Two Different Perspectives – Same Conclusion: Modern Lifestyles Will End Soon

Dr. Berndt Warm’s Perspective

Thanks to Marromai for finding this new paper by physicist Dr. Berndt Warm.

Dr. Warm uses 5 different methods, 4 relying on economics, and 1 on thermodynamics, to predict when the end of oil production and motor vehicle production will occur. All 5 methods roughly converge on 2030 as the year when modern lifestyles end.

The essay was written in German and translated to English which explains any awkward phrasing.

Warm’s conclusion agrees with my 15 years of study of many different sources which converge on oil production being down by about 50% in 2030. Because our current system requires growth not to collapse, it is plausible that predicting a 50% decline is the same as predicting a 100% decline.

Our world is of course far too complex to make precise predictions, and unexpected events like a pandemic or nuclear war can dramatically change the outcome, however for planning purposes it seems reasonable to assume we have about 5 years left to prepare for a new way of life.

Abstract

Evaluation of five data sets concerning car production, oil prices converted in energy values gives lifespan approximations for the car industry and the oil industry. The result is that the car industry will last only until 2027 and the oil industry some years more.

Here are a few excerpts from the paper:

The author interprets the line of maxima as the oil price that the industrialized countries can afford to the maximum while maintaining their lifestyle. He interprets the line of minima as the price of oil that the producing countries need to keep their economies running. In mid-2019, the author noticed this crossroads and expected a crisis in 2020, although he was completely unclear what kind of crisis it would be. He didn’t expect Corona.

The inhabitants of the industrialized countries are now realizing that their lifestyle is at risk. The line of the maxima will reach the zero line (0%BOE) around mid-2027. From then on, the inhabitants of the industrialized countries can no longer afford oil without giving up many things of daily life. The demand of the oil producers is then 13-14 %BOE. These two values are incompatible.

Result: The extrapolation of oil prices shows that from 2022 the lifestyle in the industrialized countries will degrade, and that after 2027 the inhabitants of the industrialized countries will hardly be able to pay for oil or its products.

The fall in the price of crude oil from 2008 to 2020 with the extreme price increase since 2021 is an absolute alarm signal! Soon there will be no more crude oil affordable, no matter for which economy in the world!

Summary

Procedures 1, 2 and 4 are extrapolations of economic data of the past. Method 3 is a link between oil prices and car production. Method 5 is a calculation based on a law of physics.

The five calculation methods result in:

  1. End of world motor vehicle production between 2031 and 2034.
  2. End of oil production in 2027.
  3. End of worldwide sales of motor vehicles in 2027.
  4. End of German vehicle production in 2027.
  5. End of oil production in 2029.

The results are not the same, but in the end the same thing comes out. All five procedures show that vehicle production and oil production will continue to collapse in the coming years. Vehicle production will disappear first. Oil production later, as the world’s existing fleet will continue to consume crude oil, even if no new vehicles are added. It is to be expected, that the crude oil production will decrease slowly until 2027, and after that very fast.

And: Oil will be extremely expensive by 2027 at the latest!

Dr. Simon Michaux’s Perspective

For those still hoping that a transition to non-fossil energy will extend our modern lifestyles, I point you to the following recent work of mining engineer Dr. Simon Michaux which shows our planet has insufficient affordable resources to implement an energy transition plan that maintains our current lifestyles.

The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels, is much larger than first thought. Current mining production of these metals is not even close to meeting demand. Current reported mineral reserves are also not enough in size. Most concerning is copper as one of the flagged shortfalls. Exploration for more at required volumes will be difficult, with this seminar addressing these issues.

Simon Michaux is an Associate Professor of Geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland in the Circular Economy Solutions Unit. Holding a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Physics and Geology and a PhD in Mining Engineering from the University of Queensland, Simon has extensive experience in mining research and development, circular economic principles, industrial recycling, and mineral intelligence. Through his recent publications, Simon has outlined the many challenges facing the global industrial ecosystem. He notes our world is currently energy and minerals blind and transitioning to renewable energies is not as straightforward as it appears.

We’ve been growing without care to planetary limits for too long and change is coming, whether we like it or not. We need a completely new energy paradigm to address the challenges ahead, and as Simon says, it all starts with a conversation. We cover a lot of ground in this one, so grab a notebook and strap in for an important conversation – this is one you’ll want to listen to more than once.

On this episode, we meet with Associate Professor of Geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland, Dr. Simon Michaux. Why do humans ignore important mineral and material limits that will affect human futures? Dr. Michaux reveals how we are “minerals blind” — and the consequences of this myopia. To shed light on the effects of our minerals blindness, Dr. Michaux explores the disconnect between experts in renewable energy and economic and government leaders. Dr. Michaux offers individual strategies for us to overcome our energy and minerals blindness. How can we learn to adapt in order to overcome the coming challenges?

Dr. Simon Michaux is an Associate Professor of Geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland. He has a PhD in mining engineering. Dr. Michaux’s long-term work is on societal transformation toward a circular economy.

BenjaminTheDonkey’s Perspective

BenjaminTheDonkey today nicely captures a common theme I observe everywhere in the world today: We are collectively losing our minds; perhaps because unpleasant realities are overwhelming the denial circuit in our brains?

Alarmist? 


The powers that be won’t admit

We’re heading straight to our obit; 

So it isn’t strange we

Can already see

People are losing their shit. 

 

What is its cause at the root? 

Whom might we persecute?

From an objective view,

It’s logically true 

The reason is just overshoot.

496 thoughts on “Two Different Perspectives – Same Conclusion: Modern Lifestyles Will End Soon”

  1. In case you missed it, this is a superb talk by Tim Watkins explaining the history and relationships between energy, the economy, and overshoot.

    I especially liked his insight that central banks sometimes worsen the outcome by mistaking oil shortage driven price increases for monetary inflation and then increase the interest rate when debtors can least afford to pay more.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I was pleased to see that Tom Murphy included a link to my interview with him for EcoRadio KC. I continue to be an occasional host for that show though I’m finding it difficult to project the “positive solutions” we claim to be presenting.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes it is very difficult to find positive responses. Except of course population reduction which improves every problem we face and therefore should be attractive to every aware person regardless of which aspect of overshoot they focus on, including those who think we are screwed no matter what we do because population reduction will reduce the total suffering which is a worthwhile goal on its own.

          Like

  2. This is an older summary of an article about population planning in german language, fom Peter Mersch:

    Click to access coo3Z1coovar_fileupload_url1_eZ238626Z3bevoelkerungsplanung.pdf

    The article argues for an efficient global and internationally coordinated population planning and shows that such a thing could be feasible without interfering with personal rights. Population planning 1 Population planning Population planning is an unattractive word. And because it is so unattractive, scientists, the media and politicians prefer to bury their heads in the sand instead of taking a neutral look at this topic, which is so fundamentally important for the future of humanity.

    2,000 years ago – around the birth of Christ – a total of 160 million people lived on earth. The first billion was exceeded around 1800, then in 1927 already the second. The next billion was reached at ever shorter intervals: three billion in 1960, four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987 and six billion in 1999. At the beginning of 2007, there were about 6.7 billion people living on Earth. In other words: Exactly the exponential population growth occurred, which already caused Thomas Robert Malthus great worries. For the sake of simplicity, I will assume that population figures remain stable at a fertility rate of 2.1 (i.e. an average of 2.1 children per woman). At present, this is approximately the case, but it was not true for the past, when the mortality of children was much higher than today, so that higher fertility rates were necessary to maintain a stable population size.

    But I want to keep the following considerations deliberately simple and therefore assume that population maintenance is basically achieved at a fertility rate of 2.1. If we assume a generation time of 30 years, then it follows from the assumptions made that the world population has reproduced on average at a fertility rate of 2.22 for 2,000 years, i.e. somewhat more than stock-conserving. You may be surprised now, because 2.22 is not that much more than 2.1, and yet the effect is huge. Well, if it would go on like so far, then in the year 4000, thus after again 2,000 years, on the earth 264 billion humans would live. And that’s where the fun really stops. Thomas Robert Malthus 2 Population planning Or could it perhaps be a little more, for example a fertility rate of 2.3?

