I can’t do summer without bars and cafes LOL. The vaccine mandates make me feel pretty anxious; I don’t like them at all!

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  monkmil
December 17, 2021 8:26 am

Good luck – it’s a tough call. Though originally vax’d with J&J I’ve started getting pressure to get boosters, which I’d rather not. I got sick earlier this week – better now, and it wasn’t COVID. But I had my moments of doubt whether I had made the right decision re boosters – as it would have ruined my Christmas plans to travel and see family if so. Lot’s of elderly and some with high risk conditions.

AJ
AJ
Reply to  theblondbeast
December 17, 2021 2:56 pm

I like you was originally vax’d with J&J. Got Covid 5 months later (probably Delta), was sick -as-a-dog for 3 days (took Ivermectin -horse paste) and recovered ok. Now I worry about antigenic SIN. Not going to get the booster. Trying to improve my health (I was already pretty fit with no comorbidities), no more drinking, less fat in the diet, more whole foods and lots of exercise.
Boosters I am going to avoid – not sure if that is the right call.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
AJ

monkmil
Reply to  theblondbeast
December 19, 2021 12:53 pm

Thank you theblondbeast. I’m feeling absolutely fine after the jabs. No symptoms apart from a sore arm and that is better now 🙂 I think once you get Covid AJ you will have the natural immunity and be much better protected 🙂

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  monkmil
December 19, 2021 7:13 pm

Glad to hear you’re doing well! Hard to make these choices, and happy to hear when friends – near or far – do well with theirs!

AJ
AJ
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 16, 2021 12:19 pm

Yeah, we are on the airborne train from “Runaway” above. Now just wait for us to hit the ground. No soft landing.
AJ

notabilia
December 16, 2021 3:34 am

The distress in Bill Rees’ demeanor in the Zoom is affecting. He seems to be a genuinely nice fellow, and his slides are extremely well-chosen and damning – until the picture of the gulag apartment depicting humanity’s self-chosen future abode.
Where is the picture of the political mechanism that gets us to this “controlled degrowth”? Like the picture of the homunculus inside each of us that must be produced to demonstrate the existence of free will, it’s not there in Rees’s slides because it doesn’t exist, and will never exist.
This is the sad self-delusion that plagues the Real New Green Dealers, the Bright Green Lies saboteurs, Richard Heinberg, the panoply of polymaths and eco-thinkers and blog-activists that cannot put their toes into the waters of sociology. Charles H. Anderson did in his 1976 masterpiece “Sociology of Survival,” though I am led to believe by a commenter in r/collapse that he killed himself because, in part of course, no one wanted to hear him.
Fossil fuel humanity is not going to transition to gulag apartment dweller. It will burn brightly, then die. That goes for me and my partner as well. That’s just the way life is going to go, my friends.

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 17, 2021 8:41 am

Since it was an academic book I’ve only been able to find it through sources like open library. Some of these are free subscription services. Looks like a good read. Amazon U.S. has some hard copies available used for about $7.00

monkmil
Reply to  notabilia
December 16, 2021 1:16 pm

Here are some of my 2-cents ideas for getting people moving on our predicament:
– Use language like, ‘many people have this worry’ or ‘lots of people have doubts about…’ We are convinced by something the more other people believe it.
– Use the ‘diversity of thought’ card. We give all the airtime to optimists. Isn’t it fair to give some attention to the pessimists as well? You don’t have to believe all the doom and gloom, but what if they’re right about some things?
– Promote the ways to “get rich” in the future. Hear me out, getting people to invest in the right things for selfish reasons. Like the tall boats for shipping, setting up local mills and textile production. You won’t make a return now, but you’re positioning yourself to be a winner in the future. The fear of missing out makes people act. What if you’re missing out on positioning yourself for the future that will be?
– Use idioms and common phrases. E.g., ‘what goes up, must come down’.
– Find values in common and work from there. Grand theories of NTHE and ciz collapse are not palatable to many. Instead talk about worsening problems and the values we share in common, like living a good life, looking after the vulnerable. I find people one-on-one are very receptive to talking about single issue problems and are often much more concerned about these problems than media would have us believe.
– History shows many examples where paradigms change only after the population has experienced a massive upheaval. I think some tried to inspire that with the pandemic by talking about building back better etc. But that was hijacked by globalists, and people can see the elite were just trying to do more of the same command and control. A real physical change has to occur. I have a suspicion that this will be when the first essential mineral is no longer available at all.
– Use history to show the benefits of things changing / breaking down. Such as Roman citizens following barbarian warloads because life was actually better with them than in the failing empire. Or Europeans escaping their society to go back to a native American tribe that had kidnapped them. We need more common stories about how life outside of our own way of life isn’t all terrible and miserable. Our way of life is pretty damn good, but it’s not to say other ways of living are a disaster.
– Use jokes about economists to keep discrediting them. E.g. Q. What’s the difference between a broken clock and an economist? A. At least the clock is right twice a day. Q. What do you call an economist who makes a predication? A. Wrong. Economists were invented to make weather forecasters and astrologers look good. Economics is the only field in which two people can share a “Nobel Prize” for saying the complete opposite. https://economicscience.net/content/JokEc/

