By Monk: Why not nuclear?

Today’s post is by frequent un-Denial visitor and friend Monk who does a wonderful job of explaining why nuclear energy is not a useful response to overshoot.

With increasing energy prices and sanctions on Russia, people are once again considering how we can power the global industrial machine with significantly less oil and gas. Alongside this, environmentalists are getting more savvy in spotting the critical problems with the likes of wind and solar and other green hopium nonsense (green hydrogen anyone?). But for some reason, many people struggle to make the final step and admit that nuclear is not going to save us from peak oil and / or climate change.

In this article, I would like to briefly layout what I see as the high-level problems with nuclear. This is just a summary of my own personal reasons for why I’m not convinced. It is by no means a thorough technical analysis!

What I’d like us to consider is this: is it DENIAL stopping our smart and critical thinkers from admitting the problems with nuclear? People who do become aware of the problems with our system tend to jump to nuclear as a last bastion of hope. Modern commentators like to tell themselves nice stories about nuclear. This prevents them from having to seriously consider energy collapse. How often have you heard these affirmations?

  • Nuclear energy is cheap
  • Nuclear energy is safe
  • Nuclear energy is clean and green
  • Nuclear energy is a low carbon energy source
  • Nuclear energy can meet our energy needs when fossil fuels run out (peak oil)
  • New innovations will make nuclear energy better, such as micro plants, newer generations, sustained fusion etc.

We shouldn’t just believe in nuclear like it’s a fairy godmother who is going to save us from our poor energy planning. We should thoroughly interrogate claims about nuclear through the lenses of environment, energy, economy, and safety.

Nuclear energy may have a negative energy return

If we accept money (currency) as a proxy for energy units, then it is pretty clear that nuclear plants are incredibly energy expensive to plan, build, maintain, and decommission. Nuclear plants are some of the most expensive projects undertaken. The capital costs are horrendous. What that should tell you is it takes a shed load of energy just to build a nuclear power plant.

To see if this upfront energy spend is worth it, we need to see how much energy we get back. Utility providers will look at costs as a ‘cost per electricity unit’. If you compare nuclear to other electricity sources, you are spending a lot more to get nuclear. Here is an example of that type of comparison looking at just the capital cost per kilowatt:

TypeCapital cost per kilowatt (kW)
Nuclear$7,675 to $12,500
Coal plant$3,000 to $8,400
Gas combined$700 to $1,300

Source (well worth a read):

By the time we factor in all the other costs associated with nuclear – that other electricity generation doesn’t have – I’m not convinced nuclear is generating a net return at all. If that’s true (I’m happy to be wrong), you might ask why countries continue to build them? A few possibilities include:

  • Accepting burning existing fossil fuels now to get longer lasting consistent electricity in the future.
  • To support ongoing research.
  • To support the military.

I often hear pro-nuclear people talk about how much energy we can get from such a small volume of uranium. I think that is disingenuous considering all the energy we have to burn in setting up a plant before we even get a single unit of energy from uranium. 

Please note that net energy studies are notoriously difficult, because it’s up to the researcher how much of the supply chain and lifecycle they factor in. That’s why I find looking at currency a useful way to approximate EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). Of course, the nuclear industry will say they generate a very positive EROEI. Here’s a good example with references: However, academic “meta-analysis of EROI values for nuclear energy suggests a mean EROI of about 14:1 (n of 33 from 15 publications)” (Hall et al., 2014) NB this was looking at traditional nuclear only.

Nuclear produces electricity, not liquid energy, not coal, and not gas  

Our predicament is not one of electricity, but of diesel, natural gas, and coal. These are critical energy and resource sources that cannot be replaced by electricity (or at least not with a positive energy return). A couple of simple examples:

  • We can’t make silicon wafers or industrial steel without coal.
  • We can’t move stuff around or dig it out of the ground without diesel.
  • We also have the issue that the world vehicle fleet is already built and requires petrol or diesel for the most part. There are no longer enough minerals left to build an entirely new electric vehicle fleet – a fact that surprising few anti-car new urbanist types are unaware of.
  • Natural gas provides us with nitrogen fertilizer (essential for feeding billions of people in the modern agricultural system) and plastics with many uses.

Another challenge is that if nuclear was to replace all energy from fossil fuels, we would need a better way to store excess energy. Although nothing like the intermittency problems of wind and solar, nuclear has a related type of problem in that it likes to always be running and producing a steady-ish amount of electricity. Currently this doesn’t matter where nuclear is part of the total energy mix, but if it were the bulk of the energy mix, storage would become a major consideration. There are a whole lot of issues with electricity storage that have been well-explained in the issues with wind and solar, namely finite amount of materials to build batteries, expense, and battery storage capacity.

One potential upside of nuclear energy could be to replace natural gas as the main electricity generator that balances out wind and solar intermittency. But due to the costs of nuclear compared to gas this hasn’t been done. Moreover, gas generation is preferred because it is easier to switch off and on. 

Nuclear is entirely dependent on fossil fuels

A nuclear power plant could not even be built without fossil fuels:

  • Coal to make the steel
  • Diesel to mine the uranium
  • Diesel to mine the sand for concrete
  • Diesel to mine the copper to make the electric components
  • Gas to make the plastics for componentry and systems
  • Gas to make the food to feed the workers
  • I could go on and make this a very long list, but hopefully you get the point.

Because building a nuclear power plant is impossible without fossil fuels, that also means we will not build new nuclear power plants after the end of oil. Just like wind turbines and solar panels cannot make more of themselves, neither can a nuclear reactor.  

Nuclear is not zero emissions

Obviously to build a nuclear power plant you are going to need a lot of diesel-powered plant and equipment. There is also concrete to factor in, which is a massive emissions source, accounting for approximately 8% of total global emissions.

With all those fossil fuels going into making a nuclear power plant, it should be obvious that nuclear is not and will never be net “zero emissions”. The focus on operating or tailpipe emissions is pointless when you’re still making an overall net positive addition to emissions. And arguably the world already has more than enough electricity, so building nuclear is possibly a complete waste of emissions.

Inputs to nuclear power plants are also reaching peak

As the capital costs suggest, nuclear energy plants are massive construction projects. They require vast raw materials – all of which have their own supply limitations. It is not just oil that is reaching peak, but many other raw inputs from copper to even boring old sand. Yes, peak sand is a thing. If you look at a picture of a nuclear plant, you’ll see a lot of concrete. That is sand! Concrete also requires other raw materials including calcium, silicon, iron, and aluminium. Is there even enough sand left in the world to build enough nuclear power plants to meet our energy needs? And the concrete needs will still be there for a hypothetical fusion plant, or any such other “innovative” nuclear power generation.

The story is the same for any other rare (or getting rare) earth element. There’s approximately 17 years left of zinc, 21 for silver, 35 for nickel and 64 for cobalt. Even if these numbers are wrong, it still shows that physical limits are approaching. This provides a real limit to the number of nuclear plants that it is even feasible to build. Moreover, if our system is going to rely on more electrified plant and equipment, these minerals will run out much sooner.

Uranium is finite

It’s kind of ironic that some people see nuclear as a solution to peak oil when the actual feed for nuclear is also reaching peak. How much proven uranium reserves are out there is hotly debated. Really, I don’t care because if there’s 10 years left or 100 years, it’s the same result – our industrial system runs out of power. Apparently, proven uranium reserves would last 90 years at the current rate of use (Murphy., 2021 he has lots of references).

What we can know for certain is that uranium will peak at some point and then reach a diminishing point of return where it is no longer economically viable to get it out of the ground. Bear in mind, most (some?) of the value in mining it is for weapons – with electricity just being the side gig!

Uranium is often in hard-to-get areas (including Russia, now embargoed). We can’t mine the uranium out of the ground once we run out of diesel, which would put the end of uranium to 40 years, not 90. The only hopium here is to hope they’ll invent some amazing electricity-powered mining plant and equipment, but then we are back to the peak mineral problem. For now, we are stuck with diesel and the associated carbon emissions.

Environmental considerations

Making nuclear power plants degrades the environment. This includes:

  • Mining all the materials required.
  • Burning all the diesel, gas, and coal in the manufacturing and construction phases.
  • Building all the roads and parking required for the plant.
  • And polluting the environment for hundreds of thousands of years with radioactive material that causes birth defects, genetic degradation, cancer, and death.

Michael Dowd regularly asks us to contend with the question of radioactive waste. What right do we present day humans have to pollute the world for thousands of years, just so we can run another dishwasher? It is highly likely that some, if not most, nuclear reactors will meltdown, because they will not have been safely decommissioned due to peak oil production. What an inheritance for our descendants, if we have any left!

What do we do with the waste?

Nuclear waste is incredibly dangerous to human health and the environment. Waste can also be utilised by terrorists (or bad state actors) to create a dirty bomb. So based on these problems, we need to be very careful where and how we store the waste. Not surprisingly, this is another thing humans seem determined to f-up. For starters, a lot is stored at or near sea level – great for getting water to keep it cool – not so great when you get a sea-based disaster. Sea water corrodes infrastructure at a faster rate, increasing the likelihood of failure of the waste containment. Plus, what happens with rising sea levels from climate change?

When digging more into this topic, you’ll see humans are running out of places to put this waste and the costs of waste-storage projects are increasing. This makes it less likely that a company will be 100% focussed on quality for a capex project that generates no returns.

Alice Friedemann has argued that burying nuclear waste should be a top priority, as after peak oil production, oil will be rationed to agriculture and other essential services. Spent fuel from nuclear lasts a very long time. According to Archer (2008): “… there are components of nuclear material that have a long lifetime, such as the isotopes plutonium 239 (24,000 year half-life), thorium 230 (80,000 years), and iodine 129 (15.7 million years). Ideally, these substances must be stored and isolated from reaching ground water until they decay, but the lifetimes are so immense that it is hard to believe or to prove that this can be done”.

Once the containment for nuclear waste starts to degrade, the waste can leak into ground water, contaminating drinking water and getting into the food system. Where waste gets into the ocean, the currents can travel it all over the globe. This is happening in our lifetime, forget about a thousand years from now.

Are nuclear plants really safe?

Taken at face value statistically, nuclear plants are very safe. But I think this is a sneaky statistic because this is old data from when nuclear plants were young and well-resourced. We really don’t know how the safety stats will hold up as the plants age out. Once they are over 40 years old, the risk of disaster is much higher. This risk is heightened by very old systems and componentry and the specialised nuclear workforce retiring and not being replaced.

Many nuclear plants are built close to the sea, exposing them to natural risks including sea level rise, tsunamis, typhons / hurricanes, and erosion. Near misses are surprisingly common, often a result of human error and the just mentioned old systems. There is evidence that significant near misses are underreported officially, leading to misconceptions about the safety risks posed.  

There have been two major nuclear power plant disasters that I’m sure you are familiar with. The first is the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl where a design flaw, triggered ironically by a safety test, led to a reactor meltdown. The second was the 2011 Fukushima disaster, where an earthquake-triggered tsunami damaged the emergency diesel generators, leading to a loss of electric power. By the way, look there’s another essential use of fossil fuels in operating nuclear plants!

Here are two minor anecdotes to show you the environmental outcomes. Following the Chernobyl disaster, a farm in Scotland had all their new-born lambs born without eyes and they had to be culled. As a result of Fukushima, across the Pacific, there is plenty of scientific evidence of radioactive contamination in fish and shellfish – tasty!

When we look at total confirmed human deaths from these nuclear incidents, we are looking at around 100 people. Total deaths from COVID-19 thus far is around 6.6 million. So how can we say nuclear is unsafe? Well, what the official incident deaths don’t tell us is how many people are dying from cancers years after a nuclear incident. Moreover, there’s little incentive for a government to try and track each death that could be attributable to a nuclear disaster – that will only make them look bad. Considering nuclear waste is toxic for 100,000s of years, we can’t even account for the untold future suffering of humans and non-humans.

Maybe the initial risks of nuclear have been overstated, but what would happen if most or all of them failed? For example, a risk that you barely ever hear mentioned is if multiple reactors were hit by an EMP or solar flare? If the grid is wrecked, so are the nuclear reactors. Maybe that might never happen, but it does seem likely that most plants won’t be properly decommissioned (due to peak oil), which will see most of them melting down over this century.


Nuclear plants are a target for terrorism and potentially could be used to inflict massive damage to people and the environment. From Alice Friedemann: Plutonium waste needs to be kept away from future terrorists and dictators for the next 30,000 years. But world-wide there’s 490 metric tons of separated plutonium at military and civilian sites, enough to make more than 60,000 nuclear weapons. Plutonium and highly enriched uranium are located at over 100 civilian reactor plants. In addition, there’s 1,400 tons of highly enriched uranium world-wide.  A crude nuclear bomb can be made from as little as 40 to 60 kilograms of U-235, or roughly 28,000 nuclear bombs.

Decommissioning is fraught with challenges

Decommissioning is essential as once plants age out, they become too radioactive and are likely to decay. You would then get a full or partial meltdown. Like everything else to do with nuclear, decommissioning too is a very expensive and lengthy process, often exceeding budgets. Decommissioning also requires experienced nuclear engineers who are retiring. Younger engineers no longer see nuclear as a viable career path, so the next generation of skilled nuclear workers is not there. As the nuclear plants reach the end of their design life, it will get harder and more expensive to safely decommission them. And when has a large corporate ever been good at cleaning up after itself?! Moreover, us poor taxpayers will be increasingly impoverished by peak oil economic destruction, leaving governments with less funds to pick up after the energy companies.

We might ask, where is the proof that decommissioning is happening currently and where are the government budgets put aside for decommissioning? Countries like France and the USA are also delaying decommissioning plants at the moment, possibly worried about electricity shortages and unwilling to take another source offline.

As citizens, why should we support the building of new nuclear plants when there’s barely any proof that the current ones are being safely dealt with at their end of their life?

Financial problems

Investors are not keen on nuclear power projects. They have a habit of blowing out budgets and timelines and failing to return investment (a big clue that they are negative EROEI). There’s also a bit of a wait of 7 to 10+ years for project completion before you can even hope to start seeing a financial return. Remember the cost of construction is only ever going to get more expensive now due to peak oil. Oh, and there are uninsurable liabilities!  

Governments often need to invest in electricity infrastructure, and especially for nuclear, to make up this shortfall in private investment. Citizens quite rightly should demand proof that nuclear plants are worth spending energy on. They should demand Governments provide detailed risk management against all the criteria we’ve just discussed. Because nuclear is not popular with the average citizen, democratic governments are increasingly unwilling to invest in nuclear. Moreover, governments are encouraged by their populations to keep electricity prices affordable. Wind and solar are much more popular and tend to get more of the subsidies. They have also damaged the profitability of nuclear with wind and solar going first to sell to market (government policy in parts of Europe).

Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy is a pipe dream

In a 2019 Forbes article, Roger Pielke ran a thought experiment on how many nuclear plants the world would need to get to the 2050 net zero goal. “To achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.”

We can already see that this just isn’t happening, and for the reasons laid out in this article it’s clear this can never happen. It looks like 2022 saw just 53 nuclear reactors under construction world-wide – that’s not finished by the way, just in some stage of construction.

But what about innovation

Honestly each ‘innovation’ to nuclear reactors could be an article all on its own. I have to confess I have a lazy heuristic: I just write off all of these as nonsense and don’t really give them fair consideration. But if I had to provide a high-level critic, this would be it. I have just noted the additional problems with these “innovations” – they still have all the same problems described elsewhere:

  • Fusion – The gold standard of hopium. As the idiom goes, sustained fusion is just 20 years in the future and always will be. 
  • Breeder reactors – Recycling costs more energy than you get back. Also, more expensive than regular reactors, which are already too expensive.
  • New generation – Less safe and more toxic (go ask Alice).
  • Thorium – Perhaps it could have worked but looks like it’s too expensive now. That’s a good hint it would be negative EROEI. Might not be viable in reality.
  • And this goes for lots of things: just because something is feasible in a lab situation or theoretically possible, does not mean it will ever be a viable solution. You can do a lot if you have oodles of energy and billions of dollars to waste. We might ask, is indulging the fantasies of scientists really a good use of our last remaining surplus resources?

Well, that’s bleak, what does the future of electricity look like

Humans already have access to more electricity than we ever imagined 100 years ago. If we had a stable or reducing population (shout out to Rob), then we wouldn’t even need to worry about bringing on new electricity generation.

Categorically all forms of electricity generation have their negative drawbacks. Eventually, all the hydroelectric dams will silt up – this can take hundreds of years – and finally they will all fail. Wind turbines last for 30 years, though in reality production efficiency reduces much earlier. Coastal wind turbines will decay after 10 years due to erosion from salt water. Solar panels will last 30+ years, but the associated systems and batteries to collect and store the electricity fail much sooner and need replacement parts. Nuclear plants last for a design life of 40+ years minimum and then should be decommissioned over the following 20 years. With natural gas shortages due to the Russian Invasion, countries are delaying decommissioning their plants. Most western nuclear is aged out.

Humans could continue to produce electricity by burning coal and natural gas. There are approximately 400 years left of coal and 150 years left of natural gas. But (and it’s a big but), there is only 40 years left of oil (BP Statistical Review). Without oil we don’t have diesel powered equipment, which will make it all but impossible to extract coal and natural gas. Without coal, we can’t make industrial wind turbines, solar panels, or nuclear reactors.

What this means is that by the year 2060, we are looking at a world with much less electricity production and eventually moving to almost zero electricity as the hydro dams fail in the coming centuries – and no we can’t build new ones of scale without diesel. Perhaps some smart individuals can maintain rudimentary electricity where they live, but the days of large electric grids are numbered.

By the way, if you do want to dive into the technical details, I can point you in the direction of plenty of useful references. Just let me know 😊

386 thoughts on “By Monk: Why not nuclear?”

  1. Regarding diesel going away first: I suspect that means our forests and/or ag land would follow soon thereafter to make biodiesel as a replacement. We’re already shoveling huge amounts of wood into electricity generation to replace coal. (Drax!)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Alice F worked out all the forests in North America would be gone in one year from heating and cooking without fossil fuels. Biomass just doesn’t exist in the quantities that would be any use. There’s also arguments that biodiesel is negative energy return on investment. Maybe some combination of coal-to-diesel and biodiesel will be used for a time – especially when electricity can still be used for heating and cooking.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The common derogatory term for the super obese folks who are so common throughout America but seem to be most easily sighted at Walmart is “whale”.