    Then, in the year 4000, almost three trillion people would be living on earth. Or pile up on top of each other. However, there is also the opposite phenomenon on Earth: population shrinkage. At present, it is primarily the developed countries that are affected, but it has also hit many emerging economies, and many population experts believe that the global population explosion will come to a halt after 2050 at perhaps 9 or 10 billion people, after which the earth’s population could even shrink overall. But at what rate? At present, almost all developed countries have fertility rates that are significantly too low, especially in Europe. Sweden and Great Britain are considered to be satisfactory to exemplary (whenever Germany talks about birth rates, Sweden has to serve as a model). Both countries had a fertility rate of about 1.67 in 2008. If the earth’s population were to reproduce at a fertility rate of 1.67 for the next 2,000 years, it would shrink to about 1,500 people by the year 4,000, assuming a generation time of 30 years.

    Once again in words and for the record: One thousand five hundred! Perhaps you believe however rather, the world population could behave in such a way like the Germans, and reproduce only with a fertility rate of approx. 1.4. Even better, because then exactly zero humans remain in the year 4000. Extinct one calls that. Therefore, you can also put it this way: a fertility rate of 2.22 like the last 2,000 years leads to overpopulation, species extinction, environmental damage, climate change, war, terrorism, poverty, hunger, one of 1.67 like that of the Swedes in 2008 to extinction. Mankind therefore has the choice between plague and cholera.

    Saludos

    el mar

    Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

    Like

    1. Another interesting book:

      From “kerstin” on limitstogrowth.net, deepl translated::

      “Eckart Knaul came in the course of his life to the biological law of mass action and wrote a book about it.
      In it, he comes to the conclusion that with too high population density from a certain point humans affirm everything which leads to the reduction and reject everything which prevents this.
      Since nature-driven also from the cerebrum not to influence or even to prevent.
      If I look at today’s mass movements and their demands or beliefs, then all, without exception all, are directed downward.
      People to whom this seems absurd (remark from el mar: like you, Rob), crazy or induced delusional and scratch their heads without finding an explanation for this behavior are brake blocks of the reduction.

      For this, nature has provided, until the balance is restored, the elimination of the brake blocks.
      By wearing out and early death or by elimination by the masses.”

      Review on Amazon:

      “Anyone who wants to understand the state of our society today must have read this book and the sequence of moral decay of values described in it. The author discusses logically and conclusively with the help of many practical examples how we humans are also subject to natural laws without even being aware of them.”

      Saludos

      el mar

      Like

      1. Eckart Knaul:
        “In socially living mammals, which usually establish a social hierarchy, the collapse of the population and the new beginning is forced by a chain of events dictated by nature : the crowding of the overpopulation leads to a striving for equality and the destruction of the social hierarchy. By destroying this hierarchy, the population becomes incapable of action and the distressed individuals fall over each other. “

        Like

  3. Just thought this post by Karl Denninger on ChatGPT was quite interesting. I believe his history includes being CEO of an ISP that he sold to some other company and made a good some of money. He has a background in tech. I liked his conclusions about ChatGPT in that they reinforce my own suspicion that computers will never think like organic brains. They might imitate thinking because of vast computing power but a skillful questioner can expose them.
    Thoughts?
    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=247817

    AJ

    Like

    1. I read it and think Denninger is partially right and partially wrong.

      I agree that AI will never match the abilities of a good human brain however that misses the important point. AI is already good enough to fool the majority of citizens who have no understanding how the world works, and lacking critical thinking skills, are happy to believe whatever “experts/leaders” tell them. This means AI combined with social media will cause of LOT of mischief.

      I think AI will soon be capable of “creating” new content like poetry, music, and art that many citizens will like and thus will put many creators out of work. The majority of songs on the Billboard Hot 100 are already crap and sound like they are computer generated, yet that’s what citizens apparently prefer these days.

      I disagree with Denninger that ChatGPT has been carefully trained to toe the line. AI’s are trained by pointing them at large data sets and letting them build models. His observation that ChatGPT ignores medical facts is consistent with the fact that the majority of health information from medical journals and the news media is incorrect. For example, animal fat is demonized, sugar is ignored, statins are essential, and all vaccines regardless of their underlying technology are safe and effective.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Sean Carroll recently interviewed Dr. Adam Bulley who argues that the unique human ability to imagine future scenarios is key to explaining the gulf between humans and other intelligent species.

    It seems to me this theory adds weight to my disagreement with Dr. Varki who thinks our extended theory of mind explains the gulf.

    Both an extended theory of mind and the ability to visualize future scenarios cause us to become aware of our mortality and thus both create a barrier to evolution that can be breached by simultaneously evolving a tendency to deny unpleasant realities.

    I argue that the barrier results from increased CPU power that is required for an extended theory of mind, and the ability to envision the future, and symbolic language, and mathematics skills, and planning skills, etc., etc..

    Increased CPU power is a much better description of the barrier than the more narrow explanation of an extended theory of mind.

    https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/01/02/221-adam-bulley-on-how-mental-time-travel-makes-us-human/

    One of the most powerful of all human capacities is the ability to imagine ourselves in hypothetical situations at different times. We can remember the past, but also conjure up possible futures that haven’t yet happened. This simple ability underlies our capability to organize socially and make contracts with other people. Today’s guest, psychologist Adam Bulley, argues that it’s the primary feature that makes us recognizably human, as he argues in the new book The Invention of Tomorrow: A Natural History of Foresight (with Thomas Suddendorf and Jonathan Redshaw).

    Liked by 1 person

  5. UK age stratified all cause death data shows higher deaths associated with covid vaccination

    cliff notes:

    – one must assess full risk/reward to accurately gauge a medical intervention

    – this bar is especially high for vaccines given to the healthy

    – by may 2022 having ever taken a covid vaxx was associated with 22-74% greater all cause mortality vs being unvaccinated and this was true in ALL age stratifications.

    – risk rates were still rising when publication of this data series was discontinued and could well be higher now

    – some benefit against “death by covid” was still in evidence but was rapidly diminishing and was clearly either being miscounted or swamped by some other form of mortality.

    – this implies deeply negative overall risk/reward from covid vaccines and raises pointed questions about their continued promotion and the processes by which they were approved. there was no age group in which they were associated with overall mortality benefit.

    this leads to a very pointy question:

    just who is “public health” protecting here? because it certainly does not seem like “the public.”

    we cannot unring this bell, but we can at least secure the clapper and prevent further damage. these products have looked problematic from the very beginning and really should have been pulled the minute we saw they were non-sterilizing. leaky vaccines are very dangerous and to spread them this widely so quickly really puts us off the edge of the map in terms of what comes next.

    herd level antigenic fixation is not something humanity has ever grappled with before and that could be with us for a long time.

    https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/uk-age-stratified-all-cause-death

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I’ve made this point before but it continues to fascinate me.

    When I was young, periodic economic recessions were a normal and expected occurrence. Since the 2008 GFC I have watched pretty much every analyst with a functioning brain predict a severe recession “soon” and yet nothing happened.

    Why?

    My guess is that our leaders are petrified of the next downturn because they know once our economy looses its footing there is a long way to fall and no way to climb back up, so they have taken extraordinary measures to prevent a slip.

    Including (maybe) launching (or taking advantage of) a virus to reduce non-essential energy consumption, and to provide cover for social order control mechanisms, and an excuse for printing a gazillion dollars. When the virus plan ran its natural course they then provoked a war with the world’s biggest energy exporter to provide an excuse for energy shortages, thus avoiding a market panic, and another excuse for printing another gazillion dollars.

    What’s next?

    Gail Tverberg thinks we are are at the end of the runway and predicts a crash in 2023.

    What do I think? I don’t know but I expect something big and unexpected will happen and all those gazillions of printed dollars will make the fall worse than it needed to be.

    https://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/01/09/__trashed/

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Gail makes a pretty good case but hedges a bit in the conclusion, adding 2024 and 2025 to make it a severe recession over the next 3 years. Share markets also used to be a reasonably rough proxy for the economy but became completely divorced from it in the GFC. Just when a crash looks likely, something causes it to reverse. It remains a mystery. When nothing really changed after the GFC, despite some early moves, it is quite remarkable that economies haven’t really turned down since, though there are exceptions.