I would also recommend this ‘how to have impossible conversations’: https://www.peakprosperity.com/peter-boghossian-how-to-have-impossible-conversations/

I would recommend especially for Americans, but most Westerners, to stop thinking of your politics in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of gloabalised/centralised/localised; or democratic/authoritarian.

notabilia
Reply to  monkmil
December 17, 2021 11:09 am

To use the term “humanity” in just about any context whatsoever, is to be a “globalist.”
Every human alive now, except for the last hunter/forager remnants, are globalists in all senses of the term, from the shoes they wear to the food they eat to the oxygne they breathe.
What the lunatic, idiotic worldwide right means in trying to use the term as a pejorative – I have no idea what’s cooking in such anti-humanist stupidity.
I’d recommend staying away as much as possible from these morons – and that includes Peter Boghossian.

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  notabilia
December 17, 2021 1:59 pm

I think you’re exaggerating by way of conflating a broad truth (e.g. we are all part of the same thermodynamic, climate or ecosystem) with more narrow classifications (e.g. being part of the same economic system, or subject to the same laws).

The indigenous farmer wearing hand-me-down Nike’s he got from the Red Cross is not a globalist “in all senses of the terms” in the same way as an international corporation using the legal system to avoid taxation and simultaneous funneling money through charitable organizations to influence local politics. Rather, it’s in a more limited sense that we are all part of a global political or economic system. Some want this trend to grow, others want it to retract.

A fine case study is the 1999 protests of the World Trade Organization, lead at the time primarily by an often uneasy coalition of left-leaning constituents.

I think pushing for autarchy is worthwhile. This used to be a strong union position, and a major thread in various forms of anarchism and communism. You could consider this anti-globalist. It seems most who propose solutions are proposing solutions of international governmental intervention and public/private partnerships of international corporations. Since I think the risk is existential, it may be better to not put all our eggs in one basket.

notabilia
Reply to  theblondbeast
December 17, 2021 2:29 pm

If I’m “conflating” things, I’ll blame my misuse of the air pressure gauge – press in and hold down, rather than press down and hold in?
I also guess you agree the proverbial indigenous farmer is indeed a globalist. Maybe not in the same way as the Bezo/Musk criminal syndicate , but I’m sure the Trumpians want to do in the indigenous farmer in some manner for daring to contemplate rights and lives of folks in other parts of the world.
The 1990 WTO action-adventure sure succeeded in stopping the rise of global transnational capital, eh?
You mentioned autarchy, anarchism, and communism. I believe if you check for a pulse in those theories of political organization, they are all dead. And as for the eggs in one basket, there’s going to be no eggs in any basket in certain places soon – just check out r/collapse for some news item to that effect.

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  notabilia
December 17, 2021 7:30 pm

I agree most strongly with your last statements and follow r/collapse religiously. My main contention was that you were applying a political angle where one doesn’t belong.

Conflating means to combine – you were combining things which should (rationally) be kept separate. It may just be rhetoric, which is fine.

But the main point is that opposition to globalization – or globalists (those supporting increased globalization) – began as a left wing agenda in the not too distant past.

There is no cause to blame a political right in this transition of anti-globalism from one party to another. And certainly, no international political right now exists on any degree to which an international communist interest block ever existed. For instance, what right wing nation is currently supplying arms and funds to developing nations in opposition to global neoliberalists?

And finally, autarchy is resurgent in both Brexit and Trumpism – whether it’s a reasonable goal or not, I’m not sure. But I certainly support the impulse toward self sufficiency and local autonomy, as opposed to international markets and reliance on global governance. This may just be a projection at large of my own desire for self sufficiency as a hope against future hardship.

Again, I don’t think this is any salvation, but I like to not put all our eggs in one basket.