        I propose a new start up that refines this new product that will power the future called…….. Whale oil! [Patents pending]

        Liked by 2 people

      2. “combination of coal-to-diesel and biodiesel” — Combination fossil diesel and biodiesel is what airline industry is promoting as “lower” GHG fuel. IMO about as stupid as battery powered airplanes.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. yes haha – the airlines tell a good story. Our airport in Auckland just got flooded. They have a 50 year masterplan. LMAO they think there will be fuel and a sea-level airport still in 50 years.


    1. Yes, resources would be plentiful in a slowly reducing pop. Bonus points if we could be improving our soils at the same time as reducing pop


  2. Just prior to Monk’s above essay being posted, Gaia contributed a lengthy and interesting comment on the last post sharing her knowledge on covid vaccines. It would be a shame for readers to miss Gaia’s comment so I’ve copied here for visibility.

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

    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. I appreciate your desire to explain but your overly complicated comments do more harm than good when it comes to the average person reading it. It almost seems like you are trying to muddle the issue???

      Here is what is true and important;

      It is important to understand that biotech is mostly just wet chemistry.

      For those confused about the graphene vs no graphene, from what I have read the batches of the jab vary quite a bit so it is very possible that some can’t find it. This keeps everyone guessing and divided.

      There are most definitely viruses and they play an enormous roll in all life on the planet. We would not be here without them.

      With regarding germ theory vs terrain, which is what most arguments surrounding C-19 and the jab boil down to, both are of course are necessary. It is a proven fact that healthy cells, tissue, and bodies, resist being overtaken by most germs, bacteria, virus, etc. It is why all vaccines have an adjuvant incorporated into them. Adjuvants are toxins, poisons, which when healthy cells, tissue, and bodies are exposed to and compromised, that then allows the attenuated virus in.

      Science knows this, has known this for a very long time (100 years+) . The CDC has a whole department that focuses entirely on toxic events and are always deployed when there is an outbreak of disease. They don’t talk about or show their findings as that info would be …inconvenient because the western economy is 100% invested in germ theory only.

      Because modern populations are constantly and increasingly being poisoned with thousands of manmade toxic elements we can expect to be increasingly detrimentally infected with all sorts of bugaboos.

      Ironically the best way to address the increasing toxic spew would be to poison everyone…that’s what I would do.

      The spike protein that the mRNA jabs produces is toxic…even the producers of the jabs have admitted to this. This is not seen by TPTB in Pharm as bad, in fact it is the historical desired goal. The belief is that if people are pre-poisoned they will be better off. They also believe they can release a toxin in the human body that will only focus on what they have “programed” it to attack and leave the rest of the human physiology uneffected. This is ignorance and hubris on a scale beyond anything humans have ever achieved and thats saying a lot.


  3. Every once in a while Ivor Cummins provides a nice big picture evidence based summary of what we know about Covid. He’s done 2 of these in the last 2 days.

    The first one rejects Scott Adams’ lame mea culpa showing the evidence Adams missed.

    The second one looks at the benefits of the vaccines and shows that even if you ignore the “magic” pharma used to inflate the benefits, and if you ignore all of the harms, there is no evidence to justify the policies of our “leaders”.


      1. Yes, it’s true I’m obsessed with how incompetent and/or evil our leaders have been on covid.

        I understand why our leaders deny overshoot and energy depletion and therefore do nothing intelligent about these issues.

        I do not understand why they performed so poorly on covid.

        I probably won’t stop until they are dead from mRNA side effects or in prison.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Covid has obsessed many truth seeking people. It may prove to be the biggest crime in history and the majority of citizens don’t even attempt to understand what is going on despite possible harms to themselves and their children. It’s totally fascinating. We could be witnessing the most impressive example of Varki’s MORT ever.


          2. Your not feeling comfortable makes me feel uncomfortable.
            I can’t possibly recommend this blog when commenters are obsessed about feeling comfortable.


            1. Don’t let it bother you. It doesn’t bother me; it just means I don’t include un-denial on my list of go-to references to educate people about limits to growth and overshoot. Aside from the fact that I think it’s paranoid, borderline wacko anti-vax, and irrelevant.


              1. I have shared mountains of evidence that persuades me mRNA costs exceed benefits, and that the people in charge are unethical and/or unintelligent.

                Please share the evidence that persuades you that mRNA benefits exceed costs, and the people in charge are intelligent and have pubic health as a priority.

                Liked by 2 people

                1. Well Rob I don’t think your a wacko or anti vax and for that matter neither are any of the commentators. I certainly don’t think that humans ability to deny reality is irrelevant so keep up the good work.

                  Liked by 2 people

            1. Hah, they only play the audio only for me, green screen video. So I still cant see the Scott Adams charts!!

              I have a feeling I already know the basics anyway.


  4. Nice one, monk. Nuclear advocates, though, would probably be able to pull nonsense from their arses to counter most of it. Doesn’t matter; it’s not going to happen. If Pielke is right, we need about 15,000 new nuclear power plants (and that would be just for current energy use). Your safety concerns start to explode if one thinks about not just 450 NPPs but 15,000 NPPs. Statistically, it wouldn’t surprise me to find we’d experience one serious nuclear incident a month or a year, multiplying safety concerns.

    I’d love to get confirming evidence of Michaux’s work on the material needs. There is a new paper, written about the same time, which claims that there are enough materials for a transition but it seems to have some flaws and I’m fairly certain was written by those who are desperate that a transition is possible. I don’t know how anyone can be objective about this but we have to find that objectivity to avoid pouring resources into a dead end and to avoid the attendant ecological destruction.

    Regarding steel making, there are a number of companies claiming to make fossil-free steel but I’m skeptical (they are often couched in terms of a future aim for fossil free, even if some strides have been made towards that goal). Regardless, anything claimed as sustainable is bound to be a lie.

    On nuclear innovations, I often wonder why ideas touted by nuclear adherents don’t appear to be making it into new builds or nowhere near as often as would be needed (e.g. breeders). It could be that the industry doesn’t share the rosy view of such innovations.

    One of the points never addressed by nuclear adherents such as James Hansen (a great climate scientist) is “what if the attempt fails?” There could be thousands of nuclear reactors running as societies start to crumble due to environmental or resource issues (likely both). The risks then go through the roof.

    We’ll be looking for a way out even as the last community succumbs to nature.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have looked into the fossil fuel free steel, and all the ones I researched are bogus. They are either making pig steel or using offsets to claim they are fossil fuel free.


  5. All of these fossil fuel replacements are really just discussions and information posted on the internet. Money will keep being injected into solar farms, wind farms and new hydroelectric projects. Meanwhile fossil fuel consumption keeps rising and it’s percentage of total energy consumed remains about the same. Electricity use rises every day as the data storage centers store more articles on renewable energy, more Youtube videos and more tweets.

    Not only are we looking for FF replacements but to keep the economy going we need more electricity all the time, otherwise the system will crash. So in reality, all the alternatives (including nuclear) are just keeping up with increases.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Using fossil fuels to build our their replacements can be like throwing good money after bad. If the population was not growing, we wouldn’t need to keep growing the energy system. The end point looks certain, when we get, and in what way, is still to be found out


      1. Following Tim Garrett’s work, it’s not so much the growing population that requires more energy (though it does) rather the continued accumulation of wealth, which would happen even if population was falling, provided some resemblance to the current economy continues.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Hi all. Sorry to change the subject, but New Zealand has had a terrible weather event over the week. Our largest city Auckland had the worst flooding on record. Essentially we had a cloud burst, coinciding with a king tide. I know for Americans this might not look like much compared to your hurricanes. But this was seriously scary for us.


      1. Everyone is fine thankfully, one of my friends had her business completely flooded 😦
        I typically don’t like blaming every bit of weather on climate change, but in this case, it seriously is hard to explain without climate change

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes. Attribution studies generally state that the likelihood of such an event has increased. One in a hundred year events become one in fifty year events then one in twenty year events. I know someone who had to move their garden because a one in 20 year event happened three times in five years.

          I’m just on the outskirts of Auckland and recorded 217mm in a 24 hour period (it’s a good job I emptied the rain gauge half way through, otherwise it would have overflowed). Auckland apparently had its wettest day on record but the second wettest was in the 80s with a cyclone. This even had no associated cyclone and the pressure of the associated low pressure zone would often be regarded as high pressure in different situations.

          My son and grandson were kayaking around our orchard. Thankfully, the water got nowhere near our house (it would probably have taken many more days of that level of rainfall, for that to happen – but I wouldn’t rule it out in future). The system is being pushed back over us so we may get another extreme event in the next day or two. Fingers crossed.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I hope your house and property weren’t damaged? We were told over and over for decades to expect weather events to get worse, so we can’t act surprised. Only sad we didn’t reduce our carbons.


              1. It takes a while for a town to recover – Christchurch is still not the same 10 years after the earthquakes. It’s worse if people abandon the town as well. That flooding in Aus was crazy, especially so soon after the fires


                1. Collapse happens one day at a time.

                  Who knew?

                  Think of it as training for really hard times.

                  Imagine the cleanup when you watch it and then consider what happens when there is no diesel.

                  Lismore would still be a flotsam and jetsam disaster zone.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. In New Zealand we spend a lot on keeping our roads open. We have a lot of rivers and creeks, lots of slopes and mountains, and a lot of earthquakes. Bridges and roads wash out, slips happen, trees fall over roads, roads break from earthquakes. Every day, there are highwayman driving everyone of our state highways working to keep them open. Without diesel, much of NZ would be impassable very quickly


            1. Thanks. No damage to our house. Whether trees have been damaged or not is uncertain. The effect of inundation may not play out for a while, but no visible damage.

              Reducing carbon and other GHGs is vital but this won’t get any better until all human caused GHGs are reduced to zero but, even then, we’d have to live with unstable climate for the rest of our lives.

              Liked by 1 person

      2. Have you investigated weaponized weather, aka HAARP? I remember it from the 70s and 80s alerts by Michael Ruppert. Now it’s back in the news.

        and this Romanian senator’s news conference on the Turkish earthquake: Romanian Senator Diana Socoaca claims HAARP technology was used to cause the Turkey Earthquake as a warning to go “With the flow” and follow “Deep State” orders…With what’s happened over the last 2 years, anything is possible..


    1. Hi monk, Mike, Campbell and all other Kiwi friends,

      Glad to hear you’re all okay and hopefully NZ will be getting some breathing space for the massive clean up operation ahead. What a big first task for your new PM. As you would know, Australia has also experienced record flooding last year, some areas were underwater 3 times in a year, so these events are becoming record holders not only for amount of water but also how quickly occurring in succession.

      It’s always good to live on high ground, and never too late to put in more drainage infrastructure to prepare for the next deluge. I hope everyones’ gardens are okay and your fruit trees won’t mind a bit of wet feet for a little while.

      What does someone with real meteorological knowledge think about the idea that these torrential rains have been seeded in part by that volcano off Tonga last year? All I know is that it sent up record amounts of water vapour into the stratosphere which is forecast to increase global warming further over the next few years before dissipating. Could this also have contributed to these rain bombs that are exploding all over the planet, especially in the Southern hemisphere?

      Stay well and dry everyone, and thank you for all your community spirit and help for those in need. These are also times which draw out the best in people, and I trust you will find many uplifting stories to keep your spirits high.


      Liked by 3 people

      1. Thanks, Gaia. Yeah, we’ve had it bad but others have had it much worse and the situation isn’t going to improve in our lifetimes. I don’t know about that Tonga volcano. I doubt it, though. Water vapour isn’t a well mixed gas like CO2 so any effects could be localised. Also, the stratosphere has been cooling, as the troposphere and surface have been warming, so extra water vapour up there may not act in the same way. I haven’t noticed any research on that, though.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. You seemed to imply that there was some reference to overshoot but it was nothing to do with overshoot. However, I’m surprised he didn’t mention another option, apart from screwing retirees or younger people. Tax the rich. The top 1% could cover the shortfall without blinking.


  7. Nuclear power plants are just steam powered engines, more complicated but not that different. They consume water for cooling as well as for generating steam to power the generators. Therefore they must always be located next to reliable, continuous, abundant water flows 24/7/365.

    Last year something like 6 of the worlds top rivers dried up enough to stop all traffic, some dried to a trickle, many no longer reached the sea. With the loss of glaciers, longer droughts, massive rainfall in very short timeframes, and warming waters (not able to adequately cool the facilities) it doesn’t seem prudent to put our hopes on this source of electricity.

    A couple years ago France had to shut down several facilities due to low or no water flows. Expect a lot more of that.

    One of the largest facilities is Palo Verde in AZ. it has no natural water source anywhere near. It primarily uses waste water from Phoenix and is now petitioning to use groundwater as the water restrictions in AZ are slowing down wastewater flows…at the same time as increased demand for electricity. What could go wrong?

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick is my most trusted doc. He has impeccable integrity.

    Kendrick was an early critic of covid policies but quit writing when he concluded none of the data could be trusted and therefore it was not possible to do a useful analysis on anything.

    He’s back today with a fresh look at the only data that can be trusted: all cause mortality.

    His conclusion: covid was a nothing-burger and lockdowns did far more harm than good.

    Sadly, he also concludes we will learn nothing from our mistakes and the people who screwed up will never be held accountable meaning we are guaranteed to repeat the mistake.

    I’d say this is a must read if you’re still interested in covid.


    1. Great piece. His takedown on Ardern was excellent. I remember thinking before Covid that New Zealand would be a great place to live and then during Covid, with the PM’s performance and the strict lockdowns, I had second thoughts. Good luck in the future to all you Kiwi’s.
      I thought Kendrick’s best quote was: “… I have begun to see everything as a conspiracy nowadays.” – So you’re in good company Rob!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I note he did not touch gain of function research, lab leak, mRNA safety and effectiveness, vaccinating children, blocked safe and effective alternatives, variant promotion, Omicron origins, deliberate data obfuscation, etc.

        He makes a damning case against our leaders and doesn’t even touch the important bits.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Adern was probably the worst PM in my lifetime. And I particularly despise the way any criticism of her or her terrible policies is labelled as sexist…eye roll. She was voted in with a clear majority in the last election, something that is very hard to achieve in NZ.
        Under Adern’s leadership, NZ political discourse has suffered. We’ve have become more polarized. She has promoted harmful and hateful rhetoric. She leaves with the housing crisis worse than ever and public debt through the roof. Idealistic self-aggrandizing numpty.
        A lot of us expected her to abandon NZ for a cushy job at the UN


        1. The most recent leader is always thought of as the worst … until the next one comes along. I don’t think she was worse than Key but people have different priorities. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter who the alleged leader is, they all seem to be intent on destroying the planet we live on. In NZ’s case, it’s mostly harmless, being small, but still complicit.


      3. Goodness, I wouldn’t base an opinion of any place being good to live on the basis of a short lived PM term. The whole world needs luck and future PMs are guaranteed to be as bad as Ardern.


    2. His take on global deaths is weird; half close your eyes and there seems to be no difference during COVID. Not very scientific. It looks very different to me though I don’t think he thinks COVID was a nothing burger (i.e. that it was no different from normal, in terms of deaths). Of course, COVID is more than just a potentially fatal disease as there could be a lot of long term damage.


      1. Geert Vandenbosch has book out now on the inescapable immune escape epidemic which provides a “thought-provoking analysis of the complex interactions between the virus and the host immune system that underlie the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. The author delves into the impact of mass vaccination on individual and global health, and explains how powerful organizations, institutions, and industries lacking an understanding of this complex environment have turned a natural viral pandemic into one of disastrous immune escape. The author’s predictions are compelling and indicate that Nature will correct this mistake, but at a substantial cost to human lives in highly vaccinated countries. ”


    3. IMO the greatest tragedy/crime against humanity and almost no one focuses on it,and that’s the fact that the global health authorities disallowed treatment. I’m not just talking about HCQ or IVM but any and all treatments for sick people. By disallow I mean serious punishment for those who disobey.

      It has been widely reported that there were dozens of successful treatments performed from the very begining but were either shut down or disappeared. Physicians who were part of these relatively new MD provider corporations were told they would be knocked down the priority list or even sidelined if they started any of the treatments. People were told to just go home and wait until you are very sick then you can come in. This was not because of overcrowding either.

      This practice is responsible for millions of deaths and it is becoming understood as the most likely cause of long covid.

      Someone needs to climb on this issue big time.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s a good point Jef.

        I think for me the biggest crime was not collecting and making public the correct data.

        Let’s assume a world of leaders with good intentions. They make a judgement call in what they believe is an emergency and decide to roll out a promising novel technology with insufficient testing to confirm effectiveness or long term safety.

        Those leaders would know it was vitally important to collect and publish the data necessary to validate their decision. If the mRNA is safe and effective as hoped the data would encourage the skeptics to get injected. If the data shows the mRNA is not safe or effective then it will stop any further injections thus preventing further harm.

        How is it possible that there is not a single country in the world that publishes clean trustworthy data on all cause mortality for vaxed vs. un-vaxed?

        Why did the doctors permit them to do that???

        How is that possible???

        It’s not unless our leaders and doctors are evil or really stupid.


        1. Imagine if civil engineers influenced governments and the news media to not collect data and report on bridge collapses because they did not want to harm their business by having to pay damages and revise their design standards.


    4. Dr. Kendrick in a comment states what he thinks happened with covid.

      You make good points. Kary Mullis said PCR should not be used a screening test because, if you set it forty cycles, or so, you can get a positive test on virtually anyone. [And it was never designed to be a screenign test anyway].

      The results from early PCR testing are completley unreliable. Even the CDC almost admitted this when they reduced the cycles down to 26? if memory serves. Also, if you get the ‘fragment’ RNA sequence slightly wrong, or stop it at the wrong amino acid, or whatever, you could multipyly up all sorts of bit of other virues, or RNA/DNA fragments and get a positive result from a banana.

      In addition, the fact that poeple cliamed to have fully sequenced the virus within less than a month of it appearing…. then developing a fully accurate PCR test in locksteop. This was an amazing and almost unbelievable coincidence. I think I shall stick to unbelievable.