      I always think it’ll be this year that the wheels start to come off. Eventually, I’ll be right.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. There is a link in Gail’s article to “B – The Honest Sorcerer”, another overshoot aware writer from eastern Europe I stumbled upon a while ago – the sphere of aware people seems to be growing (or at least it seems so, due to a focus bias).

      https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/renewables-are-slowly-approaching-diminishing-returns-229e28b2dc9d

      The articles of B are good, but the comments are even more revealing: Some agree on his writings about our predicament, but there are many tech enthusiasts, engineers and other hard opponents that are sure that the future will be bright, green and renewable. It’s very interesting why they land on his site and comment there – I haven’t seen such vehement opposers here on un-denial or other overshoot sites…

      Like

        1. Thanks for the intro to B. Good essay. He missed one of my favorite arguments: If it is technically and economically feasible to run modern civilization on 100% renewables there should exist somewhere in in the world a single country, or province, or city, or town, or block, or house that was built and is operated with 100% renewables.

          You’d think such a showcase would be a top priority for all renewable advocates. It’s telling that one does not exist.

          Like

          1. Soon there will be a case that clearly shows that it won’t work – it’s Germany, the pioneer of green utopia and the pioneer on the road to perdition…

            Liked by 1 person

          2. i introduced B to gails blog comments as I feel he is a younger generation that has picked up the baton, he writes very succinctly. Still I don’t think many will read his postings. Doom awaits us all. It is up to us how we deal with it. there will be no mass awakening just more died suddenly in their sleep.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. This covid thing continues to deeply upset me.

      I can deal with overshoot ignorance and denial because I understand what’s going on.

      I do not understand why leaders and medical professionals in most countries refuse to acknowledge and act on clear evidence that they are not only harming the citizens they are paid to protect, but also members of their own family.

      It’s unbelievable.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. lol Rob
        I tried to get PZ Myers to comment on study that showed mRNA covid treatments cause your immune system to ignore covid (like alergy shots) rather than fight covid (like the measles vaccine)

        he deleted my comment
        even though i just asked what he thought about it.

        lol I have lost respect for so many people who claim to be scientists.

        (the demon explanation is the only thing that makes any sense. lol)

        Like

        1. It’s crazy making.

          I get why most people deny peak oil and do not want to discuss it. There is no solution to peak oil and it implies huge threats.

          Covid, on the other hand, has a zero cost solution to preventing further harm with no loss of benefits because none exist. Simply stop injecting people with mRNA substances.

          Why would the majority of people want to deny this?

          Could it be their denial circuit does not want to admit they were duped and may have already damaged their health?

          Or does their spite circuit want the non-team players to be damaged like they were?

          Like

          1. What annoys me is the closing down of all opposing views of the mainstream narrative. It is hard to find serious debate on those opposing views and that makes me very suspicious of the mainstream narrative. I understand that California has even implemented a law that prohibits doctors publicly countering that narrative. If that’s true, it’s intolerable and should have prompted huge protests.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I continue to look for an intelligent expert with integrity that does a transparent deep dive into the data and concludes our vaccine policies are correct, or explains why we do not aggressively investigate the virus source, or explains why effective & safe alternatives are blocked, or…

              They don’t seem to exist. When you listen to our leaders speak on covid you can immediately detect they are stupid, or in denial, or are being dishonest.

              Like

              1. Yes, I’ve seen two commentaries recently (not about COVID-19, per se, but mention COVID-19 as part of a round up of the year) and both start off, paraphrased, “Thanks to the vaccine, many lives were saved”). I still don’t deny the possibility that may be true, but the fact they started with that suggests a desire not to delve more deeply – there was, of course, no justification of the claim.

                Liked by 1 person

            2. Rob,
              I do think it is that people can’t stand the thought that they were duped about Covid. Better to believe the narrative than stand out as a “anti-vaxer conspiracy theorist”, only Trump supporters are that stupid (sarcasm). I am not surprised about PZ Myers, I used to read him because he was a sane voice on evolution. I gave up on him because he was too doctrinaire liberal. One of the most disappointing to me was a blogger who went by C5 (as in Category 5)(darkgreenmountainsurvival). He was a collapse aware doomer trying to live sustainably in New Brunswick. When Covid came he went “full in” on the mainstream narrative with a complete “liberal” (hate those Canadian Truckers – they’re Trumpers) bias. How can someone be doom/overshoot aware and then “buy in” to what the government/media/corporate Pharma tell you. Fear maybe, denial for sure.
              AJ

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I do not know PZ Meyers but I know many other super smart intellectuals that have lost their ability to think on covid, like for example Sam Harris.

                It’s easy to forgive normal citizens who also believe Apollo was hoax and aliens have visited us, but not the super smart intellectuals.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. A few days ago, a US pharmacologist, Sasha Latypova, joined the covid discussion. There are now also a few video interviews with her.

                  Basically, it was – and is! – a vax-conspiracy of lawyers, government officials, national regulators, scientists and, above all, the pharmaceutical industry.

                  Saludos

                  el mar

                  Liked by 1 person

  7. Good one today from Dr. Malcolm Kendrick on the corruption endemic to science and pharma.

    https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2023/01/12/what-is-corruption-and-why-does-it-matter-so-much/

    Or, taking a real-world example, let us have a look at Oxford Professor Sir Richard Doll. This is the man who, along with Bradford Hill, proved that smoking causes lung cancer. He is a hero to many within the medical profession.

    As it turns out he was also paid $1,500 a day, for twenty years, by Monsanto. Which is a total of eleven million dollars. Kerrching!

    At one point the Chemical Manufacturers Association, along with Dow Chemicals and ICI, dropped £15K into his bank account. This was for a review which cleared vinyl chloride of causing cancer – of any kind. This review was then used to defend the use of this chemical – now well recognised to be a cancer-causing agent – for over a decade.

    Like

  8. I try to watch for big-picture covid themes emerging from people I trust.

    We started with:
    – vaccines do not prevent transmission
    – vaccine protection is short lived and is only necessary for the fat and old
    – all safe and effective preventions and treatments are blocked

    Then progressed into:
    – mass vaccination during a pandemic creates variants
    – mRNA causes serious long-term side effects
    – all-cause mortality rising despite vulnerable people already culled
    – chance of sickness and hospitalization higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated
    – boosting makes all of the above worse rather than better

    Now I see a theme emerging that vaccination enables multiple reinfections per year which is very damaging to health.
    https://www.rintrah.nl/the-unsustainability-of-constant-reinfection/

    Most recently Dr. McCullough interviewed a China doctor that claimed the new variants in China are causing death on the 2nd and 3rd reinfections. The integrity of this source was not clear, but McCullough said that if true this is a very alarming development because variants to date have not caused serious sickness and death on subsequent reinfections.

    This seems consistent with Dr. Bossche’s prediction that the virulence of variants will increase.

    Like

  9. Nate H. just dropped an interview with William Rees. one quote- ” Cities- human feedlots!” Ha!

    Nothing really new here, but a well expressed explanation of overshoot.

    And no they don’t mention denial of the sort you cover, but describe it in all ways except by name, and they do talk about all manner of mental disconnects.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, I listened to it yesterday. I agree it was good but nothing new. I was getting ready to blast them when they managed to mention the need for population reduction in the final seconds of the interview.

      I find it amazing that almost all overshoot aware intellectuals say the same thing over and over and over and over, and do not acknowledge that assuming one has not given up the ONLY things worth discussing now are population reduction and the genetic denial that prevents us from discussing it.

      Like

      1. Well, Bill Rees said multiple times that overshoot was the underlying cause of our predicament. Perhaps he didn’t explicitly say we need to reduce the population but that was certainly implied, IMO, in what he said throughout.

        It was a great interview because Rees was saying exactly what I’ve been trying to say. Humans are simply acting like any other species, by responding to abundance (in our case, via fossil fuels) by exponentially growing its population. He understands our short term thinking and that we’d never do anything other than what we’re doing, until we physically can’t do it any more. It was like I was listening to myself! I just wish I had as much knowledge as he has.

        Highly recommended and very listenable at 1.25 speed (I though 1.5 might be too fast as Bill talks more quickly than Nate).

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Scott Ritter today on the risk of nuclear war.

    His summary: We no longer have any people with the skills or mandate to negotiate a de-escalation.

    My summary: Our leaders have all morphed into morons.

    Like

    1. Scott was brutally honest. None of us will be here next year unless NATO (U.S.) “goes gently into that good night.” My rage is directed at the complete morons in Washington but especially the brain dead Biden and his puppet masters.
      AJ

      Like

  11. You can’t say I do not seek out opinions that conflict with my beliefs.

    Here we have a doomer who thinks much of the world will collapse and re-localize within 10 years.

    He thinks:
    – China and Russia are incompetent and evil and the west is competent and good.
    – Russia is losing in Ukraine and we simply can’t let them win otherwise they’ll take Poland next.
    – One of the biggest problems we face is falling birth rates.