And, no, an indigenous person wearing free Nikes is not a “globalist” in any reasonable sense of the world. If you simply mean “everyone is effected by global markets” that’s fine, and I agree – just no need to be so rhetorical about it.

notabilia
Reply to  theblondbeast
December 18, 2021 3:51 am

Thanks for the considered reply.
If you look at the Google Ngram for “conflate,” you’ll see it virtually invisible up until 1980, and thus during my formative youth. We knew “inflate” and “deflate,” and could do those actions at the convenience store air pump. The last 40 years has seen an exponential “inflate” of the use of “conflate,” and I, for one, don’t like it, even though I know what it means, thank you very much.
And on that score, the correct spellings are “bloc” and “affected.”
Good luck with your drive for self-sufficiency. I don’t see it happening for what John Gowdy terms an “ultrasocial animal,” but r/collapse always has relevant news and funny comments to lighten our load.

monkmil
Reply to  notabilia
December 19, 2021 1:02 pm

I think you get more value out of a conversation when you try and get the gist of what someone is saying, rather than nitpicking at small details. I love how Rob says with everyone there is some wheat and some chaff

notabilia
Reply to  monkmil
December 19, 2021 2:09 pm

If the almighty fossil-fuel internet is here to spread the virtues of pabulum, then maybe so.
Is there anything to be said, in your mind, for “nitpicking” at the BIG details?

monkmil
Reply to  notabilia
December 19, 2021 6:20 pm

Your comments remind me of old school trolling on YouTube LOL. Sometimes I tell myself, “relax Mon, it’s only the end of the world.” 😉

notabilia
Reply to  monkmil
December 20, 2021 3:00 pm

Absolutely, mon, we’re all just pounding electrons into the void. Keep on fighting, my man.

theblondbeast
theblondbeast
Reply to  notabilia
December 19, 2021 7:08 pm

Thanks for the corrections – and I agree with you that self sufficiency is unlikely to succeed. We all have to pass the time somehow!

Brian
Brian
Reply to  notabilia
December 30, 2021 7:46 pm

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.
~Orwell

or, for a prelude of a vision of the colossal failure we are in store for, you could do no better than to watch Threads, a British docu-drama released in…ahem…1984.
https://archive.org/details/threads_202007
(Not for the faint of heart)

CampbellS
December 15, 2021 11:39 pm

I watched this talk by Bill Rees a couple of days ago and agree it is excellent. I shared it on LinkedIn (I’m a recovering sustainability professional) and….. nothing.

As a follow up I received in my inbox today an email from Megan Seibert of The Real Green New Deal initiative which Rees and Alice Friedemann are also involved in. The email included this link to a Citizens Warning on Overshoot and Collapse open to signing by any citizen of the world. The warning is a collaboration with the authors of Bright Green Lies. https://www.realgnd.org/citizens-warning

I signed it for what it’s worth. There’s plenty of cross over with your “What would a wise society do?” post.

Rob I greatly appreciate your efforts on this site. I’ve shared links and snippets from it often amongst my former colleagues in the sustainability field. The messages are too uncomfortable for most which provides more weight to the denial of reality theory.

monkmil
December 15, 2021 5:14 pm

This is doing the rounds on LinkedIn. The climate activists are up in arms about how evil BP is. BP is jumping on the greenwashing marketing bandwagon. I say – read between the lines! BP are divesting from oil because it’s running out.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/reimagining-energy/bernard-looney-time-magazine-interview.html?utm_source=bpPS&utm_medium=%5Blinkedin%5D&utm_campaign=time

Jerry McManus
Jerry McManus
December 15, 2021 5:06 pm

I’ve noticed that Youtube doesn’t seem to like comments with links in them, might want to double check that your comment actually got posted because I’m not seeing it.

Sam Hopkins
Sam Hopkins
December 15, 2021 2:15 pm

Rob Where is link to the Rees presentation? Sam Hopkins

>

Secretface2097
Secretface2097
Reply to  Rob Mielcarski
December 16, 2021 4:12 am

“I still seriously wonder if part of the reason for our over-reaction to covid is an instinctual response to scarcity. Locking down and working from home helps delay the effects of peak oil without our brains having to acknowledge reality.”

I have had similar thoughts, but I was thinking that our leaders should be aware of the issue of the contraction of available energy and used Covid as a distraction or cover up for this issue. I must admit though that I am very sceptical of our leaders in general, therefore I’m very sensitive to possible conspiracies. I could also envision that this is driven on a more subconscious level as you have proposed.

1 2 3 8