      So yes, I think a hell of a lot of people diagnosed as having Covid, did not. There are actaully no signs or symptoms specific to Covid. Influenza can also cause vascular damage to the lungs, ground glass appearance etc. etc. Influenza virues can also increase the risk of CVD. Increase the risk of blood clots etc. etc.

      Having said all of this. I do think a new virus appeared – from somewhere. I think a lot of people saw a way to get very rich, very quick, following its appearance. They knew they would get richer, quicker, if they hyped up how deadly Covid was. Our scientifically ignorant politicians saw a way to look strong, caring and leadery, and had no way of countering propaganda they could not understand – becuase they are total scientific ignoramusus. The rest, as they say, is history.

      An almost perfect storm of greed, fear, and stupidity gripped the world. Foxy Loxy feasted.


    1. yes but at what point do you think anyone is going to wake up? Chris is still peddling his hopium. Can’t blame him, its how he makes a living. But if you read between the lines as to what he is saying, I think we are in for not interesting times as Chris likes to think but devastating times that hit you sideways.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. It was the insurance industry that forced citizens to accept the reality of climate change by raising rates due to extreme weather damage.

    Maybe they’ll do it again for covid.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I won’t get boosted either. I also tried to leave a good gap between the two vaccinations. In NZ, when they first started vaccinated, they hit a lot of medical workers with the two rounds at the same time! Not good

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Saw a post by Pierre Kory who thinks those who got a booster (or it might have been any jab) more than 4 months ago are probably OK. Ah well, mine was more than a year ago (at the time, the data here did support the idea that it was effective, not now). I’m not intending to get a further booster until there is a properly clinically trialled vaccine.

          I don’t recall medical workers getting two vaccinations at the same time though the gap was reduced from the original protocol.


          1. I disagree. I think that it is a slow burn of tolerance fixation that will allow the virus through repeat infection kill the majority of the vaccinated. Lets be honest, the spike is a killer and the vaccines make you tolerate it being in you. Not good. My whole family is vaxxed so I am not happy about this.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Mine were over a year ago too. I heard about the double-jab directly from a medical worker. Certainty wasn’t public knowledge. Pfizer still makes money out of me for my birth control


  10. If I am not mistaken even radioactive materials from hospitals can be used to make a crude dirty bomb. You don’t need enriched uranium or plutonium. Imagine what terrorists and extremists would be able to do with thousands and thousands of tons of radioactive waste once civilization begins to break down and no one is left to guard them. Please correct me if I am wrong on this but it appears that the current plans for waste disposal if they even exist are prioritising high level waste not low level radioactive waste which can still be used to make dirty bomb.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Thanks to Mike Stasse for finding this excellent new interview with Simon Michaux.

    Lots of new insights in this interview. Michaux goes big picture with speculations on what is going on in geopolitics. Also predicts the big crash will start this year.

    Relevant to Monk’s post they discuss (in part 2) the nuclear energy policy of Finland.

    It’s quite remarkable how one guy has shown that all of the work on a ‘green’ future by millions of people and trillions of dollars is a complete fantasy.

    I don’t think this is possible unless MORT is true.


    1. Also predicts the big crash will start this year.

      Yeah, I wonder if we are “granted” one more year of relative normalcy. I know that already happened in countries like Pakistan or Sri Lanka but here in Central Europe things still go on rather … normal. Or if BAU is already past us and we didn’t recognize it yet?

      Liked by 1 person

    2. He’s talking about industrial clusters again. I think he’ll be on that for quite some time before he realises it won’t work, even if we scale back or eliminate unnecessary stuff (we won’t). I wonder if he’s come across Tim Garrett’s work yet. We need all of these pieces, perhaps considered extreme at the moment, to coalesce to give us the big picture of what will work and what won’t. However, I can’t get away from the conclusion that there will be an almighty crash and the world will have to regress to primitive living when all the tumult dies down (in decades or centuries).


      1. You can see Michaux’s brain doing back flips trying not to give up hope. I thought the interviewer might have had some ideas grounded in reality, like how big of a wood lot each person needs to survive.

        I listened with one ear, will go back for a more careful listen.

        I hate to say it but I think we’ll use the nukes when the shit gets real.


    3. I’ve never heard Simon speak before. Pleasantly surprised to hear an aussie accent 🙂
      Andrii Zvorygin is doing a great job with his interviews


    1. Sometimes I think (maybe it’s just emotion??) that even if we lost Science and all the insights it has provided for us into the Universe/Life/Consciousness; if we could keep great Art (classical music, Da Vinci, Van Gogh) our civilization would not have been a waste??????
      Probably a vain hope.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. Hi there again AJ and friends,

    Life has not been a waste, every near-infinite solution in this cosmic Space and its sidekick
    Time is just part of the Everything that ever was and could be. Everything happens to include our particular and peculiar consciousness in the form of this hominid vehicle which happened to evolve on this speck of dust and gas in this far-flung corner of the known universe. It’s been quite the ride hitchhiked to this third planet from our Sun, for all life forms and processes that have had their creation and demise on it. But holding onto the progeny of our consciousness in way of achievements is a pipe dream anyway, and all will eventually end. But, take heart! The universe is a circular economy on the grandest scale, the atoms of everything we have borrowed for our bodies and creations will be recombined again in some fashion and arise again as part of another life form or the ground and air that sustains it. And in due course, all return to infinite void, perhaps to be birthed into a new universe.

    What we Homo sapiens have created in our Art, Music, and Architecture has been a large part in response to the grandeur and awe that the Universe has provided, there is no more majestic cathedral than the soaring canopy of trees, and the music of the spheres resonates over and above all other vibrations. Can our consciousness also give us the grace to accept that our brilliant spark happened as it did, once and for all? Can we be humbled into gratitude for just the chance to experience Life and awareness of Life and its mysteries? Can we have the courage to be content with that, and find the peace in knowing it is enough?

    We are here and now, let it be well.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Haha Rob, that’s a good one! I did actually LOL! You should notice that I didn’t say I felt what I wrote musingly, only asked the question Can we? Godknows that everyday I struggle with trying to find some peace and meaning with everything that’s been happening. Generally I am not a stressbucket but over the past year I have cracked several molars, apparently from grinding my teeth at night, a more common phenomenon now.
        All I know is hard physical work (including sweating!) and eating fruits and veggies of your own labours (often these activities are related) are the main sources of keeping me relatively grounded nowadays and taking joy in what we can still do for ourselves.

        It just happens that Tasmania is the largest producer of opium poppy in the Southern hemisphere, and that will probably be a very good thing for us down here.


  13. Yowser!!

    I subscribed to Andrii Zvorygin’s channel. He’s the guy a couple comments above that recently interviewed Simon Michaux. This was the next video he published.

    It looks like Greer, Kunstler, Dowd, and others, were right when they predicted that the successful survivors of overshoot collapse will form groups around new religions.

    I’m doomed. I believe in the laws of thermodynamics. 😦

    Gaia’s gonna live long and prosper. 🙂

    Gaia, how’s your project going to clear land so like minded people can join your tribe?


    1. Notice that this Law of One religion believes in life after death (that lasts for trillions of years), as Varki’s MORT predicts.

      They also believe that their religion provides a feeling like sexual orgasm. MORT doesn’t predict that but it’s a nice add-on, and might be a better attractor than turning water into wine.

      Maybe I’ll give it a second look. I could do with some sex.


      1. I kinda still like Dawkins’ idea that religion is a virus of the mind(meme) and works best on the young. All the word salad arguments are lost on me now. Rational scientific thought has never been very popular in civilization except when it has produced stuff with copious energy. Even then the vast majority wallow in superstition and woo. The End is Near (yeah, it might be).

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Dear Rob,

        If I may, I would like to recommend you listen to some of Paul Hedderman. For instance:

        or any other randomly picked from his channel:

        Simply put, that’s how I see it:
        * if you believe you are a separate long-lasting independent entity (sustained by the body), then it is a certainty you will die,
        * if you believe you are Reality temporarily experiencing itself through the senses of a mortal vehicle, then you will never die (as you were never born).

        So it is not about life after death. It is not about immortality but rather about eternity (or shall I say, the Eternal).

        To make an analogy with a toaster. Does it toast because of its inner machinery, or because of the electricity that goes through it?

        Can we just agree that both options are in equal ways suppositions, interpretations, beliefs, maybe illusions? Both may be true at the same time.

        To me, the only sincere position is to accept we can’t ever know, we can’t ever describe what is. From there, we are free to choose and live our life the way we see fit. We give life all the meaning it has. This is the ultimate freedom.

        That’s why I see science as just another religion. It conceals what it can’t explain by making you prisoner of a model. They always say “think outside the box”, while presenting to you even smaller boxes than the one they control. There is no box. We don’t even know the shape of the box.

        And that is why it is said that “there is no-thing” and amen means “so be it”. Ultimately, we can’t grasp It, just be in awe.



        1. Thank you Charles for the videos and I will watch them.

          There are two things about what (I think) you’re saying that I do not understand.

          1) Why is immortality as you define it, or life after death as most religions define it, important? There is nothing unpleasant about going to sleep, and if I never woke up I’d never know the difference. What’s the big deal about immortality?

          2) You are correct that science does not yet answer many questions. It’s a process that slowly improves our understanding of how the universe works, and there are probably many things our brains will never understand.

          Life is unimaginably complex, and yet we understand plenty enough to marvel at the reality of our existence, and have a pretty good idea of how and why it happened. There is no need for an invented spirituality to provide awe and wonder, science provides plenty.

          A religion grounded in science might lead to commandments that would preserve the rare life that exists on this rare planet.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I watched all 3 videos and honestly did not understand a word of what was said, nor could I understand why they were saying it.

            It seems to be a philosophy to assist with addiction recovery but I don’t get how it would help. I have some experience in this area (nicotine & alcohol) and quit both with no relapses and no need for spirituality 15 or so years ago.


            1. Well, it is interesting how the same things can make sense to some and sound like utter gibberish to others. Anyway thank you for having the patience to listen to it even when it doesn’t speak to you at all. I apologize if it turned out to be a waste of your time.

              Non-duality (advaita vedanta) is rooted in hinduism. But Paul is an A.A which probably gives a certain flavour.

              What Paul is emphasizing (in the second video) is the fluid nature of life (a place of verbing, there are no nouns). This is related to impermanence and absolute unicity.
              Then he goes on to stress the difference between the life experienced as child with life as an adult. What has changed, is that at some point, thoughts appeared alongside and changed the experience (“and then suddenly life is happening is seen as life is happening to me“, “to me is an interpretation”).

              He then explains the nature of the interpretation. Basically there is consciousness (seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, touching). This can’t be denied. But then, immediately the mental state claims it to create a fictitious actor (seeing implies the existence of a seer, etc). The last trick of the mental state is then to put this fictitious actor in front of consciousness: the doer is suddenly (magically) the one doing.
              The actor, the “I” may thus simply be a fiction constructed by the mental state: “there can be tons of seeing without seer, but there is no seer without seeing”.

              To realize this is pretty disconcerting. He is pointing out one of the assumption we automatically make, but do not see any more. The assumption of the existence of a self, which then leads to self-centeredness and other wrongs.

              Basically, his talks are all about separating the mental chaff from the wheat: what is really true, really experienced from what is just mental interpretation, mental constructs, mental obsessions (about the past, the future…).
              Have you noticed how a lot of life experiences are feared more beforehand than they actually hurt when they really play out?
              This is true of many things. To give a concrete example that is close to us: isn’t worrying about collapse making our life more miserable than needs be? This worry is not a real experience (yet). So it may play out in a totally different way than we imagine.
              Waiting for collapse, isn’t the same mechanism as waiting for “grace”/enlightenment, or waiting for death. It is about the mental state keeping us in check, at his whim. And it is diverting us from our concrete experience. This is sometimes referred as denial of living.

              To me, spirituality is about taming the mental illusions. About eliminating all that is imagined rather than really felt. Following the lamb wherever it goes.


          2. Dear Rob,

            Thank you for taking the time to think about my post and ask questions.
            I will try to answer as precisely as possible. It is not easy because I believe the very fact of putting reality in words distorts it. The language is misleading.

            I was talking of immortality because I was responding to the “law of One” video. So I was trying to defend that one could rationally entertain this way of interpreting what’s around.
            To me, it is not that immortality (more precisely eternity) is important per se. They are other ways to see the world that completely eliminate the “self”. For instance, one could say, we are just a bunch of atoms, or just energy flowing around, or magnetic waves. We could say we are a collaboration of cells that make a community, or a community of diverse beings (microbes and all), or that there is no existence outside of whole ecosystems. All these ways of seeing reality are somewhat true and somewhere false at the same time.

            So it is not that one model/belief is better than the other. The important part to me is to see we live without knowing. Nobody knows. Nobody can capture Truth (or has any legitimacy to impose his truth on other).
            To try an analogy: by putting on another pair of glasses, we can understand we were wearing glasses in the first place and that they can be removed.

            A few years ago, I saw the cage bars of my reality. I saw I was interpreting everything through the lens of my humanist/rational upbringing. This experience was liberating. It immediately created more space, room for possibilities. Since, in the end we are the ones giving life all the meaning it has. Some ways of seeing life are particularly dark, others are particularly rosy, other are very cold… Pick the one that corresponds you the best. We are free not to despair. This is not denial of reality, this is seeing that reality is not reduced to the model of reality we have in our mind.

            Maybe science is “a process that slowly improves our understanding of how the universe work”. But, to me, that is problematic in itself. There are core assumptions which can not be proved or disproved. These assumptions are not less arbitrary than the ones found in other beliefs.
            One of these assumptions is that there is some kind of regularity in the universe that can be unveiled (in the form of equations). But that is not necessarily the case.
            Another assumption is that this process is worthwhile. But do we really want to eliminate all mystery?

            I would also like to refute the fact that “a religion grounded in science” (isn’t it a strange expression?) might lead to the preservation of life. It seems to me, we currently have a religion grounded in science. The consequences are all around us.

            I totally agree with the fact that there is plenty enough to marvel. However, I would refute the fact that spirituality (sincere spirituality, not the ones made up to profit from the credulity of other) is invented. It is very much grounded in reality. It focuses on other aspects of reality than the ones that can be studied through science, such as: the subjective, the inner experience, the non-repeatable, the unique, contemplation without com-prehension (which is really an act of grasping)…. All these are part of reality too.

            Thank you for this exchange of ideas. I enjoy it.


            1. Hello Charles,
              Thank you so much for the thoughtful and gentle offering above. You have a lovely way of expressing that which is inexpressible to leave a feeling of openness and possibility. I see you and enjoy your acceptance of reality very much.
              All the best to you.


              1. Thank you Gaia for your kind words.
                I love the expression “I see you”. I seldom heard it before, except maybe in the movie “Avatar”.
                Is it specific from your part of the world?


                1. Hi Charles,
                  I trust this day finds you and your family well. I did learn to use “I see you” from the movie Avatar as the meaning resonated with me (and the story). It is a way to express how I wish to perceive the world through as many perspectives as I can and in doing so, refine my own with more humility, compassion, and kindness. Like you, it matters not whether my or others’ views are in agreement, but the possibility of their evolution and how our consciousness can integrate them is the path I wish most to take. I take heart knowing that you understand me and thus “see” me, and others here, too.


        2. Bunch of navel gazing BS. 99.999% of philosophy, religion, spirituality wuwu, is meaningless crap that people…PEOPLE…humans, make up so they don’t have to accept the hard cold realities of life.

          Why oh why can’t we just cherish the physical realities of of the most uniquely incredible planet in the entire cosmos? There is nothing that anyone can point to that is more awe inspiring, beautiful, and fulfilling that the natural world. It is really that simple. Fuck all the millions of opinions of how complicated the minutiae of human thought can be. All it does is distract us from living simply and directly in the here and now in the natural world.

          It isn’t even that we make up all this BS about ourselves, about humanity, about society, about psychology, that would be bad enough. No we go way beyond that and use all of that to destroy the most wondrous planet in a vast, nearly infinite sea of planets.

          Please lets just stop all the bull shit.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Indeed. Humans may have some unique abilities in the animal kingdom but our species is really no different from others, in essence, it’s just that our species has the capability to access more resources to do more damage than any other.

            The shame is that the planet was even more inspiring than it is now, before we wrecked it. But, yes, we should just be living simply. Maybe all the BS is because we seem to have lost the innate abilities and some of the handed down wisdom that we would have if it wasn’t for civlisation and our energy slaves.


          2. Well, that is a bit harsh. It may sound like BS to you. And that is fine. This simply either means it is not for you at all, or maybe on the contrary there is a part of you which strongly resonates with it 🙂

            Anyway, I would like to stress the fact that this “crap” is a pretty precise description of the mental tricks that lead some (many?) people to live hellish lives.
            By understanding the mechanism and studying it, it can help breaking out of compulsive destructive (self or not) behaviours.
            And doesn’t the world around us partly reflects our inner wounds?


            1. The #1 thing that might “help” people is for them to understand the depth and degrees of how they have been lied to for generations. Not one in a million understands how the world really works and the “owners” make sure it remains that way.

              The reason people have “compulsive destructive (self or not) behaviours” is because nothing makes sense when all the lies don’t come even close to explaining the convergence of catastrophic collapse happening all around us. 80% of the population of the planet are poor, half are very poor, a billion+ are starving to death slowly. 20% are doing ok, 10% are doing great, 1% are rich as fuck.

              How are people to reconcile this in their mind? It ain’t by contemplating your kundalini or what ever. I am of the belief that no one can truly get straight and healthy while living in this profoundly fucked up society, to paraphrase Krishnamurti. Not even our genetically enhanced ability to deny can help us with that one…IMO.


              1. Thank you for your explanation.
                To me, the world seems more complex than that. I am unsure about much. And it’s a good thing because I have the belief that no one force can utterly control everything else.
                My personal approach is to work on both planes: introspect, contemplate my beliefs, discard some, do a few changes in my life and behaviour, introspect again and so on.
                For me, this is a small, incremental effort both inner and outer.
                Anyway, I wouldn’t discard any approach. I respect every one’s agency.