    He’s kind of like a smug version of Michael Greer that denies overshoot.

    I found the discussion helpful for understanding what may be going on in the minds of our western leaders.

    The scary thing is I expect a lot of what he predicts will come true but the causes will attributed to all the wrong things.

    We never will acknowledge overshoot.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I can say you do not seek out opinions that conflict with your beliefs.

    Denial requires having full knowledge of something then denying that knowledge and it is simply a indisputable fact that 99% of the population do not have even a fraction of the required knowledge and in fact have been saturated with the absolute WRONG knowledge as exposed here;

    Every level of government has used every social networking sites on the internet to perpetuate fabricated lies and censor truth.

    “Twitter files publisher: ‘Every conceivable wing’ of federal enforcement sent censorship requests”

    Also Zeihan is a tool of the owners and a total twat. Read Pepe Escobars latest.

    Like

    1. In general, you’re right that people don’t seek out information that may conflict with their beliefs. I know that I have done it several times (and changed my belief as a result) but I’m sure that’s not always the case and still find it difficult to seriously engage with such material, though I do try if I think the subject is important.

      Like

      1. Thats not really what I said at all. People do seek out information all the time and they are fed constant lies all the time. I am certain that if they were told the truth they would act accordingly but that is simply not happening and hasn’t for a very long time. One needs to be an acceptionally diligent and talented researcher to understand, something like Whitney Webb although there are still things she has not focused on enough to have the knowledge on.

        Not saying I have all the knowledge but I try. Most important is to not get stuck on some dead end issue that keeps one from learning.

        Like

  13. I was thinking about Tim Garrett’s work again and realised that, from this point, any way of living, any economic system, degrowth, stead state, would still require increasing energy use, since it’s accumulated wealth that correlates strongly with energy use. Only a system that doesn’t accumulate wealth (not necessarily in monetary terms) can stop requiring increasing amounts of energy.

    Of course, Tim Garrett may be wrong.

    Like

    1. Years ago I tried very hard to understand if Tim Garrett had the whole story correct. There are pieces of his story that are confusing and I tried without success to get him to clarify. I know Nate Hagens disagrees with some of Garrett’s arguments but I’m too old to remember what Nate said to me.

      You are right that Garrett claims says energy flow is proportional to accumulated wealth. I think of this as it takes energy to maintain the value of something. For example, think about what happens to the value of your house if you do not keep the roof in good repair.

      I know Garrett says his equations show we must grow to avoid collapse. I don’t see it in his math. I do see it when you have a debt backed fractional reserve monetary system but that’s a different argument than Garrett’s making.

      Like

      1. I’m not sure about the “must grow to avoid collapse” equations. Maybe he is talking only of the energy requirement. If energy doesn’t grow, it means that the economy is not producing anything and that would be collapse.

        He factors in depreciation of wealth (some stuff eventually wears out) but everything we build requires not only extra energy to build it but also to run it, to maintain it over some number of years. Overall, the energy requirement keeps growing, even if the economy is contracting.

        He definitely sees that collapse is inevitable (or at least can’t see how it could be avoided) and I think that is the position of most of us here.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I’m not following you.

          If we held the population constant and per capita wealth constant a flow of energy would be needed to maintain, replace, and operate the stuff. But that flow would not need to grow.

          The need for growth comes from using credit to create money before creating the stuff that new money represents.

          Like

          1. Garrett has used GDP as a proxy for what he calls “wealth” with adjustments. GDP is a measure of stuff produced in the economy (and some services). For everything built, produced or businesses started or expanded, energy is needed to operate and maintain them into the future. This includes buildings and infrastructure. Some adjustments are made for deterioration as eventually some things get retired and replaced. As this wealth accumulates, the energy requirement goes up. The relationship has remained remarkably constant for about 70 years since reasonably good records exist for GDP. The relationship for earlier on is approximate, based on best estimates.

            So even if the population was held constant and even if GDP was held constant, the energy required would grow, since accumulated wealth increases. This is true even if GDP contracts, provided it never gets to zero or to a negative number. This growth in the energy requirement means that there is no way out. We have to return to a life without what we think of as an economy.

            Like

            1. I see your point. I can think of scenarios where accumulated wealth might be fairly stable however there’s a bigger issue forcing energy consumption to grow that I thought about on my walk today.

              Even if we somehow designed a society that used a constant flow of energy, the gross energy produced would still have to grow due to declining net energy caused by depletion of low cost non-renewable reserves.

              On my walk today I listened to the latest Lex Fridman podcast in which he interviewed a nuclear fusion expert that is confident they’ll prove fusion is commercially viable in 4 years.

              I’m betting on collapse.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. That’s true, a constant energy flow to society means increasing ecosystem destruction, no matter what the energy infrastructure is, since they all need resources which are bound to decline in quality and accessibility.

                Fusion commercially viable? I agree, collapse is assured, whether he’s right or he’s wrong about fusion. If he’s right, the destruction would be mind-boggling. If he’s wrong, well, not enough energy to keep society going.

                Like

    1. Writes a great comic strip. Otherwise, I wouldn’t say the guy has any integrity, whether he’s right or wrong on this. I understand Joe Rogan has been vaccinated so maybe he wants to forgive as though those who convinced him to be vaccinated were acting in good faith.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Joe Rogan is a good man. He’s worried that society is already too divided and forgiveness is the only path that does not make things worse.

        I’m a bad man and want to hang them all for murder.

        Like

        1. I agree with Rob. Forgiveness is to easy. There were many in the pro-vax crowd that wanted to persecute anyone not getting vaxxed. I remember the talk of taking away their right to do ANYTHING!
          Those who forced the vaxes on people and knowingly lied are no better than those Germans who facilitated the Holocaust. The mighty and powerful who did this should at the very least be impoverished and humiliated (and maybe some jailed).
          AJ

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Is there a longer video where he presents/discusses his whiteboards?
      I find it odd how it just cuts to him repeatedly saying av-ers are “on top” or “won”.

      Like

      1. I only saw the one video on the topic. I do not respect or like the guy and do not follow him so there may be other videos.

        I also thought the video was very strange. It’s not about winning or losing. It’s about restoring respect for evidence, truth seeking, integrity, and a public health care system that actually cares about health.

        Many people like him conflate anti-vax with mRNA skepticism. They are two completely separate issues. Properly tested conventional vaccines are one of our species’ most impressive achievements. Injecting billions with a new and untested mRNA technology is one of our worst “mistakes”. Except it wasn’t a mistake.

        Like

        1. Having said that, many of us no longer trust health care professionals and will never accept another vaccination regardless of the technology.

          Well done “leaders”! I hope your kids die.

          Like

        2. I do think the pushers of the vax have tried to conflate anti-vax with mRNA skepticism too. I have always been pro-vax for regular vaccinations and I think your contention that they are one of our most impressive achievements is correct. My problem early on was that one of the biggest anti-vax luminaries (Robert Kennedy Jr.) and his organization, Childrens Health Defense came out against the vaccinations. They are scientifically wrong about vaccinations in general and pushed that fake childhood vaccines cause autism meme. They are right about the mRNA shots. My personal skepticism about the mRNA tech led me to take the J&J adenovirus Covid shot. I wish I hadn’t but that ship has now sailed. I won’t be getting anymore “flu” or Covid booster shots. But, when it come to a Tetanus booster I will get that.
          AJ

          Like

          1. Pre-covid I remember assuming Kennedy was a crank and did not pay attention. Now that I know with certainty that most health professionals are some combination of stupid and/or evil and that they falsified and obscured data to force an agenda not associated with public health I will no longer dismiss Kennedy.

            By that I mean before taking any new drug I will find some super smart experts with no conflicts of interest and will follow them for months to ensure they have integrity, meaning they seek truth and admit when they are wrong, which takes months to assess, and only then will I decide what to do. I will also ignore all peer reviewed studies on drugs since we now know peer review in health care is worthless to all except the pharma that pays for it.

            The damage our leaders have done is staggering.

            Like

          2. What makes you so sure that the science of traditional vaccines is right?
            Isn’t it absolutely hypocrite, that we think to know everything better these days as anyone before?
            In physics at least we know, that our understanding is only a model – it works very well within its limits, but nobody can tell what the universe is really made of. Don’t you think this could be the same for biology?