                A way I like to visualize the biosphere is a gigantic adaptative force seeking for ever better solutions to maintain and expand its own existence. So I am pretty confident (even if it means the end of humans 🙂


    2. I tend to agree with JMG that we will see a return to traditional Christendom (or something similar) as collapse progresses. Christianity is a religion that started in the collapsing era of the Roman Empire. At it’s core, it is a religion that is anti financial fraud, recognizing the harm that currency manipulation and interests had on the everyday person. Probably it will go back to its roots (catholic and orthodox), rather than the newer protestant versions (which were part of modern capitalism really). I have always loved woo-woo stuff, but really in my heart I am a dogmatic materialist sigh

      Liked by 1 person

      1. My reading of the history of Christianity says it was successful because it had a low entry barrier (all welcome, no need to cut your penis), was an effective competitor (must disavow other gods), provided valuable social safety net services (food bank, health care, etc.), and its leaders were very skilled at using magic tricks to prove its god could deliver wealth with miracles.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. And don’t forget the fact that if you didn’t convert to Christianity, your whole tribe and culture could be wiped out providing glory to god by conquering the heathen. That’s a very persuasive and not so subtle inducement.


          1. A few years ago I toyed with the idea that a way out of our mess that might actually work would be to found a new religion grounded in science that worships the rare miracle of life on earth, its diversity and beauty, and our responsibility to cherish and protect it. Perhaps the need for a life after death story (as explained by MORT) could be fulfilled with the “we are all recycled stardust” story.

            I was curious how Christianity became popular and powerful so quickly. I summarized what I think were its keys to success above.

            I didn’t pursue the idea because I lack the charisma to pull it off, and because I suspect a religion that does not offer a “real” life after death story will not succeed. Doubly so if the god tells everyone to have fewer kids and make do with less rather than promising more abundance provided you pray and follow the rules.


            1. That’s the ticket! Let’s start a new religion that does all of what you wrote about and until we can get enough rich converts to fund our hippy happy permaculture communes that will magically spring up like mushrooms around the countryside, we can grow opium poppies and call it Hopium for the Masses, good for whatever ails you.

              We will of course need to grow this movement by attracting new members only as one of our 10 commandments will be Thou shall not procreate. That’s not the same as not having sex, of course.

              Back to our main competitor religion, that would be all the 60,000 plus sects of Christianity. I think the main reason it prospered as it did and spread like the plague is because it was championed as a state religion by the right person at the right time, in this case by Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire. It was always a stunning political move and Constantine knew that the marriage of state and religion would solidify power. As for whether he truly was a “believer”, well, he conveniently “converted” on his death bed, or so goes the story. They weren’t stupid, those Roman rulers, and figured out quick smart that the best way to control the burgeoning masses in far-flung parts of the globe was to install a religion that gave the people what they wanted to hear, especially the poor and downtrodden who will get their reward in heaven after death, and in the meantime construct a society that used this dogma to control just about every part of everyday life.

              The leaders of the day met at a council in Nicaea in 325AD to flesh out what beliefs would be deemed as the official doctrine (hence known as the Nicene Creed) and everything else forthwith would be heresy. For this feat they combed through early Christian documents to produce what was decided as correct belief, leaving out many texts and translations that would have led the development of so called Christianity down a completely different path, but probably not so geopolitically expedient for the time. Just a small but critical example, the original Aramaic word for young woman was interpreted as virgin in Greek meaning not having had first intercourse and therefore we get the whole story of Jesus and the immaculate conception and virgin birth. Of course this was deliberately chosen to highlight the mystical aspect and also follow through with a very common theme of popular religions where gods mated with humans and produced powerful offspring that often interceded between man and god. After all, Christianity had to be sold to those who subscribed to favoured religions of the day and it couldn’t be totally “out there” without recognisable themes and memes. Thus, the birth of Christ was chosen to coincide with a certain commonly celebrated festival, same with Easter, which amalgamated the resurrection after death (thus promising everlasting life to those who believed) with the near universal reverence for Spring (life returns again) and fertility rites (think eggs and bunnies).

              We only know of some alternate interpretations of early Christianity by pure happenstance as most of the rejected texts were destroyed (once they were not part of the chosen canon) or passed into obscurity with other sects now deemed heretical. It turned out that a large cache of the banned texts were found in 1945 buried in urns at Nag Hammadi, a small town in Egypt and changed our understanding of how Christianity evolved. Of course, the horse was long out of the barn by then as the official version of orthodox Christianity already overtook the Western world and thus all the rest of the world it conquered under its aegis. And no amount of logic and reason will shake what is ingrained belief in the majority, especially one that is based on pure faith to begin with. It’s crazy how a few key points in history are literally the knife edge or pen stroke on which the rest of history unfolds. Whereas many of the younger generations no longer subscribe to the fullest manifest of fundamental Christianity, it really doesn’t matter, the end result has already been enacted and that is the basis of our world today. The fact that we enjoy our lives in a wealthy country built on the backs of hundreds of thousands of African slaves is a direct consequence of the Christian religion, but what can make any reparation to that now? Ditto for all the conquests in all the so-called New World and Terra Australis. The harm is already done and we continue to benefit from it, having ditched the religion we still get to keep its ill-gotten gains.

              Argh! Sorry to have gotten started in this, I meant to have a light-hearted repartee as a response but as you can see, this topic has been a bee in my bonnet for some time. No wonder I grind my teeth at night.


              1. Excellent history refresher and observations Gaia. Agrees with what I have read except the first bit. I think Christianity had already become a powerful force through clever marketing and by providing desperately needed services like health care before Constantine jumped on the band wagon. He pushed it to the next level but it was already succeeding.

                In case anyone thinks I’m anti-religion, I’m not. Religions have been present in every tribe and in every geography since behaviorally modern humans emerged for very good reasons.

                I just wish we had a religion that focused on sustainable living and worshipping the miracle of life. The real miracle of course, as explained by Charles Darwin, Dr. Nick Lane and Dr. Ajit Varki.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Your remark about sustainable living reminded me of a recent realisation. Nothing can be sustainable (defined as can go on indefinitely) in isolation. The global life web has to be sustainable otherwise something pretending to be sustainable can’t go on indefinitely. So no group can live sustainable unless all groups are. It certainly makes no sense to label this or that “sustainable” if they are embedded in an unsustainable system.

                  The fact that probably all ecosystems are in a perturbed state might complicate this somewhat.


                  1. Hello Mike,

                    I have been repeatedly thinking these past days about this comment of yours. Because, I had the intuition it contained something profound. But, unfortunately, I wasn’t really able to fully understand what you meant on my own.

                    Specifically I don’t understand “no group can live sustainably unless all groups are”.
                    * wouldn’t it be possible for a primitive tribe laying on the fringe of an empire to outlive its rise and collapse cycle?
                    * or similarly, wouldn’t a culture that goes underground may find a way to outspan an oppressive regime?
                    * do you mean that nothing can outlive a force that is so destructive it compromises all multicellular life on earth?
                    * do you think the current situation is that extreme?
                    (Also the word sustainable is a bit vague to me, since all things eventually come to an end)

                    Thank you.


                    1. Hi Charles.

                      I guess it’s possible for a tribe living a simpler life outside of an empire to continue indefinitely and outlive that empire. However, due to the ecological impact of that empire, this isn’t guaranteed. For example, that empire may have perturbed ecosystems so much that the perturbation affects that tribe’s ecosystem and something they normally rely on goes away (some species may go extinct, leading to knock-on effects). Because no ecosystem is completely isolated (though some could appear that way for millennia) they will all interact, to some degree. The obvious perturbation we see now is climate change (but there are many other environmental stresses) which can have an effect planet wide.

                      For a world to be sustainable (continue indefinitely) resources must not be used beyond their renewal rates and environmental damage must not happen at higher rate than the environment can assimilate that damage and recover. If the world is not sustainable then nothing in it can be sustainable, so it’s pointless pretending this or that company, this or that activity, is sustainable.


                    2. Thank you Mike for the explanation. I understand and agree.

                      Note: I am replying to my own comment, because the reply button is not appearing on yours (I guess there is a limit on comments’ depth).


      2. A new Christianity will no longer be comparable to the old church.

        Perhaps you have heard of Oswald Spengler? In “The Decline of the Occident” he described the rise and fall of civilizations. We are not the first civilization to go down – just the one with the most impressive fall (probably).
        He described that the phase of “democracy” marks the beginning of the decline. This is doomed to fail and will produce a new Caesar/Imperator who will give the desperate population new hopes for a better world. In this move, the general interest in politics will also be lost and the “second religiosity” will set in. But this can only be a simulation of the old religion, which tries to create a comparable feeling, but this is not possible because of the changed consciousness. People in the past really believed in heaven and hell, the rituals of the church were magic. But they have lost their magic. The second religion will be a different one.

        Stefan Gruber described this in his “Book for No One”:

        The last men or Spengler’s ahistorical men are the products of the end time of a culture which is contesting the way to civilization. Nietzsche as a prophet of these last days hated by him gave a beautiful literary frame to that time in Zarathustra’s preface. Everyone who reads these lines will inevitably recognize our present in it.

        The fire of culture is extinguished in these last people. They lack magical sensibility and great visions. Their culture has produced everything that a culture can realize and because everything had to fail immanently, they now stand there in the time of the great liberalism and imagine themselves at the end of history, while in truth the last step that heralds the end of history – Caesarism and fellachism – still lies before them. The last people no longer live in history – they stand outside of it; they reflect instead of living; they consciously stand above their roots instead of unconsciously thriving like a plant; and they collect, categorize, and write down their cultural past because they feel deep inside that nothing is waiting for them anymore: no great ideologies, no great movements, no great longings and no great feelings, no great scientific achievements, no great philosophers, no great painters, and no great musicians.

        The last philosophers are nihilists – today they would be called systems theorists or (radical) constructivists. They connect all achievements of their culture to a whole and thus complete the work. The last historians are philosophers of history, who analyze soberly, but do not believe in anything themselves.
        The last believers are Buddhists – they believe in science, but also in a spiritual unity of being; and the religious remnant that calls itself Christian has lost any magical feeling for its religion. He adapts the Holy Scriptures to the higher religion of science. He is an amateur Christian – too cowardly to discard his religion completely and too wise to believe it.

        The last natural scientists are like accountants and categorize the particle zoo or want to connect existing knowledge to the big uniform theory of everything, blur thereby the borders of all scientific disciplines and drive science to a point where it reaches its hand to mysticism. The last intellectuals are do-gooders and children of prosperity – ethical socialists and left capitalists who do not want to live in the world, but to shape the world according to their ideas, therefore to dominate it. The last citizens have capitulated to history and indulge in self-realization. The last peasants have lost their ancestral pride, forgotten their past and think in terms of money and profit maximization. The last mass of people are lost in the entertainment industry, serving big business and applauding populists. The last politicians are corrupt servants of mammon, slimy inhabitants of a parallel world from which they venture out from time to time to butter up the people and, by posing “as their own kind,” to lure enough votes that, like stock prices, increase personal wealth.
        It is their nihilistic decadence that will elevate the last ruler – the supreme, worldly nihilist, who himself believes in nothing at all, but in the similar style of the old Georges Sorel advocates the “faithless faith-longing” – the end justifies the means (system cohesion). In it culminates and reflects the nihilism of the people, which after its seizure of power, in the course of the reprimitivization of the masses of the people, gradually turns into the “second religiosity”, which unfolds analogously to the slow, final decay. Until then, it remains an age of grotesqueness, decadence, individualization, but also maximum wakefulness. History no longer drives the last people. They want to shape history themselves and yet they languish in the no-man’s land of the de-dynamization that drives culture to the standstill of civilization. The maximum of individualization docks at the maximum of the listless collectivism, the specialist idiocy gives way to the fusion of all scientific branches, the parties of the democratic spectrum merge into a single party and the estates thin out in the fellachism of the masses of the people. Having come out of the One to dynamically differentiate, everything is now de-dynamizing back into the bosom of the One.

        Translated with (free version)


        1. Of course things never go back to the way they were. Kunstler had a nice saying for this, history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme


    3. You know Rob, it was strange to hear some of my permaculture ideas repeated back to me on that interview (notice no one mentioned how much diesel it would take to create those lovely landscapes of happy eco-communities rolling into the distance) but I was even more intrigued by the hopium of both Michaux (who has put all his eggs in the Finland-will save-us basket) and Andrii (who blisses out on the metaphysical). The juxtaposition of their views only made me realise even more how little I know of the universe and that no one, and especially not the universe, cares. Somehow that is very comforting and gives me even more motivation to quietly seek out that which both grounds me to this physical reality and transcends it. I know everyone has had those peak experiences where everything seems just so right and peaceful with that rightness, and that we are part of something more than ourselves, whatever you want to call it. Whether or not it’s just a nifty trick of our consciousness to make us feel so, it’s certainly a hit and no wonder we keep seeking for more. Just as long as our beliefs aren’t forced on anyone else and cause them harm, too bad that’s practically become the definition of religion.

      You are all welcome to join Gaia’s We are All One Commune opening up soon on an empty field near you! BYOD (Bring your own diesel), we’re gonna still need it!


  14. It seems those that understand overshoot best, like Michaux, display flashes of crazy mixed in with their normally intelligent and aware thoughts. We may be witnessing a battle in the brain with the denial module that is trying to re-assert itself.

    Today it is Tim Morgan’s turn. WTF is he saying?

    The situation, in summary, is that (a) fossil fuel supplies can be expected to decrease more rapidly than alternatives can be expanded, and (b) that the material connection between renewables and fossil fuels makes it implausible that the relentless rise in ECoEs can be stemmed, still less reversed, by renewables expansion. As we have seen, decreasing energy availability reduces economic output, whilst rising ECoEs leverage the adverse consequences for prosperity.

    The Surplus Energy Economics project concentrates on the analytical rather than the prescriptive, and the foregoing should not be taken as disputing the imperative of transition to renewables.

    On the contrary, renewables offer our best chance of mitigating economic decline. If we decided to stick with fossil fuel energy and back-pedal on renewables, the economy would contract under the combined pressures of decreasing energy supply and relentlessly rising ECoEs.

    There is not, as is so often assumed, any necessary contradiction between our economic and our environmental best interests, which means that transition is imperative for economic as well as environmental reasons. If we tried to carry on with reliance on fossil fuels, we might wreck the environment but would definitely wreck the economy, as supplies of fossil energy decline, and their ECoEs soar.

    But there really is no justification for techno-optimism around transition, and claims that “sustainable growth” is assured are starkly at odds with reality. The fact of the matter is that fossil fuels offer energy density, flexibility and portability that no other source of primary energy can match.

    We cannot circumvent the laws of physics, nor sever the necessary connection between energy use and economic output. Neither can we reverse the rise in ECoEs by switching to lower-density sources of energy supply.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I try to translate it LOL

      Energy is getting more energy expensive. Renewables can’t help.
      Even though my maths shows renewables won’t help much, I still think it’s important to transition to renewables. (Also, I love fluffy academic language).
      It’s going to be shit no matter which way I look at it. But hopefully renewables will make it slightly less shit.
      He’s saying if we completely f things up, there won’t be any economy at all. Touches of denial of how bad collapse will actually be. Is living in a local tribe in your local area still an economy? Sure, but it’s not really comparable to what we have today.
      We are not going to Mars.
      We are doomed really.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I think Tim is saying
      The rising energy cost of energy for fossil fuels has reached a point where economic growth is no longer possible. Renewables can’t bring back growth, at best they can mitigate some of the hardships caused by shrinking net energy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks! I don’t buy his logic.

        Renewables don’t provide what we really need to survive, and creating renewables burns up faster what remains of what does produce and operate what we need to survive: tractors, combines, trucks, trains, ships, mining equipment, steel, cement, fertilizer.

        Population reduction is the only good path.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Right, I don’t buy the logic either.

          I was listening to Tim Garrett again, in a chat with Steve Keen, and realised that his theory also explains the idea that global economy is apparently becoming less energy intensive. This is because the energy part of the calculation is used as though it was powering only the GDP that happened that year. I’m not sure how to do the calculation only for the part of the economy that represents additional wealth. Energy is constrained by accumulated wealth, not a single year’s economic activity.

          I doubt Tim Morgan has looked at Tim Garrett’s work. Otherwise he’d realise that there is no economy that can be made to work, since it would always require more energy each year (and, thus, more ecological destruction each year).

          Liked by 1 person

  15. Latest data confirms masks are completely ineffective for covid.

    Including N95’s which is news to me.

    Not only did our leaders not get a single thing right, they got everything exactly opposite of correct.

    Lots of people wearing masks in the grocery store yesterday. Saw someone alone in a car wearing a mask.


    1. I agree that they offer little or no benefit in the real world but note that the review stated that “Adherence with interventions was low in many studies” and this, I think is key. If N95s were fitted and worn properly, would they have been effective? The review also stated that there was low confidence in their results (some of which did show a RR reduction, though small). So I don’t think this is definitive proof though it is additional evidence that mask mandates, as configured, didn’t work.


  16. US Col. Richard Black today discusses the risks of nuclear war.

    One of his key points: No one in the west is in charge.

    Black exposes some of his intolerant religious beliefs here. First time I’ve seen them. Everyone has chaff with their wheat.


  17. I watched a new BBC science documentary today. I could only take about 10 minutes before quitting. Totally dumbed down. Continuous nauseating muzac to bring drama to the words of the not so bright narrator.

    I have about 5000 documentaries in my library going back to when they were first produced.

    There is a clear and disturbing trend.

    It seems to mirror the intelligence trend of our leaders.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I watched (listened to while I painted my bathroom) the BBC doc about the recent Hansen paper. I felt the exact same way the soundtrack was from some b grade sci-fi horror.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Have you seen ‘The Queen of Trees’? It’s part of BBC Natural World (2005). I like it quite a lot and you can watch it here in HD for free:


      1. No I haven’t, thanks for the tip. I see MVGroup released a nice rip in 2008 and that it won the best nature documentary award for 2006. Downloading it now.

        On a riverbank in Kenya, Africa, a seemingly ordinary giant fig tree and the tiny fig wasp differ in size a billion times over, but neither could exist without the other. Their extraordinary relationship is a marvel of co-evolution, a marriage which has lasted for millennia. It forms the basis of a complex web of dependency that supports entire ecosystems, providing food for thousands of creatures, from elephants, giraffes, and fruit bats, to forest hornbills, monkeys, insects, and fish. Each individual fig is a infinitesimal microcosm of life: a stage set for birth, sex and death, in which the tiny fig wasp players battle against predators and parasites to fulfill their mission, which is to pollinate a tree whose flowers bloom inside its fruit.