            Here’s a series about traditional vaccines from a scientific point of view – just as an example: Tetanus – a nonsense vaccine, if you understand the underlying mechanism. And yet it is still given to everyone. Refer to the link for more info.
            https://drkevinstillwagon.substack.com/p/the-silent-killers-a0c

            To throw a different light on medicine, you could read the following excerpt from Franz Konz – not that I’m totally with his “Natural Medicine”, but at least it makes you think about the whole pharmacy branch.

            People have always fallen for deceivers.

            Therefore, in order to see whether your eyes have really opened, you should divide the history of medicine into century slices and ask yourself what the treatment by doctors has brought to the sick so far and whether it was worth the money they have thrown out for it so far.

            So – would you have agreed with the medical treatment in 1190 with white lead, in 1290 with caustic potash, in 1390 with Glauber’s salt, in 1490 with pus from plague sores, in 1590 with salamander tails? Or with that of 1690, when they prescribed mice pounded against diseases? Would you have had a bladder stone removed around that time in such a way that the horse doctor shoved one hand into your rectum to press the stone against the base of the bladder and with the other pushed a knife into your bladder through the intestine between the anus and the scrotum, pulled the knife out to again drive his bare hand into the horribly bleeding wound, grabbing for the stone?
            “No, no, for God’s sake!” you answer.

            Or would you have agreed with the therapy of the year 1790, when they used emetics against everything? And the doctors tortured young Mozart to death with fragments of Egyptian mummies and a medicinal composition of coral, ivory, deer horn tips, saltpeter, gold leaves and rigorous bloodletting?
            Or would you have submitted to them when doctors used white-hot branding irons to press so-called “discharges” into the hissing muscles of the neck and back for “pain relief”? Or in 1890, when the sick were maltreated with mercury and arsenic? Or would you have preferred 100 years ago to let the doctors prescribe to you to wrap your baby completely immobile – arms and legs included – with endlessly long swaddling bandages like a mummy? And even have the doctors forbid you to cuddle your child, because they convince people that this would transmit germs.
            Well, are you still not in favor of one of their treatments?
            Then you would have preferred to have your baby’s cold treated by a doctor 80 years ago, when the “Actiengesellschaft Farbenfabriken” former “Friedrich Bayer & Co.” had the trademark “Heroin” legally protected under No. 31650F2456 and marketed as an excellent sedative with a specific cough-quenching effect, especially for children? This then ensured record sales all over the world as “cough syrup”. As late as 1926, IG Farben was still producing 1.8 tons of heroin annually for young people…
            Maybe 60 years ago you would have liked to see your child suffering from leukemia being maltreated by doctors with one of the most insidious causes of cancer: benzene. That was considered the best cure for blood cancer at the time….
            Or would you have liked to be treated for diarrhea about 50 years ago with the drug Clioquinol? Thousands of people remained paralyzed or went blind for the rest of their lives!
            Or would you have liked to see yourself treated with Clofibrate 25 years ago in case of a heart attack? Gallstones, muscle weakness and quick death carried most of it.
            Or would you have been happy, as a heart patient ten years ago, to have been given the heart-rate stabilizing drug Tambocor? Tens of thousands went to their graves prematurely.
            But perhaps it would have been pleasant for you to have been treated for breast cancer four years ago, where they sawed off your entire breast even if you had the smallest lump? What can still happen to you today, however, if only a single cancerous thread has grown further than 1½ cm.
            Maybe you have already got treated your gastritis or your stomach ulcer last year with the miracle drug and proton inhibitor Omazeprol: For many people, their stomach now no longer gives them grief. Instead, they now suffer from edema, changes in taste, blurred vision or are blind.
            But today, you assume that the doctors are doing everything well and that you are getting the right medicine against your suffering when you go to the doctor again tomorrow. At most, doubts arise in your mind when you think about the treatment means of years ago – but they no longer exist today, you say to yourself. But the fact that every chemical remedy – also the one of today and the one of tomorrow and the genetic one of the day after tomorrow – is harmful, even fatally dangerous for you, is something you refuse to understand.

            Or do you believe that an objective observer of the year 2095 will consider the medical treatment of diseases of today, i.e. in the years around 2000, as correct and successful? Really?

            And nevertheless you agree with it, what your doctor prescribes to you today or injects or declares as a necessary operation.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Very interesting. Thank you for all these examples. I wasn’t aware of most of them.

              I guess Molière was not exaggerating:

              whether we are right or wrong, we are paid equally well. We are never responsible for the bad work, and we cut away as we please in the stuff we work on. […] we can spoil a man without paying one farthing for the damage done. The blunders are not ours, and the fault is always that of the dead man. In short, the best part of this profession is, that there exists among the dead an honesty, a discretion that nothing can surpass; and never as yet has one been known to complain of the doctor who had killed him.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_M%C3%A9decin_malgr%C3%A9_lui

              Like

            2. Thanks, nice history.

              We can add to the list one of the the most widely prescribed drugs today, which is viewed by most health professionals as a miracle drug, and is in fact a scam built on a mountain of bad science: statins.

              Like

            3. Interesting. For me, though, medical interventions have drastically added to the overshoot condition. We can’t stop such interventions, nor can we force the birth rate down, so expect overshoot to continue for a long time until nature takes a hand.

              Like

              1. In principle, I agree, but I think that this is primarily due to improved hygiene conditions in everyday life, especially in obstetrics, as well as life-saving emergency measures – in other words, primarily good craftsmanship. Medicine has certainly been supportive in this, but as you can see from the long list, any relief in one place is accompanied by a side effect elsewhere.

                Like

          3. this is the 3rd time today i’ve tried to post this, perhaps it’ll work with a new URL for the image?

            does anyone ever check the data before forming an opinion? here’s some historical data:

            and here’s the current data, according to our world in data, i.e. official government sources:

            The country with the highest deaths per million of population for TB is Niger (31 deaths/million people). Niger is 95% vaccinated against TB. Of the top 10 countries with the highest death rates from TB (average of around 25 deaths/million people), half are at least 95% vaccinated.

            At the other end of the scale, Ireland stopped vaccinating entirely against TB in 2015, and is in the bottom 10 for deaths (0.2 deaths per million). Switzerland is notable here too, with 0.36 deaths per million (in the bottom 20 for deaths from TB), and 76% of its population unvaccinated.

            Put simply, the country with the highest death from TB is almost completely vaccinated against TB; the country with almost the lowest rate of death from TB is completely unvaccinated.

            Like

        3. Vaccines are only an impressive achievement from a human-centric viewpoint. Like many medical “advancements” they have worsened the overshoot problem. As we’ve seen in Japan, the lower birthrate is causing issues in the demographic makeup of the population. We need higher death rates, not lower birthrates (though having both would help).

          Mind you, I’ve been a beneficiary of medical advancements (not so much life saving as life enhancing), so I’ve no idea how humans can be made to accept a voluntary removal of medical interventions.

          Like

        4. Are you saying that you would be open to getting vaccinated with a covid vaccine made by traditional technology like adenovirus? These vaccines were administered in many developing countries. Their efficacy is lower than mRNA but they are tried and tested technology product.

          Like

          1. Interesting question. My personal understanding is that the J&J Covid vax was with the spike protein in an adenovirus (only used in the U.S. for the initial shot for a short while?). The Pfizer technology was “gene therapy” where lipid nanoparticles were injected that contained mRNA which would be integrated into the cell’s DNA and then the cells would synthesize the spike protein which would be expressed on the cell surface. Please correct me if I got this wrong. I took the J&J shot and have had no boosters. Others have opined that the Spike protein was the wrong antigen to use for either of the shots?
            AJ

            Like

            1. Hi there AJ, Kira, Rob and friends,

              Hope all is going all right for you and winter’s been gentle so far. I’ve been off-line as of late due to the burgeoning fruit harvest, not that I’m complaining about the blueberries and stone fruit coming out of my ears!

              Just wanted to comment on your understanding of the vaccine technology. From what I understand and with the background of my husband who has worked in the gene therapy field, both the mRNA and adenoviral vector DNA “vaccines” can be considered gene therapy and whilst not new technology in the basic science research field, this was the first time used in a so-called vaccine platform so it certainly is a novel application and as we all concur here, not worked out anywhere close to being safe nor effective for mass use. Since they have been proven not to give immunity nor stop transmission and more and more clearly increase all cause morbidity (disease) and mortality, they certainly do not deserve the term “vaccine” and not even “therapeutic” in my opinion. Until proven otherwise, they are merely injections of a foreign substance that cause a wide range of immunological and regulatory responses in the human organism, known and unknown, which have shown up in unprecedented numbers of people as negative health outcomes, to put it mildly.

              The mRNA technology inoculants such as Pfizer and Moderna is a modified messenger RNA code which when attached to the lipid nanoparticle carrier, makes for easier entry into the target cells, which unfortunately were not limited by any means to the intended deltoid muscle. mRNA is processed in the cell’s cytoplasm (body of the cell, as distinct from the nucleus where DNA material is processed). This modified code was intended to make it more difficult for the cell’s natural mechanism to break down once inside, with the presumption that our own cells could churn out the coded spike protein for as long as possible and once the spike protein is “presented” on the surface of that cell, activate our immune response which would include destroying that pseudo-infected cell. This was supposed to re-enact a real infection, but whilst trying to be so clever, one of the main things gotten so wrong is that the coronaviruses normally infect the nasal and upper respiratory tissue, not muscle cells or all the other cell types this injection has reached, so the whole immune system activation went haywire from the get go. A good analogy here is that we tried to activate the navy when we really needed to engage the air force, the wrong division for the job. There are just so many things that could go pear-shaped with this approach, and it looks like most of them did. The biggest blunder and it beggars belief that it wasn’t foreseen, was to choose the so called Spike protein as the presenting antigen, which apparently has close analogy in structure to many of our cell type’s own surface proteins and therefore can exacerbate or instigate auto-immune responses, as we have seen throughout. This can manifest as damage to cardiac and neurological tissue causing scarring and conduction disturbances (a major possible reason for the sudden deaths and cardiac events), damage to the lining of blood vessels which can lead to clotting (strokes and more heart events), and the whole range of symptoms reported. Another significant pathway for morbidity and mortality is related to the novel lipid nanoparticles used to slip these vesicles of mRNA into the cells like a Trojan Horse, along with the undisclosed adjuvants (extraneous chemicals used to kick start an immune response, likened to adding insult to injury to the body). We need proper studies and autopsies done to elucidate the exact mechanisms of injury, but despite the piles of bodies mounting up to declare the ominous conclusions, academia is straitjacketed from doing so.

              The DNA gene therapy inoculations, which comprise the J and J and Astrazeneca shots, work in an even more convoluted fashion, but they still operate on the related platform of “hijacking” your bodies’ own genetic replication and protein production mechanism. This time, a chimpanzee adenovirus (a respiratory virus that uses DNA as its genetic material, viruses can use either RNA or DNA) was modified to include an insert code of the Spike protein. The adenovirus was also attached to lipid nanoparticles for smoother entry into the target cell and thus “infected” the cell, carrying its modified genetic package, once again, the Trojan Horse metaphor works here. This time, however, the genetic material doesn’t stay in the cell’s body (cytoplasm) but is taken into the nucleus of the cell where the DNA is processed, and is translated into RNA. Then the RNA strand is carried out of the nucleus and back into the the cell body where it is used as an instruction code for making the spike protein, along with the other parts of the chimp adenovirus, as if that sounds like a salubrious effect, not! So in a way, there’s an extra step of transcribing the DNA into RNA, and then it’s more or less the same process afterwards to get the immune cells notified that this is an infected cell to search and destroy. One of the dangers here is, although not intended, sometimes the infecting adenoviral DNA gets spliced into the host’s cell DNA in the nucleus and therefore becomes a permanent fixture to churn out the message to make the virus, and even passing on the changed code to daughter cells. Infected cells, whether dressed up via mRNA or DNA mechanisms, should activate the immune system to destroy them and therefore break the cycle, but apparently this can take several months to occur as studies have shown that some people still produce spike protein for 6 months following the shot. That is a lot of time to effect damage to the entire body. Once again the real dumbass realisation comes when you understand that normally the body doesn’t “see” an adenovirus first in the muscle or other internal organ cell, its natural entryway is the respiratory system and we have evolved techniques and proper immune pathways for dealing with that. The full consequences of how we have retrained our immune system through our manipulations are becoming more clear with time; this is the crux of the concerns of the virologists such as GVB and others.

              Perhaps because there were less participants of the DNA version in the States, the adverse effect profile has not been as robust and also the J and J shot was a one time dose which should lower the overall exposure. However, it was noted that the DNA vector shots did cause obvious dramatic clotting disorders in a short interval after the shot, and in many countries was no longer promoted. In Australia, the two dose Astrazeneca (an adenoviral DNA shot) was the main form offered to the elderly and immunocompromised in the first roll-outs and even actively withheld for younger age groups due to the higher risk of clotting. Later data became obfuscated because Pfizer became the booster shot of choice regardless of what your first shot was.

              A very interesting point remains that China has steadfastly refused Western technology gene modifying shots and produced for their population a “traditional” vaccine which utilises inactivated viral particles to engage the immune response. This mechanism is analogous to activating the clean up crew to pick up rubbish that was dumped on the street on purpose and hopefully forevermore recognise that particular rubbish and take care of wherever and however it is found. This is how vaccines have worked up to date, the antigen (rubbish item that elicits the response) is usually a deactivated virus or particles of a virus. Compare this to invading the occupants of the houses along the street, forcing them to use their own resources to create what is rubbish, hang it out of the window and have the clean up crew destroy the house and surrounds that displays the rubbish from the window. But once again, coronaviruses are supposed to be engaged first in the nasal mucosa, and so far, no successful coronaviral vaccine has been developed in animal models which are injected. Who can know fully what China is masterminding but methinks and conjectures that its about face policy is geared to generating a more true and lasting herd immunity in its population, by letting the most vulnerable finally get exposed to the disease and undergo natural attrition, whilst the rest of the population also gets exposure to the new pathogen and develop natural immunity, counting on the young and relatively healthy to be the backstop for the disease once they develop true immunity. Then China will be well placed to deal with the next variant which may prove to be more virulent for the Western populations adulterated by the shots. Even if such a variant develops in China during this dissemination period (or is released again), having the possibility of mass immunity will be the main mitigating and long term strategy in any case.

              Well my friends, this was a much longer post than I anticipated (but then again, I have been absent for a little while so you can forgive me). I hope I have helped contribute to some more enlightenment about the way these shots are supposed to work, but if it’s as clear as mud after you’ve read this, please ignore me and thank you for your tolerance.

              All the best to everyone.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Welcome back Gaia and thank you for the most interesting post! I learned a lot.

                Dr. Bret Weinstein, who I vouch for and is on the list of people I trust, says the heart evolved to not get cancer because of it’s criticality. A consequence of not getting cancer is that the heart cannot repair itself and so damage is permanent.

                Your China hypothesis is very interesting and makes sense if we assume Chinese leaders are smart. If we assume they are morons like western leaders then you could argue they simply opened up in response to pressure from citizens who’d had enough and there is no grand strategy.

                Like

                1. Hi Rob,

                  I haven’t been too far away as I do check in nearly every day but just haven’t had a chance to post lately. I’m glad if anyone reading the above has increased their understanding of how these nefarious inoculations work. If I can help flesh it out in any more detail for anyone, please let me know.

                  It’s not difficult to find another source for the endless wonder for our biological bodies. Cardiac muscle cells are special in that they do not divide and that is why cancer doesn’t happen in the heart, there are no copying mistakes to be made. What we are born with are the same cells that keep our ticker going all our lives long, so that’s why any damage by whatever mechanism, is critical and there is no “mild” myocarditis. Because the main compensatory reaction to the injury is scarring of the tissue, and because the heart is mainly a conductive organ, once the electrical circuits are interrupted by scars, the main function of the heart can be severely compromised. From being a regular rhythmic and strong contractile pump, in the worse case you can go to a quivering bag that can’t send the blood out through the aorta and to the rest of the body. That is not compatible with life. And all manner of heart blocks (slowed conduction) and arrhythmias lead to decreased flow efficacy to all tissues, not ideal.