        An intimate and unbelievably detailed portrait of the fig wasps and their world is made possible by the patience and skill of two remarkable filmmakers, who employ the magic of ultra-macro photography and high definition cameras to tell a wildlife story which has never been told before. It is one of the most amazing stories in the natural world: a tale of intrigue and drama, set against grand Africa and its wildlife.


        1. MVGroup usually encodes at much too high a bit rate. I was able to transcode it from 1.88GB XviD to 840MB CQ25 mp4 with no loss of quality. I’m a cheap bastard when it comes to conserving hard drive space.


      2. I watched The Queen of Trees tonight. Thank you so much for the tip. It’s one of the best biology documentaries I’ve seen.

        The fig tree ecosystem is amazingly complex thanks to the abundant carbohydrates produced by the tree.

        Very similar to oil and humans except the fig tree is sustainable.


        1. Yes. But I now think that nothing is sustainable because it is embedded in an unsustainable system. Humans have probably perturbed every ecosystem on the planet so nothing, at present, can continue indefinitely. Though I’m glad a fig tree grows in what current society thinks of as my garden.

          Liked by 1 person

  18. El gato malo today with an excellent covid rant and more evidence that our leaders got everything exactly opposite of correct, deliberately.

    over generations, the standard of safety applied to widespread vaccine use has been extremely stringent. this is as it should be. drugs to be given near universally to healthy people are a VERY different proposition than drugs given to people who are already sick. the tolerance for adverse effects must be much lower, especially for those for whom actual risk from disease is low. 1 in a million for a severe outcome like death was generally around the limit of tolerance. 1 in 100k was deemed impossibly dangerous to consider.

    the h1n1 vaccine released in the EU was pulled after ~30 million doses being administered due to 45 fatalities and a ~1 in 55,000 rate of permanent narcolepsy perhaps as high as 1 in 18,000 in adolescents.

    there was not even a question about pulling it off the market, this was an obvious and clear cut case that was not even debated.

    boom. done.

    my how things change…

    2021 saw more deaths reported to VAERS than from every other vaccine in the US in the last 50 years combined by a wide margin. this was not a subtle signal.

    this was “air horn in the vatican during vespers” kind of alarm bells.

    combine this with the obvious and immediate failure of the vaccines to provide sterilizing immunity to prevent contraction, carriage, and contagion, and this was the easiest decision in public health history.


    there is no excuse for blowing this, no excuse for missing it, there was no gray area. what happened was such a radical departure from all prior practice and standard as to warrant serious investigation and explication.

    instead of doing the incredibly obvious “right thing” they did the opposite.

    so let’s sum up:
    – leaky vaccines are exceedingly dangerous even without AE’s
    – the AE’s were literally off the charts by orders of magnitude
    – and people were dying at rates easily 10X that ever before even countenanced

    there was no plausible (by historical standards) pretext for allowing this campaign to continue. any one of these would have been the most egregious safety signal in the vaccine history. taken together, this was a 4 alarm fire in the living room during family TV time.

    lights out. game over. this gets pulled.

    instead they doubled and tripled down, shifted the moralizing from “your vaccine makes you a dead end for the virus and protects us all” to “you’ll still spread the virus and still get sick, but you won’t flood hospitals or die,” another claim that wound up being both factually false on severity and a histrionic misstatement of what was going on with hospitals that near universally ran WAY below capacity in 2021 and simply ignored the adverse events and kept claiming “safe and effective.”

    until being forced to quite recently, the CDC outright decided not to do its job.

    and they decided to outright rig the surveys they ran to prevent adverse events from being easily countable.

    and they are still not releasing the data needed to do so even under FOIA.

    they quietly pulled the safety claims off their own site while still telling us it was fine.

    and the CDC was FAR from alone on simply letting all this slide and not only ignoring 120 decibel alarm klaxons but going to great lengths to assure everyone that “this is safe” and “you’re not hearing what you think you are.”

    lots of folks seem to have ignored an awful lot of dead canaries in an awful lot of coal mines.

    the level of goalpost moving here has probably been unprecedented in medical history.

    i’m going to tackle the FDA and the trial designs and some other issues in coming pieces.

    but the questions here are going to keep being the same:

    none of this was normal.

    none of this was “happenstance.”

    you do not suddenly just discard 100 years of regulatory and pharmacological practice, pandemic guidelines, and general standards and sense on safety.

    someone here made choices.

    these goalposts got moved so far that they are not even on the field anymore.

    and demanding to know who, why, and on what basis this occurred is the key to preventing this from happening again.


      1. I wish these people who are worried about a world government and digital control had a deep understanding of overshoot and the risks of the coming collapse.

        I don’t know if plans for a world government exist, but if they do exist these plans could be viewed as a wise attempt to avoid nuclear war, violent social unrest, and famine through control of movement and fair distribution of scarce resources.

        I’ve never seen anyone discuss WEF, WHO, etc. in this light.

        Perhaps our leaders are trying to do the right thing but because they are so stupid and science illiterate they f**cked up their first attempt with covid?

        Liked by 1 person

  19. I would just like to remind you all that the vast majority of the population of the planet live lives of total desperation. Hunger games to put it mildly. How can we claim to be an advanced civilization when only 1% of the population live unencumbered, without need, with everything the world has to offer, while the other majority of the population suffers. I will bet that most if not all of you will have a ready excuse which is that those who are downtrodden are simply not capable or even worthy of a better situation or else , obviously, they would be better off.

    Here too is where CRT comes in as most people who you might broach this subject with will eventually express the concept that these people are not capable of advanced, modern concepts. They have not advanced science, medicine, politics, etc. Bull Shit X 100.

    Look up Timbuktu. A highly advanced civilization at the crossroads of trade in the middle of Africa. Paved roads, water and sanitation, dozens of highrise buildings many housing universities of education well beyond anything else. All this when most of Europe wae still living in mud and thathed huts.

    Since WWI and actually well before, the owners have been destroying demand for whole continents. I understand that most of you can not allow this information in, it challenges too much of what you have been taught, but it is real. As a westerner you can’t understand how the world works unless you have worked very hard to get the information.


    1. The UN estimates that 10% of the world population is hungry. I’m going to guess around 20% more are in precarious situations. 13% of adults worldwide are obese. If you include overweight, it’s 39% – though bear in mind this is based on BMI which is a flawed measure depending on ethnicity and muscle mass. But yea I wouldn’t say it’s correct that the majority of people are hungry. However, I would expect the number of hungry people to increase over the coming decades


      1. Right. I think the phrase, “the vast majority of the population of the planet live lives of total desperation” is something of an over-estimate by Jef. Compared to a few centuries ago, most people live like kings.

        I also don’t think that high rise buildings and paved roads is any sign of a highly advanced civilisation (though it depends on what Jef means by “highly advanced”). Mud and thatched huts seems a much more intelligent way to live (though still unsustainable for 8 billion).

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Mike said – “most people live like kings.” This is a prime example of how completely out of touch with reality you and most everyone else is. Only 1%, maybe 10% at most live like kings compared with a few centuries ago, unless you believe that daily struggle to find food to feed you starving children is so much better now than that daily struggle to find food to feed your starving children a few centuries ago.

          Your second paragraph is just to ridiculous to even respond to.


          1. ” Your second paragraph is just too ridiculous to respond to ”
            Mike’s second paragraph is quite correct. Once human societies develop into civilizations ( with populations large enough to support cities ), their fate is sealed. Collapse will inevitably follow,though it may take millenua to occur.
            Cities are resource and energy sinks which convert cyclic nutrient systems into linear systems. The lands supplying the cities become increasingly degraded.
            For a book length detailed explanation, read ” Feed or Feedback ” by Professor Duncan Brown.
            Brown quips in the book that “Cities are the reason that this civilization will inevitably go down the tube “


      2. First of all the UN is 100% complicite in creating poverty around the world. If you don’t understand this then you should believe that we just had a world shattering pandemic and millions died and are still dying and you should get the gene jab as often as it is offered.

        I am not talking about hungry, “oh, I’m hungry”.

        Oxfam and world bank claim that over half the population of the planet lives on around $6 a day, 3+ billion lives on around $2 a day, 1.4 billion are malnourished and slowly starving. Most do not have potable running water, including several million in the US. But hey it’s not that big a deal.

        The US has destroyed the basic infrastructure, water, sanitation, electricity, transportation, etc, for several hundred million people in just the last 20 years, billions over the last 75 years. But hey they were all dark skinned people so no big deal.

        You all talk about how the world works and how that just how it is because humans are …BAD! always have been, always will be. We have no idea how humanity is, how it might be, because we have aggressively, violently kept the majority of the population out of action, unable to be and live like they would.

        All we know, and all any of you pontificate on is what a tiny % of the population of the planet, 99% white I might add, has done to bring us to where we are today.


        1. Anything I’d thought of saying might be taken the wrong way so I’ll just say that everyone has their own opinion of how the world works and how it should work. Sometimes that leads to discussion, sometimes not.

          Liked by 1 person

  20. Here is another great find by Mike Stasse.

    This is a presentation by Mark Mills with a different spin on Simon Michaux’s message that the green transition will not happen because it cannot happen.


    1. Another fascinating case study in denial. Mills spends 90% of the talk explaining that fossil energy cannot be displaced with green energy, and then concludes with a rosy picture that the future technologies will consume a lot more energy. He seems blind to overshoot, peak oil, and peak debt. He thinks energy is a political problem that requires more investment.


      1. As I understand it, Mark Mills is an anthropogenic climate change denier. This tinges his message about the lack of resources for a transition, because he doesn’t think we need to reduce emissions. As you say, he’s blind to many aspects of our predicament so it’s hard to take him seriously.


  21. HHH @ POB

    Both M1 and M2 money supply are in contraction. M1 has contracted by about $1 trillion and M2 by about $500 billion since Feb-March of 2022.

    There has never been a contraction in money supply like this. Not even in the 70’s when Volcker raised interest rate did the money supply contract.

    The jobs numbers released Friday aren’t in a sense real. You got to understand how it’s calculated. It’s not like they go from business to business counting jobs. There is this thing call population control factor.

    Basically they use the census data to calculate how many people there are. And what they are saying is there are about 800,000 more people than they originally thought. And they are just assuming they all have jobs.

    Fed is absolutely flying blind and has no idea what reality on the ground is. And they will continue hiking rates as money supply continues to contract.

    There is a reason why China and Japan and Switzerland are selling US assets and it’s not what keeps being repeated over and over in media. Which is moving away from the dollar. No that’s not what is happening here. Dollar shortage outside US and assets are being sold to get dollars.


  22. Mike, this discussion between Tim Garrett and Steve Keen speaks to a point you recently made about energy and growth. Most energy is consumed to sustain what already exists. Only a small amount of energy is used to grow. This implies that stopping growth is not sufficient for sustainability.

    Garrett believes it is not possible to contract without going all the way to zero. Keen believes it is possible for civilization to contract and survive.

    The audio quality is very bad but the content is very good.


    1. Thanks. Yes, that is where I got the notion that there can be an apparent reduction in energy intensity of the economy even if there isn’t, because economists only see last year’s production and the energy used in the same period.

      I don’t know if Garrett is right but it is an extremely tight correlation (which isn’t causation) between global energy use and global accumulated wealth over the last 60 to 70 years. I wish other scientists would start looking at this also but, as far as I know, only Tim Garrett has done this research.

      Both Tim and Steve can’t be right but I can understand Steve’s optimism. No-one wants to think that there is no way to continue the kind of global civilisation we have now.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. My view is that it’s not possible to know which view is correct but it doesn’t matter because both paths lead to a lot of suffering and premature death and therefore we have all we need to know that the priority must be population reduction, if the goal is to minimize suffering.

        If someone has a different goal, like escaping to Mars before the collapse, then perhaps population and suffering reduction is not important.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. It is possible that people in position of power intuitively or explicitly understand that population reduction will result in an overall loss of their power, as illustrated during the black death in Europe:
          That may be an additional reason why planed population reduction is not championed.

          In any case, I believe population reduction will soon (before the end of the decade) happen as we are seeing the worldwide trend of diminishing birth rate (either by choice or infertility) and increasing death rate. Life expectancy has been falling in the US for the past few years. Chinese population has been reported to go down. Etc…
          About death, if I am not mistaken, suicide was practiced through antiquity and considered as the ultimate proof of free will. There is an old japanese movie “The Ballad of Narayama” which depicts the practice of sending elderly people die in the mountain. This may be only a myth, but it is true that Japan had to do with tight material constraints. I have also heard that infanticide existed in ancient societies (such as Greece). I don’t know if it is a myth, though.

          This may sound ignorant and cruel. But, in the long run, I am even unsure reducing the natality (vs. having death rates increase by themselves) is really a good thing. Isn’t death the way evolution “selects for the fittest”? In face of rapid change (climate and other), wouldn’t species with short reproduction time and large offsprings fare better? Doesn’t this apply to humans too?
          I don’t know. It’s a question.
          Maybe, just maybe: in wanting to control the outcomes we often create unintended consequences, so sometimes the only way out is to trust the way things will unfold by themselves.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. A small addition, just to make clear where I stand: I decided a long time ago to have only one child, even though my personal and cultural preferences would have been two. It was and still is the toughest decision in my life. (And I am even unsure it serves any purpose :). I rationalize by casting this as a small gift to other forms of life on the planet with whom I’d like our lineage to coexist)


          2. “I have also heard that infanticide existed in ancient societies (such as Greece).”

            I’ve heard that, too. For example in Roman bath houses (which where in fact like brothels), the women regularly laid their newborns outside and let them die, like skeleton findings near ancient ruins showed.

            This seems cruel to us, but is basically “only” a question of moral. And moral is something one must be able to afford. As Bertold Brecht, a known German writer, wrote in his Threepenny Opera: “First comes the food, then comes the morale.”


          3. Actually, the infanticide was very popular in pre-historic societies. Below is a fragment of the chapter titled “population control” from the great book of Craig Dilworth (highly recommended):

            fragment below shows how one of the population checks included infanticide:
            “…As regards infanticide, often involving exposure, a study of modern hunter-gatherers revealed that it was practised in 80 of the 86 societies examined”.

            Sorry for too long quote but the book is excellent and eyes opening in many aspects.

            Population control

            As noted already in 1922 by Carr-Saunders, and as mentioned in Chapter 1, the evidence contained in the then-recent anthropological fieldwork on primitive societies showed that the use of internal population checks was so widespread as to have been practically universal. These checks were variable, and took the form of abortion, infanticide, prolonged abstention from intercourse, and the postponement of marriage, the result being an approach to the optimum number in each society. In the case of the Australian Aborigines for example, the first born were usually exposed to die; they were not supposed to be sufficiently ‘mature,’ and from the customs attendant on marriage there must always have been some doubt of their paternity. More generally, from one-third to one-half of the newly born were allowed to perish. Abortion amongst the Murngin, in which the pregnant woman’s sisters exert pressure on her abdomen with knees and hands, is not infrequent. When twins are born one is always killed. If they are a boy and girl, the girl is usually put to death.

            It was said that a boy made a people strong while a girl only caused trouble.

            A woman kills a twin because, she says, it makes her feel like a dog to have a litter instead of a single child. Among the Auen and Heikum Bushmen one twin is invariably killed by being buried alive by the mother or one of her attendants immediately after the birth. Usually only every second or third child is weaned, the one or two born in the interval being killed. Carr-Saunders sees the operation of these variable checks as dependent on the fact that humans are social animals, suggesting that in primitive cultures, where technological innovation is slow and social conditions more or less stationary, the optimum number of people may remain about the same over long periods of time.

            As compared with more advanced cultures – particularly our own – modern hunter-gatherers have had excellent control of the size of their populations, showing no trend towards an increase in numbers until recently. The Aborigines of Australia are special from the point of view of the limitation of numbers, since at the time of their discovery by Europeans they were the only extant instance of a human population at the hunter-gatherer stage covering a complete land mass, without anywhere to emigrate and with no immigrants arriving. To this I might add that neither did they undergo technological change relevant to their vital needs, not developing the bow and arrow, for example, living as they did in a warm climate where such needs are more easily met. Being subject to no predatory wild animals, if internal mechanisms for the limitation of human populations exist they should be found among them.

            As expressed by L. R. Binford, such data suggest that while modern hunting-gathering populations may vary in density between different habitats in direct proportion to the relative size of the standing food crop, nevertheless within any given habitat the population is homeostatically regulated below the level of depletion of the local food supply. In terms of population pressure, the fact that food is not scarce for hunter-gatherers suggests that the area in which they live is not overpopulated. As suggested by Carr-Saunders:
            It is thus clear that within any group in any primitive race, the members of which co-operate together to obtain their food from a definite area to which they are confined, the principle of the optimum number holds good. There is, that is to say, taking into account the abundance of game, the fertility of the land, the skilled methods [technology] in use, and all other factors, a density of population which, if attained, will enable the greatest possible average income per head to be earned; if the density is greater or if it is less than this desirable density, the average income will be less than it might have been. Obviously it must be a very great advantage for any group to approximate to this desirable density.

            Carr-Saunders’ reference to the greatest possible average income per head may also be seen as an expression of the species, through its populations, over the whole of its existence acquiring as much solar energy as possible.

            Binford says:

            Most demographers agree that functional relationships between the normal birth rate and other requirements (for example, the mobility of the female) favor the cultural regulation of fertility through such practices as infanticide, abortion, lactation taboos, etc. These practices have the effect of homeostatically keeping population size below the point at which diminishing returns from the local habitat would come into play.

            Note the mention of taboos here.

            The following quote of E. F. Moran includes, and perhaps pertains primarily to, horticulturists, though much of it is relevant to hunter-gatherers as well.

            Female infanticide, abortion, long periods of sexual abstinence after childbirth, warfare, and a strong male fear of too frequent sexual contact with women are characteristic of many of the world’s peoples, including rain forest dwellers. Among some populations, intercourse between husband and wife is forbidden from the onset of pregnancy until the child is weaned – often not until between ages three and five. Sexual continence is commonly required prior to ceremonies, raids, and hunting. The number of prohibitions that are practiced varies a great deal and may be related to other forms of population control. All these practices have had the net effect of controlling the size of aboriginal populations throughout the humid tropics.