                  Whenever I attempt to train my mind upon an issue (like China’s response to Covid), I like to assume the involved parties have at least the same access to knowledge as me but most likely, very much more intel and insight than I could ever imagine given that in this case they are world leaders. I think I speak for all of us here that we are constantly trying to make sense of what is happening around us, given our birthright to use these extra CPUs, what else is there to do? It just isn’t satisfying, and maybe it’s just my denial factor, to think that everyone but us are morons, especially those who should really know better. It’s like a cop out to playing the game that’s afoot, to quote Sherlock Holmes, so I exercise my little grey cells to find an angle that makes some sense, based on the information I have and assuming the others are competent and powerful world leaders with a particular goal to pursue, probably subtly, so that’s another dimension of intrigue. Then, sometimes things do fall into place that provide me with some extra insight and my brain can resolve a while with the new understanding. Of course, this is all subjective and until I found this space, my thoughts usually stayed in my own head or just get voiced to my husband, who is a very patient and tolerant man.

                  I am happy to see everyone on the new page following monk’s very thorough and thoughtful discussion about how nuclear power isn’t the magic bullet either. Sigh, humans and their toys, always we will think there will be bigger and more.

                  Liked by 1 person

          2. No. For covid I am staying with vitamin D and other supplements, and have Ivermectin in the cupboard in case I get sick.

            Knock on wood I have not had a day of illness nor have I been tested since covid started.

            Like

  14. Nice insightful summary from Mac10 today.

    The Fed is set to raise rates again next week and STILL not one pundit has caught on to the fact that interest rates are too tight and Fed balance sheet is too loose. The Fed is imploding the economy, but not the markets. Which is driving a chasmic divergence between fantasy and reality.

    Which is what I suppose you would do if you were worried about popping the overshoot ponzi.

    https://zensecondlife.blogspot.com/2023/01/fomc-fear-of-missing-crash.html

    Like

    1. Nate told me there were technical difficulties that made the audio quality poor. Maybe it is being fixed. Or maybe he decided to not publish. Nate also told all of us that he created a batch of interviews that he intended to release slowly so that he could take a break. That’s all I know.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. The UK is no longer offering covid boosters to healthy people under 50.

    They of course do not admit they screwed up by providing no benefit while killing and harming many, by pushing the injection of a novel untested technology, and by blocking other safe and effective responses, and by obscuring the data needed to make good decisions.

    All those responsible get to stay out of prison and keep their jobs and pensions.

    Shame.

    Like

    1. Meanwhile my Canadian government is doubling down. News item this morning that covid misinformation prevented 2 million people from being vaccinated resulting in thousands of deaths and $300 million extra cost to the health care system.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. When your PM is on camera saying “Canada is not broken” that is called an official denial.

        Our institutions are broken, just my opinion.

        Like

  16. Kunstler today is good minus the last couple paragraphs when he as usual blames left/right nonsense.

    Pretend-O-Rama

    I doubt that many Americans — even the masses sunk in vaccine smuggery and obsessive Trump-o-phobia — believe that America’s Ukraine project is working out for us. Of course, to even begin thinking about this debacle, you must at least suspect that our government is lying about virtually everything it has its hand in. Name something it is not lying about, I dare you.

    So, what was the Ukraine project? To use that sad-ass country as a vector to disable and destroy Russia. You can’t over-state the stupidity of that objective. And why did we want to do that? Because… reasons. Oh? And what were they? Well, Russia was… there. Oh? And what was it doing? Trying to take over the world? Uh, no. It was actually just trying to be a normal European nation again after its traumatic 75-year-long experiment with communism, which ended in 1991.

    And then, after that, coming along pretty well under Mr. Putin. Did I say that? Yes, I did, because it is a fact. Russia wrote new private property laws, made commerce legal again, and allowed its citizens to do business. Russia wasn’t threatening any other nations, most particularly its former province, Ukraine. It had even invited Ukraine to be a sovereign member of its trade association, the customs union, with a bunch of other regional states who had rational interests in good regional relations. That’s what set off the maniacs at the US State Department — under Secretary John Kerry, a.k.a. the haircut-in-search-of a-brain — who, in 2014, decided to overthrow Ukraine’s government.

    The project since then was to use the US-controlled Ukraine government to antagonize Russia and, finally, to draw Russia into a military operation intended, SecDef Lloyd Austin said more than once, “to weaken Russia.” Well, everything we’ve done there, from eight years of shelling the Donbas, to kicking Russia out of the West’s banking system, to pouring billions of US dollars into Ukraine’s corrupt government, has only strengthened Russia internally, earned the approbation of many other nations who object to US interference in their regions, and steered poor Ukraine into the graveyard of failed states.

    We are losing this unnecessary proxy war about as steadily as possible, and actually making Russia look good in the process. Russia could have ended the war in five minutes by turning Kiev into an ashtray, but it spent the first eight months of the operation trying to avoid busting up Ukraine’s infrastructure, so as not to turn it into a failed state (that would present new and worse problems). Mr. Putin made many overtures to negotiate an end to the conflict, all rejected by Ukraine, the US, and its NATO “partners.”

    So, now Russia is grinding on-the-ground to reduce Ukraine’s ability to continue making war by systematically killing the troops Ukraine foolishly throws into the battle line, and destroying Ukraine’s heavy weapons. Ukraine is about out of its own soldiers and weapons. Russia is maneuvering to roll over what’s left there and put an end to these pointless and needless hostilities. Contrary to US propaganda, Russia has no ambition to conquer NATO territory. Rather its aim is to restore order to a corner of the world that has been its legitimate sphere of influence for centuries — and more than once been used as a doormat for European armies to invade Russia.

    Apparently, we can’t allow Russia to clean up this mess we made — or we pretend that we can’t, even though it’s happening anyway, whether we like it or not. So now, the US promises to send thirty-one M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. A bold move, you think? Not exactly. By the time these tanks get anywhere in the vicinity of Ukraine, this war is likely to be over. Never mind the difficult business of training the few remaining eligible Ukrainian men between sixteen and sixty how to operate the tanks, and train maintenance crews, and deliver inventories of spare parts — you see where this is going — not to mention the certainty that the Russians will simply blow them up as fast as they appear on the premises. Anyway, a measly thirty-one tanks that can barely be operated is meaningless compared to hundreds of T-72s backed by newer T-14 tanks the Russians can muster from just over their border with Ukraine.

    https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/pretend-o-rama/

    Like

        1. Sorry Rob, but that’s your opinion. We won’t know the full story about COVID-19, and about its vaccines, for some time. I admit that I now think the real story is not the official narrative but what the real story is, I don’t know (just like everyone else). JHK descended into loonacy when he was upset about Trump not getting in. Now he makes stuff up about almost everything he writes about (IMO), flinging out deprecating nicknames the way Trump did. I have three of JHK’s books but I wouldn’t buy anything else from him, including his truth.

          I listened to this inteview with Owen Matthews, about the war. Although not taking the official line in everything (IMO) he did debunk most reasons for Russia going to war, as far as I could tell. He’s half Russian and spends a lot of time there.

          Like

          1. Before I watch this, are you vouching for the integrity and intelligence of Owen Matthews? I don’t watch random people with opinions unless I have a good reason to trust them, like a recommendation from someone I know like you.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. No, I can’t. It’s up to you. He’s been reporting on Russia for a long time, so I guess he has some insight but I can’t vouch for him. All I can say is that he seems to know the history and sounds very plausible.

              Like

              1. Don’t think we’ll have long to wait to see who is right on Ukraine.

                I predict the west will have to accept a humiliating loss or there will be nuclear war. Assuming no nukes, Russia will emerge strong with many new friends. Ukraine will be a failed state, the US will wash its hands, and Europe will be too broke due to energy costs to properly rebuild Ukraine.

                What do you predict?

                Like

                1. I predict humans will always find something less important to focus on rather than do something significant about climate change, biodiversity loss, soil loss, resource depletion, acidifying oceans, etc.

                  Honestly, I have no idea what will happen over Ukraine. Predict away. I hope you’re right that the west will be able to avoid nuclear war, though part of me thinks that would at least get the global collapse over with.

                  Like

            2. Just watched and gave up soon. Very much very british one-side-opinion. Already 2.4 pos vs 0 neg thumbs and absolutely no negativ comment, not even slightly critical, only thankyou-so-much-stuff followed by your channel is so nice, good, interesting, underrated and the like indicates how much another side might be denialed.

              Like

        2. got to say that I was very relieved that the main bloggers I read. agreed with my stance on covid ( my opinion was formed before reading theirs).
          I found that some what reassuring that I was not going nuts. Everything about the covid story started to stink very quickly. Unfortunately most people bought into the fear and shut their minds down. Now we all have to live with it. A line was crossed or maybe a better way to think about it is that a phase change has occurred. There is no going back. The unvaxxed are pissed with their treatment from a large % of the vaxxed and the vaxxed can’t unvax. Things are going to get even more complicated moving forward. But there is no going back so we must all suck it up an adapt.
          Never thought that this would be a major event in the collapse story but here we are.