            As regards infanticide, often involving exposure, a study of modern hunter-gatherers revealed that it was practised in 80 of the 86 societies examined; and it was estimated that between 15 and 50 per cent of all live births ended in infanticide in societies at this level of development. Another study found that abortion was practised in 13 of 15 such societies.

            !Kung women practise infanticide when in their opinion it is necessary.

            Sometimes a child is born that cannot be supported, in which case it is destroyed.

            If a woman bears a child that is crippled or badly deformed, she is expected to destroy it, and if the season is very hard and she already has an infant under a year old, depending on her milk, she is forced to kill her newborn child187 (note the potential involvement of morals). Other instances of infanticide among the Kung include in the case of the birth of twins, only one of which is allowed to survive, or when a woman feels she is too old to produce milk for another baby. But with the Bushmen infanticide is purportedly rare. They have no mechanical form of contraception and do not know how to cause miscarriage or abortion, and, according to Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, prefer to abstain from intercourse for long periods rather than suffer such pain.

            It has also been claimed that amongst the G/wi Bushmen in particular community perception of overpopulation is sensitive, and symptoms are recognised before a crisis develops.190 This being the case, as is implied by Carr-Saunders, suggests an ability on the part of humans not only to keep their population size at or under the carrying capacity of their environment, but to decrease that size through cultural checks when the carrying capacity is reduced. It may be, however, that the Bushmen constitute an exception among modern hunter-gatherers in that infanticide among them is uncommon.

            In the case of Australian Aboriginals, when drought or other natural catastrophe occurs, cooperation and reciprocity in the division of the few available resources on the tracts of land owned by the various groups is essential for the survival of the community as a whole. Here we have a manifestation of the social instincts. It is better for the community to destroy an infant or young child whose chances of survival are small anyway than to hinder the mother unnecessarily in her task of food collecting. Cooperation and reciprocity are a matter of life and death for aboriginal societies.


            1. Thank you for the book recommendation. “Primitive” societies were quite sophisticated. I love the fact that they reached the maximum income per head, by constraining themselves. This goes counter to the current popular belief that everything must always be exploited at its maximum (to avoid being conquered by some other country).

              I hope we get to keep oil in the form of condom, though…


    2. I also think, that just stopping growth does not work. Your Jenga tower does not stay stable, when you stop building more upon it while trying to remove some of the foundation bricks…

      In one of my favorite books, which I currently read again, I found a link which fits like a glove.
      It’s a report of the FEASTA from 2010. Maybe the following section teases you to read the whole report? Anyway, still the same conclusion as most here have now: Future will be bleak.

      The key to understanding the implications of peak oil is to see it not just directly through its effect on transport, petrochemicals, or food say, but its systemic effects. A globalising, integrated and co-dependant economy has evolved with particular dynamics and embedded structures that have made our basic welfare dependent upon delocalised ‘local’ economies. It has locked us into hyper- complex economic and social processes that are increasing our vulnerability, but which we are unable to alter without risking a collapse in those same welfare supporting structures. And without increasing energy flows, those embedded structures, which include our expectations, institutions and infrastructure that evolved and adapted in the expectation of further economic growth cannot be maintained.

      The whole report is here:

      Liked by 1 person

      1. If we are not growing, we are collapsing. That’s the nature of dissipative structures. Collaboration is the winning strategy when the system is growing – but not when it’s contracting


  23. Overshoot awareness, when it occasionally exists, is very often combined with reality denial, as Varki’s MORT predicts.

    The result, despite good intentions, unfortunately, is an awareness that will achieve nothing at making the future less bad.

    Nate Hagens’ latest guest is a poster child for this phenomenon.

    See if you can count how many things she says that are not grounded in reality.


    1. I got part way through and gave up. I find it fascinating that she could do all that work on limits to growth and then choose to work for a multinational mega corporation like Schnieder Electric.


      1. “…then choose to work for a multinational mega corporation like Schnieder Electric.”

        This addresses my response of why nothing ever changes, why all these people who talk and write about the converging catastrophes of collapse rarely ever do anything substantive, why nobody significantly changes their lifestyle after learning all the bad news…

        Its because they have to go to work in the morning.

        Liked by 1 person

  24. James today with a fresh spin on how thermodynamics governs our lives.

    Stirred by the Sun – Human Molecules in Motion

    Glucose, which was created by the impact of the visible light radiation above is used as a feedstock at the mitochondrion to spring-load ADP with a high-energy phosphate, like the ball launcher of a pinball machine.

    Once the ball launcher is released or the ATP is converted to ADP then often muscles contract and things move, like humans. By releasing the phosphate from the ATP the human is obligated to reload the spring and therefore their behavior is somewhat circumscribed to seeking energy.

    Once it’s released, the pinball or a human life is in motion and must avoid falling to its lowest energy state. To do so it must stay energized. The pinball machine uses flippers to keep the animation going as long as possible. The human uses brain, legs, arms etc. and ATP to propel itself to the next energizing meal. Dopamine and memory reinforcing opioid action help the organism find the next meal.

    And that is why the human experience is one of greed and self-promotion. It’s not really a choice, but a feature as each human dissipative structure pinballs through life from one location to another, working the technological machinery and working other humans and animals so that they may eat again. And this is also why humans are so intent on saving wealth, so as to never run out of the essential energy. Evolution and the universe wouldn’t have it any other way.


  25. Monk,

    Good post, thanks. I live in the Kansas City area, down stream from two nuclear power plants and down wind from another. I agree with you (and Dowd and Friedemann) that we better deal with the spent fuel while we still can.

    You are obviously a fan of Alice Friedemann, me too. Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about Peak Oil, which is what brought me to the collapse rabbit hole in the first place. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about how much diesel we have left in light of decreasing ERoI and the decreasing thermal content of liquid fuels per Nate Hagens’ last interview with Art Berman. I came up with a way to analyze cumulative petroleum discoveries and the amount we’ve burned so far to predict when we might be be back down to consuming 50 mb/d, roughly half the peak. I was shocked with the answer I came up with, 2028. Searching to see if others had used this method, I found this post from Alice: It’s well worth the read. It’s about a paper by Dave Murphy from 2011. He did the math a different way, but we arrive at the same conclusion. Alice calls Dave’s graph the scariest she’s seen, which is saying something.


    I sent you a message on the contact me form with my email address. I’d like to show you this analysis and see if you would allow me to write a post about it. I want to share this paragraph from Alice’s post with you, which she published just before COVID:

    “The only way I can see this being prevented or the end of oil delayed a few years, is if a government has already developed effective bio-weapons and doesn’t care if their own population suffers as well.”

    Brent Ragsdale

    You have another (infrequent) commenter who signs “Brent”. That’s not me. Just for clarification.

    Also, Don’t confuse Dave Murphy with Tom Murphy. I don’t know if either of these are the Murphy that Monk refers to regarding uranium reserves.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. fyi to people monitoring this thread,

      Brent and I had a nice offline conversation and I’m hopeful that Brent will author a guest post.

      I am impressed with Brent’s work on predicting when modern lifestyles will end and my main feedback to him was that we should view his estimate as a best case scenario because all of his data assumes a functioning global financial and trade system, and that assumption may break down as soon as degrowth begins in earnest.


      1. Rob et al,

        Thanks for welcoming me into your circle. I’ve followed this blog for years but only occasionally posted a comment. I appreciate the tenor of the comments and how thoughtfully and respectfully they are presented (for the most part.)

        So you know that I’m not an AI chatbot, here’s a couple of links where you can read about me:

        As I confided to Rob in an email, I’ve been really struggling emotionally with something akin to depression. For the first time in my life I’ve been seeing a therapist, attempting to sort myself out. He specializes in trauma, and though I’ve had my share of traumatic events and losses, (you can read about that at our Botanical Belonging website if you dig,) I don’t think that’s the root of my issue. Though the psychologist I choose is starting to get me and help me see some things about myself more clearly, he is not collapse aware. I described to him what I’m feeling as more of a pre-traumatic stress disorder associated with my understanding of our predicament. He seems to get that, but not really. Recently, I’m beginning to think that what is happening is that my level of cognitive dissonance around the crazy happenings since COVID just got to be too much for me to handle. Also recently, thanks in part to this blog, I’m formulating some reasons for why the craziness might be happening. Counselling and self-reflection has helped me see that lurking with likeminded folks online isn’t enough. I have a need to be understood, to say my bit out loud as a way of unloading a burden. Thanks for the invitation to submit a blog post, perhaps it will be cathartic.


        1. Thanks for sharing your story and for stepping out of the closet.

          I like your diagnosis of “pre-traumatic stress disorder”. It’s a good description of how many of us feel.

          Covid broke something in me too. I was mentally prepared for many things but not my government doing the opposite of what they should have done if public health was their priority.

          Many wise people say the most valuable post-collapse asset is personal relationships but I am breaking long-standing relationships with people who support the government covid evil. Our governments could not have done what they did without the majority support of citizens. These “citizens” are incapable of rational thought and I expect will support our governments entering a nuclear war.


  26. @Monk, that quote is actually Alice’s thoughts not Richard Miller’s. Her next paragraph is this: I feel crazy to have just written this very dire paragraph with just a few of the potential consequences, but the “shark-fin” curve made me do it!

    I just read the the Miller interview from 2014. Very prescient. He advocated for raising fuel prices to avoid what he called a sharp peak. Here’s a quote from the end of that article that sums it up nicely: “The worst case scenario is that we keep desperately trying to find and produce more oil such that it brings us to a sharp peak. If we get a sharp peak, we would simply get civil unrest and collapse, maybe in the space of a couple of years because that’s how quickly it could be. A loss of 5+% of global supply in two years would just be awful. But if we have a long slow decline in production with slowly rising prices—a bit like being in a war situation—none of the price change points would be sufficient to cause riots in the streets. So, that’s what I hope.”

    Call it a sharp peak or a shark-fin peak, either way, I’m afraid that’s what we’re getting.


    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m not sure how Gail Tverberg’s (Our Finite World blog) take fits in. In her opinion (backed by a lot of analysis) a shortage of oil would cause prices only to peak briefly because if people can’t afford to buy it (or buy as much as they used to) they won’t, bringing prices down. Lower prices stifles supply even more, so what happens to prices?

      For oil (and other depleting resources) The Oil Depletion Protocol seems like it would manage the fall off. Tradable Energy Quotas for all energy would share it out more fairly as it dwindles.


      1. I understand and agree with Tverberg’s view.

        I also agree with the opposing view which is that oil is more valuable than pretty much anything else we buy because 32L equals 1 year of human labor (except maybe food but you can use oil to grow food and you can’t use food to grow oil) which means people will give up other things and pay a lot more for oil when push comes to shove.

        If both of these views are true then we can expect violent price swings and shortages regardless of price.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I believe it was Richard Heinberg who a long time ago also proposed a wise response called (I think) The Oil Depletion Protocol. The idea was that all countries sign a treaty promising to reduce their oil consumption as a percentage in lock step with declining global production. The idea was to share pain evenly to avoid nuclear war.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Hello there monk, Mike, Campbell and all other Kiwi friends,

          Just wanted to say you’re thought of and wished all the best through these challenging days for New Zealand. These times are surely testing grounds for resilience, may each of you find strength in yourselves and others to get through whatever you need. I know you won’t fall for platitudes like things will get better and there’s nothing we can’t overcome, so all I want to say is I am here thinking of what it must be like for you there and acknowledging all the emotions that are washing over you. It isn’t an easy path being human but there’s no other way through for us. Thank you for your courage in being both observer and participant in this latest instalment of our collective human tragedy/comedy/history.

          Hey monk, interesting that you should mention taking chances with nuclear war, it was just a week ago that the Guardian ran a little piece declaring that Australia and New Zealand are thought to be the safest places to ride out a nuclear winter. It seems that every day now we are getting tidbits from MSN in direct reference to our knife-edge balance with irrevocable catastrophe. Despite the recent weather disasters, I know you know that you’re in a fortunate part of the planet and wouldn’t trade places with anyone. Now everyone else knows, too!

          And how are you Mike? I was just hoping your fruit trees had a chance to dry off from the last flooding event and then comes a cyclone–this time I do not think your grandchildren were paddling a kayak in the backyard, however. Hope the drying off period can begin again but today I finally read a first news article (albeit MSN) that the Tongan volcano may very well have something to do with all our rain and flooding events, and the effects may linger for 8 years!

          Howdy Campbell and family, it’s been a little while since I’ve read a post from you and I am assuming that you have been flat out turning your beautiful block into a bountiful food forest. From the photos I recall it’s on a slope so I am hoping the rains haven’t affected your property too much, if anything, the extra moisture has probably kickstarted some of the trees (and especially the bamboo, not that they needed any encouragement!) If there’s any damage from the cyclone, consider it a hard prune and most subtropical trees will respond with even more growth, dealing with cyclones is in their DNA. Hope all is going well for you and you’re really starting to see the fruits of your labours, literally!

          Namaste, friends. Thank you for holding the line wherever you are planted.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Hi Gaia. Thanks. Yes, fruit trees seem to be OK (though they don’t have any fruit apart from figs – they were just planted less than two years ago) so it may take a while to see if they’re OK though I think it may be too wet in that area and I’m going to plant more in a different area. A Paulownia tree (fast growing hardwood) looked very sorry for itself afterwards but has amazingly picked up again. The recent cyclone didn’t produce anything like the same rain (at least not here, others weren’t so lucky, unfortunately), so no kayaking, and not a lot of damage; just a couple of large branches broken off.

            That Tonga effect paper is interesting. The last time you mentioned it, I thought effects would be localised and I think that may be confirmed by this paper. So the next 7 years may be a time to keep our fingers crossed but there is so much happening with our changing climate that the Tongan signal may not be so discernible.


  27. Sabine Hossenfelder today tears a strip off her colleague physicists. It seems the medical profession is not the only discipline that makes up shit to prove what they want to believe and to keep the money flowing.


    1. How does AJ know when war anxiety is increasing?

      He starts drinking more and more every evening, feeling guilty but thinking why not?

      All the bloggers I respect are sounding more and more anxious about the threat of nuclear war and the attendant reset of life back to multicellularity (going back to The
      Great Cretaceous extinction event or even earlier).

      So, stop worrying about Collapse, isn’t gonna happen. We are all gonna die soon of radiation, starvation in the really COLD dark of Nuclear Winter. All because The West has brain dead (Biden) leaders who are intent that they will dominate the planet OR NO ONE WILL!

      Maybe democracy is a bad governance model for irrational, illogical, emotion driven tribe-like animals that deny reality that have learned nuclear bomb making?

      There’s your answer to the Drake Equation/Fermi Paradox (all tech civilizations collapse before communicating their presence to the galaxy).

      And that is your Monday morning happy note.


      Liked by 1 person

      1. Aj,
        First time commentator , long time stalker all the way sunny South Africa. Regarding democracy, allow me to quote from the great HL Mencken.

        democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance

        Hope this lightens up your day.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Had a hunch you were down. Me too.

        I honestly do not understand what is going on in the brains of western leaders.

        What is their goal? What is their logic?

        Overthrow the Russian government? Not gonna happen. Stop the flow of Russian energy and minerals? The entire world suffers. Attack Russia? We all die.

        Stop China from reasserting control over its island? Not gonna happen unless we all die. Piss off the Chinese enough and they’ll make do with a bowl of rice a day and will turn off the flow of manufactured products causing the west to collapse into violent social unrest with coddled citizens who do not know how to survive with no meds and a bowl of rice a day.


        1. Yeah, I’m generally an optimistic person; BUT the news coming at us from knowledgeable sources can lead one to depression. I sometimes think an “unexamined life” is the best, you know the “ignorance is bliss” crowd of most people. Sometimes I envy my dog, no real existential cares in the world. So, apart from running (exercise for the endorphin high) I have taken to watching video blogs of people sailing in the Caribbean or South Seas and enjoying life with no idea of how close we are to the end (pure mindless escapism).

          Liked by 1 person

  28. I keep favorite podcasts on my phone and periodically re-listen to them often finding that I missed or forgot important insights.

    For anyone suffering from overshoot awareness depression this interview of Tim Watkins by Nate Hagens is filled with superb advice on how to mitigate your depression.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. Hello everyone and especially our friends in New Zealand,

    Just wanted to say I’m so glad you’re all here, whatever our ride we still have so much wonder and goodness to be thankful for. Despite what is battering at our doors and however we wish to escape through any available open window of our lives, it’s still beyond comprehension amazing that we are here to experience it and in doing so, have the ability to live out states of being that transcend, such as compassion and benevolence in ever increasing circles. Maybe it is when our very physical beings are most threatened that we reach a certain equanimity that allows for the most magnificent achievements of our collective humanity to emerge. Perhaps true greatness of our species is not to be measured in our accumulated knowledge and material dross, but that which is just as ephemeral but touches us as even more real and meaning-filled. In disaster such as the Turkiye/Syrian earthquake and the cyclone which has wreaked havoc upon NZ, we can measure our humanity not through the destruction but the countless acts of kindness and goodness arising from the rubble. If all is to end, one way or another, it is a grace that we can choose the manner in which we carry ourselves onward and over.

    I trust all our Kiwi friends are safe and receiving the help they need, just as I am certain they are offering assistance to those they can. You are living out the best of us at these times and I am humbled and encouraged by your courage. AJ, Rob, and all friends in this space, I do see you and am glad you are here. I wish for you peace and joy found in every day, and I have learned that the best way to find it is giving that to another through some kindness, understanding, and service. Thank you for being and doing whatever you are. Here’s a smile and hug for everyone!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I see you’re into the poppies again. Go easy on them, you need to save some to trade for food. 🙂

      Turkey/Syria is tragic and puts our small problems in context. We have a lot to be grateful for.

      I was not aware of the NZ cyclone, good luck to you all.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah, these past few years was a bumper harvest for the Hopium. It seems that even when all else fails to grow, we can still count on getting this to come up. I just like to look at the pretty flowers and get a bit high, watch out when I actually start inhaling!

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Here is just one of many pieces of evidence provided by Martin @ 35:40:

      In April 2019 Moderna amended 4 patents to include the words “the accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen”. The exact same language showed up in a September 2019 document released by the WHO which also stated there would be worldwide acceptance of a universal vaccine platform by September 2020. One day later after this September 2019 WHO document was released, President Trump signed an executive order for the development of DNA based vaccines (aka Operation Warp Speed). Four months later, covid patient #1 allegedly happened in China.

      There’s a LOT more in Martin’s presentation.

      It makes my head want to explode.


  30. Thanks to Brent Ragsdale for introducing me to the work of John Peach who seems to be a top-tier overshoot/peak oil intellect that I was not aware of.

    Here is an excellent peak oil primer by John Peach:

    The Growing Gap: The End of an Era

    The oil age may be coming to a close much sooner than most people realize, and there is a growing gap between expectations and the thermodynamic reality of renewable energy.

    And here is a very good recent interview of John Peach by Andril Zvorygin:

    Liked by 1 person

  31. More evidence that Varki’s MORT is probably true.

    I follow several financial blogs/channels to keep my finger on the pulse of what the pessimistic mainstream is thinking.

    They are all thrashing around trying to explain economic metrics and other evidence that do not make sense based on historic precedents.

    Not one of them is able to connect the dots to overshoot.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. I’ve been really enjoying Canadian Prepper’s overviews of the lead up to WW3. He brings a lot of humour and logic to a scary topic. His latest saying “there are no military exercises, only WW3 disguises”


    1. LOL thanks!

      I’m a Canadian Prepper too but not as good looking or tough, quite a bit older, don’t have a cool beard or hat, and I’m much less self-confident.

      However, I’ll bet you a can of sardines that I’m better prepared than he is.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I seriously need to start preparing. We have had a couple of towns in NZ completely wiped out and cutoff from this bloody cyclone. There’s a high gang presence in those towns too. Quite scary really. Just a taste of what is to come


      2. Sometimes I get so immersed in the details of what seems like insanity that I struggle to understand motives.

        This Canadian Prepper video did a nice job of distilling 2 issues for me.

        Q: Why drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (especially now when we’re on the verge of WWIII)?
        A: Because it’s the only thing they can do to reduce price inflation which is required to avoid social unrest (and I’d add, to avoid raising the interest rate more which would crash the economy).
        Note: I observe that with the US SPR now 50% empty, Russia just announced an oil production cut today. Smart move.

        Q: Why is the US obsessed with winning and willing to spend gazillions in Ukraine?
        A: Because if Russia wins the US dollar as reserve currency will be threatened which will reduce the American standard of living.

        Liked by 3 people

      1. A lot of these people’s experiences remind me of the USA in the GFC of 2008/9. People suddenly found themselves in desperate situations.
        The refugee demand is not helping.
        Also the German govt is paying for the utility bills of people on unemployment. That means low wage workers may be better off on benefits, rather than working. Which makes the overall situation worse.
        In some way it is like Germany has been occupied since the end of the war. But as long as they were rich or getting rich, maybe it didn’t matter.
        The link between gas prices and poverty seems very clear to the Germans. If I was a working class German, I would be pissed


  33. Gail Tverberg explains what degrowth will look like.

    I am afraid what we will be up against this time is a “nothing to buy” problem because of broken supply lines and the inability to get replacement parts for machinery. Grocery stores won’t have much food. Used clothing may be available, but fuel of any type for automobiles will be a problem. Electricity will be intermittent at best.

    If the government is still functioning and banks are still functioning, I would expect that governments would flood the system with stimulus funds, as much as possible. This would make for hyperinflation with respect to the few goods available to purchase.

    I expect that the demand (based on the inflated currency) would be almost entirely for food and water, at a location near where the person is currently living. But the demand for everything else would go to zero. Farmers might have difficulty selling what produce they could produce, if fuel to transport it to market was not available. Stores might not be open. Thus, in some sense, the demand for practically everything would go to zero, even with lots of money added to the system.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is just the scenario that I’m envisioning and it’s a best case situation–don’t want to think what it will look like when the mayhem begins as millions of previously mollycoddled Westerners wake up to their much diminished fate. Cities will not be happy places and rural land will be deluged with refugees, if we can’t learn to live together and grow our own food, then no amount of tins of tuna that we have put away for ourselves will matter.

      An interesting aside, we’re hearing more and more about AI in MSN these days. I took a quiz seeing if I could tell whether snippets of music and art were produced by current state of the art AI or humans. All in all, quite shocking results, I only “guessed” correctly just over half of the time and we are still in the infant stages of entrainment and refinement. As for ChatGPT taking over every job that requires stringing together somewhat intelligible sentences, at least those that can fool another human being, at my husband’s medical school, that platform scored over 70% (well above a passing mark) on a written exam, and also wrote up a very respectable response to a disgruntled student, that is it was sufficiently vague enough not to deviate from policy but still gave the effect that the student’s concerns were being validated. It’s hard not to imagine whole sectors of careers being laid to waste very soon. It’s like we’re being groomed up for our imminent redundancy, all part of the rapid downscaling of our economy. Unfortunately, the disparaging term “useless eaters” comes to mind for what the hegemony may soon think of us. We’re going to be like spent battery cage chickens–it’s not like we didn’t know what it could be like, we only didn’t see it happening and worse of all, we never thought it would happen to us.

      For those who might be a bit surprised that Gaia seems to vacillate wildly between being a confirmed Hopium addict and a dyed-in-the-wool doomsday realist, I just want to clarify that the only type of hopium I grow is the one that allows me to accept with more grace that this will be our reality at some point. Be careful of others, many are counterfeit and their effects are illusionary and fleeting.


      1. I’ve been thinking about how badly our western leaders have performed on everything recently. It occurred to me that this is probably the first time in their lives that they’ve had to do anything difficult requiring real intelligence and wisdom. As you say Gaia, most westerners are soft and coddled, and live in an energy and resource blind illusion. God help us when things get really get bad.

        I agree with Gail that the most likely scenario is that many of the things most people will want won’t be available. I’ve methodically gone through everything I use on a daily basis and asked myself, will I be ok without it, and will it last a long time? If the answers are no, and I can afford it, I have a spare.

        I’m still forming an opinion on AI but at the moment I’m not as worried as you. AI can’t replace the skills we will soon need like growing and preserving food, fixing a leaking roof, repairing a bike, etc. I do think AI will be very hard on artists and musicians, and will cause mayhem on social media. At least until Russia blows up undersea power lines and fiber optic links in retaliation for Nord Stream, or until the big economic crash causes the electric grid to become too unreliable for a useful internet.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes, then we will have decidedly another kettle of fish to fry. Part of my concern with our “rosy” future is that many of the indulged are too soft to do the manual labour work needed on farm and repair of infrastructure, and don’t seem to realise we need to skill up on these now, not when catastrophe hits and logistically we may not be able to even do so. How many of our population are farmers, last I checked for the US it was less than 1% and those are mainly large agribusiness farms using FF to stay solvent, the percentage of people trying to grow food on any real scale in even a nominally sustainable way would be infinitesimally small. On our small properties, we put in all available daylight hours to grow and process our own food (some tasks are seasonal, but there’s always something awaiting to do) and even so, we are only just self-sufficient year round in fruit for a family of 3, supplemented by various vegetables, but certainly not the scale needed to get through even a Tasmanian winter (akin to the Pacific Northwest). I sure would love some help sometimes but good luck trying to find a young person who would rather bend to pick windfall apples then stand chopping them up to dry than sitting doing cool stuff on the computer for hours that now AI can do in seconds…just for the learning experience and some fruit to take home. I know this isn’t everyone, of course it never is, but the great majority of those living in cities all around the world have never done sweat-breaking work all their lives. Heck, my city born and bred Chinese mother has never even sat on the floor her whole life–yeah, that fact nearly floored me, no wonder she’s so stiff and inflexible.

          Fixing roofs and bikes require the fact we can get in supplies to do so, it is even beyond my kind of hope that we could ever produce these goods or any of the supplies that are critical, locally again? Once again, we would need to have these backstops in place now, not when it’s already too late.


          1. Totally agree with you. It going to be gong show and a lot of people are going to starve.

            I have some first hand experience with what’s going to be required. A few years ago I worked for a small farm startup and we did almost everything without any machinery. Potatoes, grains, dried beans, garlic, and vegetables all with hoes, scythes, and chuka sticks for thrashing. We did have the luxury of irrigation sprinklers. Imagine if you also had to irrigate by hand because there’s no electricity for pumps. It was VERY hard work. On hot days I would drink about 4L of water.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. What we really need to do is sort ourselves into communities that are willing and able to upskill in all manner of trades that will give us a fighting chance (hmmm, wrong choice of words here, we absolutely do not want fisticuffs starting!) to transition into the Great Simplification new order. And as in yesterday.

              Some days I fantasize that our leaders and governments really do care about us and when AI replaces all the artists and musicians and designers they will do a call out for all those out of work and/or interested to start intentional communities whose goal is to learn and use the skills of yesteryear and experiment with how things could work with various sized populations and different physical environments. Hey, as long as I’m dreaming I will go on with my wishlist–There will be no shortage of funding as long as the proposed projects fulfil the sustainability criteria and these pioneers will be paid a living wage for their efforts, after all, they are taking on the role of researchers and will eventually be the ones to teach the rest of us how to survive. It would be a matter of national priority to skill up a substantial cohort of people in pre-industrial age technology. Institutions of learning and workshopping foundational skills will be created all across the country so most people can have access to this knowledge and the chance to practice it, all free and for all ages. This will be the New Deal; What’s Old is In. For example, we need to make blacksmithing cool and relevant, like make your own horseshoes and fit them, too. We need some of us to actually start trying to live this way now, and see if and how it can be done and in the best way, using whatever energy we have left to give us a leg up in the process. It will be too late when the need is immediate, then it will just be scattered preppers and self-sufficiency hopefuls like me all around the country trying to go it alone and attracting unwanted attention that will probably not be constructive at all. I know it’s not a cure-all to our overshoot and we are still most likely doomed but at least it’s a reasonable way to meet our fate head on and it may even give some people a chance to actually survive and even survive well, for as long as possible. Can you only imagine what important outcomes could arise from this initiative if we can do it now, when there is still the possibility of not losing this knowledge and we can tap into the experience of those who have it, instead of spending billions of dollars on blowing up each other. Argh, now that’s crazy making. Okay, when I count to three, you will wake up from this dream…

              Just as I said that every day we’re getting more AI news through the mainstream, today I came across this very weird and almost spooky piece. What do you think of it? It’s almost like Hal coming back to life from 2001 Space Odyssey, so much so that I wondered if it was actually written by AI as a test? Now we really don’t know what to believe in the mainstream so-called news, as if we ever did in the first place. Except now you don’t even know if what you don’t trust was even written by a human.



              1. Very nice vision but I don’t think it will happen.

                If we deny and are unable to speak about the nature of our reality, how could we ever have useful policies for responding? We will of course respond when there is no other choice, but as you point out, it will be too late then.

                All roads lead back to Varki’s MORT. We must start by acknowledging our underlying genetic behavior.


              2. Our insurmountable problem is that we humans are a species. The characteristic behaviour of a species can’t be voluntarily changed. Whilst a relatively few members of the species may go against the grain, that behaviour won’t be propagated to descendants unless it has a survival and/or reproduction advantage. Our environment will have to change for that advantage to manifest itself. The environment is changing but not quickly enough to drive enough people to act differently. I can’t see a way out of this mess.


                1. Hi Mike,

                  How are you and your family going after this past week of upheaval? If only I could express myself as succinctly and logically as you did here! You have put everything into clear perspective and all I can add is a resounding Amen! (meaning, So be it! no religious overtones here)

                  Since our particular variant of Homo sapiens that can see and want to respond to overshoot is the one most likely not to propagate our genetic material, then any real change overall isn’t going to come from us. We simply will never become the majority based on evolutionary pressures. It’s an infuriating Catch-22. Besides, it’s all quite academic now as we are already in triple overtime for our species with the clock with seconds remaining. I know what Rob will respond, that first we must accept our MORT but the likelihood of that for the masses is about the same as waiting for monkeys to type out Shakespeare. So the bottom line is the same, if we can’t get the majority to wake to overshoot, how do we get them to see that is it their genetic tendency to deny hard reality that is causing their blindness? It becomes a wicked argument, and like most here, I really don’t think there’s anything to be done other than observe how it all unfolds and make our own peace with it all. I guess there are some religious overtones here after all!

                  It’s only because we’re Homo Sapiens that it’s such a mindbleep for us to contemplate our impending extirpation, karmatically at our own hands. Every other species on this planet, be it animal, vegetable, or mineral (okay, they’re not a species) is waiting with bated breath for our demise and gladly so, if we can be anthropomorphic. So if we can only engender another perspective, (should be easy, just take your pick from the millions of other species fortunate enough to be still in the game despite us) these are heady and hopeful days indeed.


                  1. If you are in the camp of aware people resigned to our fate, like you and Mike, then everything you said makes sense.

                    However, if you are in the camp of aware people still trying to find a way to make the future less bad, like the millions of environmental activists and climate scientists that have achieved nothing after 50 years of hard work, then I think MORT is the key to a new strategy as it explains why no progress has been made and where the new focus should be.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. But my dear Rob, of course I and everyone else here wish to find a way to make the future less miserable for as many as possible! Otherwise why in the world would we have found our way here to support one another through the existential crisis we’ve all had to suffer, along with sharing stories of how we’ve broken our backs trying to do the more sustainable thing, often alone and against family resistance, come hell or high water (and most likely both)? If we were resigned to our fate knowing what we know without taking any action, then we are guilty of indifference just like the billions who think they are “resigned” to their fate of BAU and continue to live blindly so–we are just only on the opposite swing of the pendulum.

                      It’s not that we don’t care, in fact, most of us have had countless sleepless, teeth-grinding nights over this. Any peace and acceptance we have come to has been a battle won by inches and holding the line is still a daily struggle. Call it what you will, explain it as you see fit, but the fact that millions of well-meaning people for 50 years still haven’t made a concerted dent into our global collective awareness of, much less action towards mitigating overshoot, surely is as concrete evidence as we will ever get that this is not in our collective biology, and probably never was. Species tend to respond and evolve to boundaries over a long period of time, ours hyperthrived because we decimated any such idea of limitations with our MORTified brains and in a nanosecond we became as gods with our fossil fuelled energy dominance. We are seeing the ultimate death denial–who among those who have become godlike in power would willingly come down from that mountain and take on the mantle of mere mortals again? Better to rail against Fate and be taken down by her than admit that our own choices have led to our consequences, why, that would be so human!

                      I do not deny in the least that the theory of MORT is tidy and explains much, but I think most of our species do not have the luxury of time, leisure, nor desire to contemplate an intellectual explanation for why they respond to life as they do, much less change their way of life because of that awareness. Thinking about it in energy terms, for most people there’s just not enough to overcome the gradient needed to arrive at a different awareness. It would take even more of a supersonic leap to change our actions, and we’re talking not just a tweak but practically a 180 degree turnaround, and immediately. It is enough for most to daily sate hunger, avoid cold or heat, and ease pain–whether rich or poor, we all have to appease these desires but of course in vastly different degrees. Unbelievable as it may be to someone who is actually starving, some Westerners think food is scarce and get stressed when there’s a holiday up-coming and the supermarket will be closed for a day, but there it is.

                      Even if we could magically download this fool-proof explanation for our denial into every single human being, would that mean we would suddenly change our actions? We can explain to a person with diabetes that they’re biologically wired to crave and store sugars in their cells but in their case, the metabolic process has gone awry and their diet must be changed, but that doesn’t mean they will do so, even though they understand the reason for their condition. Similarly, just knowing about our genetic tendency to avoid unpleasantness by denial will not make it any easier or even likely that we will overcome our denial mechanisms. However, if the diabetic patient was told they only had 6 months to live if they didn’t drastically change their lifestyle, then some action may very well happen, regardless if they understand the medical explanation for their disease. So knowledge alone is not enough, there would need to be a powerful enough motivator that actually vies with our current conditions of survival to effect change. But denial of denial is like a perfect circular economy, it will keep feeding itself and upon itself until the bitter end.

                      I do so appreciate your earnestness Rob in trying and making a difference to reduce our suffering while we still can. I think many of the overshoot aware share this goal; anyone who sees our interconnected and responsible place in the biosphere must be a compassionate and generous human being. How we choose to mitigate suffering, both for ourselves and others, is a personal declaration and gift with myriad variations. I believe you champion MORT because underlying it all, you hold the hope that humans may yet choose to act differently once they are given full knowledge of themselves, the golden key to opening and utilising our consciousness fully. It is an utmost noble human endeavour, to want to change something for the better and to share that which we know to be our truth in hopes that it may help another. Sometimes I get the feeling you may be disparaged that what gives you a sense of direction and understanding has not been grasped by others; they cannot or will not see what is clear to you. Despair not! It is no less a gift from your deepest self because it was not received; the measure of a gift lies in the intention of the giving. I am learning through so many life lessons that sometimes others do not ask for or need our offerings of truth, what they want is the freedom to pursue their own. Your blog has already and continues to sustain intellectually and emotionally more beings than you may know. This is a safe and supportive space you have created for many to explore in and freely speak out; thank you for gifting it with honesty and respect.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. Thank you Gaia for the kind, wise and beautiful words.

                      I did not mean to imply that you and other overshoot aware people who have accepted human nature don’t care or do not want to make the future less bad.

                      There are a small number of overshoot aware people that still hope to change human behavior via education, like Tom Murphy, Nate Hagens, Richard Heinberg, Jack Alpert, Ugo Bardi, and The Club of Rome. Plus millions of people who don’t really understand the nature of our overshoot predicament like climate scientists and environmental activist trying to do the same. Not one of these people has made any progress. Not one of these people has stopped by to say “I haven’t made any progress”, please explain MORT to me. Not one, ever.

                      I guess denying that zero progress is being made is sadly another example of MORT.


                  2. Hi Gaia. It was very windy here but not too bad, and not too much rain, so we got off lightly compared to so many other poor people. One can’t help but wonder if this kind of event will become the norm.