          By the way adenovirus vaccines are gene therapy. It literally programs your dna to make spike protein. All the vaxs are dangerous, sorry but that is a fact. We are still waiting for the 10 year results to come in. Happy to be in the control group. Far less stressful. Who wants to die suddenly of a coincidence?

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Definitely more comfortable with the pruning of friends and some family.
              Perhaps it puts us in a better position to deal with collapse, we know who the people are that we are going to have troubles with.

              Liked by 1 person

                1. I envy both you and Gaia as dealing with someone close to you that is in complete and utter denial of all that collapse entails (and Covid too) is a psychic drain. Better to be by one’s self and discuss it with a dog.
                  AJ

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Hi AJ,
                    I hear you, and just wanted to say hang in there, it’s the only game left in town. At least we’ve all got this blog to flog whatever we need to validate and we’re all sympathetic enough to commiserate with each others’ vents. Believe me, finding this site has given me untold booster shots of sanity (the only shots I’ll take willingly!) throughout this past year. Thank you to all for contributing to this space.

                    I hope you’ve been finding that the emptiness left by Lulu’s demise has been steadily filling up with the companionship of your other canine companion(s). Dogs and trees have always been good friends, just patiently waiting for us humans to re-connect with our place in this world.

                    We’ve got plenty of other wildlife here that we can call little friends, multitudes of birds and a member of the hoppy family called pademelons, they’re pretty darn cute (like a cross between a teddy bear and a kangaroo) and do a reasonable job keeping down the grass in certain areas (and leaves of low fruit tree branches). Many times when I see the creatures around here, I send out a little thought that goes something like this “Soon this planet will be all yours again, just hang in there and your progeny will be the beneficiaries once we humans lose our dominion” So I feel very happy to know we’re providing a sanctuary of sorts (that is if they furries don’t get shot and eaten before all the dust finally settles, another distinct possibility).

                    Go well and all the best to you and your household. Thank you for your efforts at kindness, understanding and tolerance, that is also the privilege remaining to us.

                    Like

    1. Your anger is harsh and rude. I get a few hundred spams a day and do my best to scan them all before emptying the folder. I may accidentally delete the odd post. I complimented your post on your 3rd and successful attempt. That is not consistent with me being a gatekeeper.

      Like

  17. A paper just published (though it was submitted in April last year) claims that there are enough resources for the energy transition and the emissions won’t be too bad. https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(23)00001-6

    It doesn’t appear to address declining ore quality or whether the production ramp up can be done quickly enough. It doesn’t address overshoot or the many predicaments we already face that won’t be helped by a continuation of BAU (and most of which civilisation itself was the main cause rather than climate change).

    Like

  18. Karl Denninger today explains why engineers should rule the world and why covid mandates should be viewed as criminal action.

    The only solid means of detection for fraud or unknown confounders when it comes to scientific experimentation is replication by different persons with no connection to each other. Indeed it can be argued that even if there is no connection if there are similar interests at play the repetition has little value, where only someone incentivized to falsify the original trial who fails to do so carries material weight. If a study cannot be replicated, or said replication is inconsistent then the original hypothesis is at best null and in fact the odds are high you are dealing with a scam. The entire point of publishing the experiment is to enable others to validate it through reproduction and therefore reduce the uncertainty window.

    It is never legitimate to mandate something based on a suggestion. Ever.

    Any government or private entity that tries to do so should be immediately destroyed, with prejudice, using whatever actions and level of force is necessary. The reason for this is simple: The claim of knowledge of outcome and thus the predicate is false, every time and that makes the claim fraud. At best what has been shown is a suggestion.

    Our entire medical system in the Western World is riven through with fraud because we do not insist on repeatability, and specifically by repeatability when the other attempts are run by persons that have an interest aligned with falsifying the original study and despite that interest they fail to do so. Let me be entirely clear in what is absolutely true and nobody has done a thing about it over decades of time: The entire medical and pharmaceutical system in the Western World knows full well that fraud is both financially incentivized and actively ignored by every party involved that claims to be interested in protecting human health. The FDA specifically approves a drug or device, even under ordinary circumstances, using just one study funded by the drug or device maker in virtually every case. No second, third or “N”th confirmation by disinterested or adverse parties parties is required and we know from past experience that the majority of studies in the medical field fail to be reproduced if and when someone finally does try. When that failure to reproduce was first detected decades ago if avoiding fraud meant anything at all to the regulatory agencies it should have immediately led to a change in procedure requiring said independent replication by disinterested or even adverse parties who were incentivized to find opposing results before any approval could be considered, and if concealed conflicts, no matter how small they appear, are later found everyone involved goes to prison because they have colluded and acted with willful disregard to human health and life. In some cases, such as we just saw over the last three years, the study funders are audacious enough to go even further and deliberately destroy the control group before the end of the original full set of study work. Again, in any legitimate scientific inquiry doing that would force the results to be reported as null and thus discarded in every case.

    There is another discipline that is often called “engineering”, however, that is effectively the application of scientific process to the real world. Engineering is, at its core, the extraction of confidence intervals and placing the action to be taken far enough outside them on the “good side” that failures do not occur absent active malfeasance or worse. That in turn can indeed form the basis for a legitimate mandate because the standards set are defensible. Engineering is not a process or set of odds, it is a set of guardrails beyond which very bad things can happen but if you stay within the guardrails they do not.

    An entity, whether a government or a person, that presents something as an engineering conclusion when it is not has also committed fraud and, if the result is harm or death to persons or destruction of property they must be criminally held accountable for it with sufficient finality and pain to deter the next person who might consider doing the same thing.

    You see, engineers are held responsible for failures where scientists never are; if you misrepresent your “science finding” as an engineering one then we must force you to, at that moment, acquire the liability of the engineer.

    An engineer who fails to properly calculate the loads on a bridge, and the bridge collapses resulting in deaths, goes to prison and his firm is likely to be destroyed. He (and his firm) are held civilly and criminally responsible for the bad outcome because the discipline has known absolute margins and, if you exceed them, the probability of failure goes from statistically zero to non-zero.

    Further said engineer will never rely on a single scientific study’s pronouncements for anything. He can’t. Said data must have been repeatedly validated by multiple, independent studies of the same hypothesis and immutable mathematical facts and reached the same result.

    Thus the sign: “Load limit 40 tons” on a bridge is reasonably enforceable with a mandate — that is, law. Provided you do not exceed said limit the bridge will not, according to the engineer and assuming it has been maintained and the materials used actually met specification, collapse.

    As a result when an engineer detects a problem that shouldn’t be happening he immediately stops whatever is being done because whatever basis used for his calculations has been falsified. He may not know why that happened but he does know that the certainty upon which he relied has been breached and if he doesn’t stop right now he’s going to lose a crap-ton of money, go to prison or both.

    An engineer does not look at an unexpected crack on a bridge that is being put in place and say “well, we’ll keep an eye on that.” He knows the crack should not be there and until he can prove it does not impact the integrity of the bridge nobody goes over or under it because if he’s wrong and it collapses he goes to prison.

    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=247993

    Like

    1. The above nicely illustrates my claim that covid has proven most health professionals are either stupid or evil.

      If they do not understand the above and prescribe inadequately tested drugs then they are stupid.

      If they do understand the above and prescribe inadequately tested drugs then they are evil.

      Like

      1. Unfair!! Non-disclosure that you are an engineer!! (joking). I always distrusted engineers (my father was an EE and a McCarthy (the original) conservative religious fundamentalist). BUT, I will give Karl Denninger (and you Rob) a pass. Karl’s long blog which you only excepted above was VERY GOOD. He really has a grasp on the difference between the scientific process and the engineering process of manufacturing something to reliably do something in the physical world without failing. I think he would do better to read a little more about Karl Popper and scientific testing with falsifiability as the aim of that testing (I think he glossed over it a little too much above). Too many scientists make hypotheses that they then design experiments to prove (pruning the hedge). To have rigorous outcomes, you have to design experiments to prove your hypothesis wrong. Denninger does understand that science does not give answers but only closer and closer approximations to the truth.
        I do think that all those PhD’s in big pharma know what they are doing and lie, cheat, and dishonestly design studies (not experiments) to show that their drugs work. They should be screwed (however you define that term).
        AJ

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s