                    Interesting about genetics. I would say that both my children are aware but I don’t think one has fully embraced a low-impact lifestyle (but compared to others both probably have). One has decided not to have children and the other has a single child. So my genes aren’t going to be propagated widely. So perhaps we need to encourage aware people to have children, as many as possible! Overall, maybe we need to switch focus on the overpopulation problem, to increasing the death rate rather than switching off the only route to evolving a species more in line with nature.

                    However, there really is no way to get there. Who would accept the dismantling of health services, for example? Then again, since we are a species, and any future Homo species would also be a species, I don’t think it will make much difference. We’ll have to let nature take it’s course. The thing that saddens me most is that I’ll never know how it all works out.


                    1. Sigh. You do paint a very lonely and crestfallen picture, Rob, but it is a true depiction of the terrain, at least from the view point as we understand it, of the magnitude of the crisis. I think those you mentioned believe that they are making a difference, even if only in the baby stages of education. They write books, have podcasts, give talks preaching to the mainly converted but it still looks like something is happening, perhaps they feel they are the messengers, storytellers, harbingers of the new world–if only we can avoid doom. Maybe the best we can say is they did their best, and in doing so, opened up the dialogue to more of our species. That, is progress, just not the scale and scope we are expecting. We ask too much of them, or anyone, to be our saviours.

                      I’m so glad to have stopped by here (and stayed!). It wasn’t to ask about MORT as I didn’t know a thing about it then, but now I feel more validated than ever in my life knowing that some other human beings can understand me and feel the same angst as well as wonder having awakened to overshoot. You did say from the start it’s a lonely place to be, but you bade me and others welcome and that has made all the difference.


                2. That’s exactly the point. And that’s why members of the species who experiment other paths matter.
                  I am pretty convinced that those who already or will work hand in hand with nature, be it because of a rational understanding of what is most productive or because they come to worship Gaïa (Life that encompasses us) will ultimately gain a survival advantage. But it is a slow, somewhat unfair game. (yin grows from almost nothing to replace yang almost completely)
                  To me we are living the point in human history where the species has a chance of either integrating with the whole Earth system, or being replaced by something else.
                  Let forests grow and stop the machines.
                  To me, collapse will prove to be an evolutionary bottleneck necessary to separate the chaff from the wheat (with a grain of randomness).
                  About breeding, I don’t really have any opinion any more. I see it more as a way to reduce suffering but not necessarily to increase survival. Nobody said life was easy 🙂

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. It’s a nice thought, Charles, and I’ve had similar thoughts (as in other comments) but I don’t see another species arising which won’t ultimately access as many resources as they can, just like all other species. I think our species will have to die out for the remaining ones, who won’t be able to access resources like we have, to live within the limits of their ecosystems.

                    On breeding, my son thought about not having kids but then couldn’t imagine a future without them (or at least one). He has a point.


            2. And as I approach 70 in a few weeks I am beginning to loath Spring. I’ve been growing 3 large gardens for 6 years now and all the labor begins again in a few weeks. I will easily lose 5 lbs. of weight and ache every night. No one I know locally does the VERY hard work needed to grow even a small portion of their own food. I see a lot of starvation coming if we are lucky and avoid the multiple mushroom clouds our rulers seem intent on unleashing on us.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I’m approaching 70, also, and am doing work on the land. I’m probably not doing as much as I used to since my aware son is now doing most of the conventional vegetable gardening but I am still planting trees, building wood sheds, scything, mowing, etc. I don’t really get the aches and pains now, since my diet changed for the better, though I do have arthritis, which I’m attempting to defeat with another dietary change.

                As far as aches are concerned, this may be anecdotal or coincidence, but regularly drinking milk kefir (made myself) seemed to magically fix that.


                1. I’m interested in any dietary changes that might help. I’ve been trying to cut the bad carbs but its a struggle.

                  Was kefir your only dietary change that helped with aches? Would you consider sharing your recipe?


                  1. Hard to say for certain, Rob. I had made dietary changes previously (eventually morphing to a largely Weston A Price diet) and felt much healthier but still had those aches after a couple of hours in the garden, with a lot of bending down. I wasn’t looking for a cure but did start to add kefir in quantity (a small glass per day) and soon noticed that I didn’t have those same aches, even after a long session bent or hunched trying to get the weeds out of the driveway. I don’t really get those aches even now, a few years later, though I don’t drink as much kefir now but do have some every day. There isn’t a recipe as such, but you do need to acquire the kefir grains. I originally used raw organic milk but that’s not easy to come by though I now use unhomogenized organic milk mostly. Just put the grains in a jar of milk and leave until coagulated, which might take two or three days depending on the ambient temperature. Then fetch out the grains (they are like small cauliflower florets) which should be floating on top and use the kefir. It can be just whisked and drunk like that or you can strain the whey off (and drink that) to have a thicky greek yoghurt like consistency. More straining and ageing can produce a cheese, though I rarely do that. I usually have it on fresh fruit salad, along with coconut yoghurt (milk yoghurt is good too).

                    I’m trying the 80/20 alkaline diet now as it promises to ease or reverse the arthritis. I’m only a week or two into that and it might take several months though there are some indications that it’s working already, but I’ll reserve judgement for at least a couple of months.


                  2. Regarding alkalinity and acidity, apparently, there are foods which are acidic outside the body but which are alkaline forming when assimilated by the body. So I would expect many fruits are acidic but are fine on this diet.

                    If you’re interested, I’m following recommendations made on this site and have bought the related book to get more detail (I buy her sprouted muesli quite often). Her style of writing is akin to her talking to you, so a bit weird. Anyway, I’m definitely reserving judgement, given the claims she makes but I’ll try anything that might help. I will stick at it for at least 6 months to see how it goes.


              2. Golly, I’m a spring chicken compared to you both so I don’t have any right to air out my complaints of bodily aches and pains, which are decidedly minor at this stage. Recovery time is still passable but what concerns me is the chance of serious injury which can happen anytime as accidents do. One mis-turned out ankle or knee, torn ligaments or broken bones and for all practical purposes we’re as useless as a screen door on a submarine, especially in the coming days when medical assistance may be few and far between. The best case scenario is always having another person contactable but so many times we go at a task alone at the far reaches of the property. I can just imagine you AJ with a chainsaw by yourself somewhere in your forest! Here in Tasmania and Queensland, we also have quite a selection of poisonous snakes to choose from (a huge score in favour of NZ), so that’s always something to be aware of when poking around in the bush or long grass. It’s good to have a first aid kit handy that includes straps and wrappings to deal with minor sprains and even snake bite, but nothing will take the place of real medical help when something serious occurs. Just think of what our options are without ambulances, emergency rooms, and emergency surgery and the whole lot.

                It’s said that women’s pain tolerance is higher than a man’s, from my husband’s seemingly extreme sensitivity to discomfort that could be true but then again, it’s only a sample size of one! Pain is totally subjective, so it’s still only your own level that matters, especially as it’s happening!

                70 years on this planet is no small feat and I am glad that you’ve had at least three score and ten relatively peaceful and hopefully fulfilling years, AJ. I hope you and your family will enjoy some time to celebrate and honour all that you’ve contributed to their lives.


                1. Ditto on the 70th birthday wishes to you too, Mike! It’s good to know that the apple didn’t fall far from the tree with your son participating in whatever good and practical thing we can do for ourselves, well done and lucky there.

                  As for diet decreasing arthritis, yes, there most definitely is a basis for that. Reducing foods that make your system acidic will be most beneficial, but you already know that. These are usually heavy proteins and processed foods. I think what you did with the kefir reflects a good change in your gut microbiome which helps decrease overall inflammatory processes in the body, including arthritis. Our gut microbiome is really an extension of our immune system, being technically outside our bodies they are like a first responder and defender for any pathogen that comes through the enteric system, amongst other beneficial effects. Increasing fibre intake (fruit, veg, and grains) is the best way to give your gut bacteria a good feed so they can do their thing.


                2. I really have a love/hate relationship to all power tools. They so radically cut the time it takes to do something compared to hand (or foot) powered tools – but they use fossil fuels and are soooo much more dangerous. I live in “logging” country and the amount of people hurt by chainsaws is immense. I love my chainsaw for what it can do rapidly but I pathologically fear it. I do try to take someone with me when I am out it the woods working but that’s not always possible(mainly because mountain lions eat humans and I have seen them very close).


                  1. Yeah, me too. I had almost decided to do without power tools. I started collecting useful hand tools (scythe, wood working tools, good gardening tools, a sharpenable saw, etc.) but it does take a lot of time. I have succumbed to power tools now but battery or electric ones. They don’t use much fossil fuels (in use) as NZ has most of it’s electricity from so-called renewables. OK, they probably do use a fair bit of fossil fuels in the whole life-cycle but possibly not as bad as petrol powered tools. The time factor is a major one. I couldn’t imagine my son and I building his house with just hand tools. I’m now swinging round to thinking battery powered tools are a necessary evil until collapse. Dealing with the fallen branches (sometimes whole trees) without a chainsaw of some kind would be very hard (though I did fell two trees with hand saws). Time is of the essence now, so I accept that battery powered tools, at least, will be part of my immediate future.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  2. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! It really is a crazy world out there. Friends, I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore.

                    We’re totally sold on the battery powered power tools for taking care of our properties, just trying to conserve time and effort to spread around to all the other tasks that need doing. I reckon that when time comes to go back to hand tools, we might have enough humanpower available in the form of city escapees to help do the manual work. We may very well be scratching the ground with sticks, however–who has enough hoes and spades and scythes to go around?

                    Just today for fun we calculated how long my husband has to work at his academic job to pay for the electricity it takes to charge the battery that runs the chainsaw that cut 5 wheelbarrows full of firewood from branches and small trees. About 10 seconds of his desk job translates into the energy it takes to cut a week’s worth of wood, roughly. That’s the power of our energy slaves who will soon be emancipated leaving us to do the sweat-pouring work for hours on end, day after day. Totally sobering and leaves us in no illusion how different a life we will have soon.

                    Liked by 2 people

    1. I know Kunstler is a conspiracy nut and is almost always wrong but he sure can turn a phrase to make me chuckle.

      If Russia was impressed by the successful balloon op, it didn’t offer any comment. Russia was busy neutralizing America’s pet proxy palooka, sad-sack Ukraine, sent into the ring to soften-up Russia for a revolution aimed at overthrowing the wicked Vlad Putin — at least according to our real Secretary of State (and Ukraine war show-runner), Victoria Nuland, in remarks this week to the Carnegie Endowment, a DC think tank.

      Speaking of tanks, our NATO allies are getting cold feet about sending those Leopard-2 war wagons into the Ukraine cauldron. Something about it had a discouraging act-of-war odor, as, by the way, did blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipelines, alleged by veteran reporter Seymour Hersh — though that caper was actually against NATO member and supposed US ally, Germany. WTF? Are the doings in Western Civ getting a little too complex for comfort?

      Anyway, it turns out that the thirty-one Abrams tanks America promised to Ukraine have yet to be bolted together at the tank factory. It’s a special order, you see, because we don’t want to send the latest models built with super-high-tech armor that the Russians might capture and learn from… so Mr. Zelensky will just have to cool his jets waiting on delivery, say, around Christmas time… if he’s not singing Izprezhdi Vika somewhere in Broward County, Florida, by then.

      The biggest problem Russia has in resolving this conflict on its border, is doing it in a way that does not drive “JB” and his posse of war-mongers so batshit crazy that they resort to a nukes-flying, world-ending, Thelma-and-Louise type denouement. In effect, America put a bomb on Russia’s front porch and now Russia has to carefully defuse the darn thing. The prank itself was just the last in a long line of foolish American military escapades that have ended in humiliation for us, most recently the Afghan fiasco. At best, this one in Ukraine — which we started in 2014 — is on-track to sink NATO, plunge Europe into cold and darkness, and put the USA out of business.


      1. Honestly, Rob, I find his use of insulting jibes and nicknames just as bad as Trump’s. If I do sometimes pop in there to see if he’s come to his senses, I don’t find his writings at all persuasive if he has to resort to that style of writing. But it does keep his acolytes happy.


        1. I find some of his work offensive too. For example, he jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon claiming that Pelosi’s home intruder was a homosexual liaison with her husband gone wrong. That’s been proven to be wrong and I don’t believe Kunstler apologized. Very very bad.


    1. Gosh, so many issues. But the odd thing is that geothermal plants do emit GHGs, occasionally as high as gas powered thermal plants. Yet Sabine said, at the end, that they could make a contribution to zero carbon energy. Is that MORT at play again?

      Liked by 1 person

  34. I’ve come to have a deep respect for Ray McGovern with his wisdom, knowledge of history and human nature, and articulate humor. He’d be my first choice to lead my country or a world government.

    He speaks several times on the Ukraine conflict and risk of nuclear war in this video, the first segment starts at 51:20.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ray once more is eminently logical about our crazy leaders.
      The risk of nuclear war increases daily because of the clueless hubris of the idiots in Washington (and Europe).


      1. Thank you! Excellent explanation of what’s going on with the nuclear arms treaty.

        I continue to have a very bad feeling about what’s going on. It seems that all the people have retired who did the original simulations showing that any use of nuclear weapons, regardless of how small, always results in a full scale nuclear war that destroys both sides.

        All other issues we face are noise in comparison and yet none of our leaders are talking about the risk and looking for paths to de-escalate.

        It’s quite remarkable and worrying.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Hah, good. Hey, it was about a week for me, though I was drinking raw milk kefir and making it myself. I have no idea if that made any difference. But we’re all different, so it might take less time or more time and it might not even work for you. I don’t want to dampen your hopes but we are all different and all I can say is that it was very noticeable, for me, after a week of drinking about a cup per day. I’ve never got those aches back on a much smaller “dose” (not to say I don’t get aches if I’m doing some hard work all day, but anyone of any age might get that if they’re not used to it).

      My fingers are crossed, for you.


    2. Hello Rob,

      2 years ago I came across the topic of nutrition or the conscious renunciation of it (also known as fasting).
      I found Dr. Jamnadas’ explanations so conclusive that I absolutely had to try it out as well – it has significantly increased my general well-being and also reduced my craving for regular meals – which can definitely be an advantage in case of missing regular access to food in the future. It is also fascinating to see the self-healing mechanisms that this triggers in the body – perhaps this can help with your pain as well.

      I can also recommend his two other lectures “The Fat Lies” and “Sugar – A bittersweet truth”. These made it clear to me that much of our alleged knowledge about healthy eating is complete humbug and primarily serves only the profits of corporations.


      1. Thank you marromai. I have read quite a bit about intermittent fasting and agree it is very good for health. I tried a few 48+ hour fasts but don’t think I could sustain them. I have chosen to do a small fast every day by only eating 2 meals and fasting between 7:00pm and noon every day.

        I do not know Dr. Jamnadas and will watch the video. Thanks again.


        1. Yes, I’m a fan of fasting though I’ve only done the 7pm to noon fast (time restricted eating – TRE). I’d love to do a longer one and will some day but it isn’t recommended for someone with my BMI (I think it was something like 19, last time I checked). The TRE did improve my slightly arthritic hand, so if this current 80/20 diet doesn’t work, I will try a longer fast. Drink plenty when fasting.

          I can also recommend Dr Robert Lustig’s talk, “Sugar – The Bitter Truth” (that may have been the one you were thinking of, marromai), I’m not sure what “The Fat Lies” is but the idea that saturated fat is bad arose from the Seven Countries Study by Ancel Keys, which set out to prove the fat hypothesis, rather than simply look at the data. He cherry picked the countries and ignored other correlations to heart disease in order to make saturated fat the bad guy. Getting rid of sugar was one of my best moves. There’s nuance there but added sugar is out for me and saturated fat isn’t bad (though I’m restricting it, and oils, now on the 80/20 diet).


      2. I watched the Jamnadas video. It’s excellent and has re-motivated me to do some multi-day fasts again.

        I was a few years ago using the Zero app to track my fasts but today I found a much better and simpler app called MyFast.


      1. So, we have had very snowy and cold conditions the last few days. Lost power last night for about 10 hours. Tough when your major heating is an electric heat pump. Got below 60 F in the house. Since I have solar with battery back-up I have maybe 6 hours of electricity that will run a water pump and sterilizer (and a modem). But it’s a drag with no heat and stove.

        Nuclear winter would freeze the water line from my spring to the house (even though it’s 4′ deep). No light or any communication after 6 or 7 hours. Maybe I could burn the wood stove and use a propane stove to cook, but what of the radiation outside? All my food stores mean nothing in a nuclear winter scenario.

        Someone on The Saker blog posted an analysis that said Russia’s nuclear weapons are so advanced (over the U.S.) and their ABM systems are even more advanced (way beyond the West’s) that they could conceivably launch a disabling First Strike and knock out over 90% of the ICBM and SLBM’s that the U.S. could launch in retaliation. Conceivably they could survive a Nuclear War IF they launch first. The analysis suggested that the real problem going forward is that there will be intense pressure on Putin (and the leadership) to do just that, i.e. the continued existence of the planet is in a precarious situation of Putin not launching and the West being logical (no chance) and avoiding the escalation ladder.

        I suspect that one of these days will be our last on this blog and our lives will be short and nasty after that (except for you south of the equator and you get to play an old favorite movie of mine – On The Beach).

        Good luck to all of us.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Hi AJ and Rob, and thank you woodchuck for that piece–if only being constantly reminded what’s at stake here will change anything. In any case, I like your moniker, we will all need to chuck more wood soon for survival, like AJ has described in his recent scenario.

            I can’t help but think about the end-game strategy, maybe that’s just the way my curious brain works when it’s not overcome with poppy fumes?

            If this is to be played as a game (if we see our geopolitical tableau as the ultimate chess and we’re nearing checkmate), there will have to be sacrificial pieces, of even the most powerful. It feels like this is getting to be that time. However, unlike chess where there are only the Black and White player, we have here the possibility of a third and perhaps the most powerful of all, who can turn the tide for one side or another. To me is is clear that China could and probably will be the lynchpin on which the outcome will be based. China alone can bring the West to its knees without even firing a single conventional shot, much less nuclear war, and that is to terminally cripple the West’s economic and social machine by stopping supply of any or all material upon which we depend for daily cohesion as a society. Just add up every physical item, necessary or not, in our lives that comes from China, and that is not including the fact they refine much of the raw materials used in their manufacture as well. They who make everything we need is our true master, neither money nor force will tease it from their grip and we certainly cannot just go over there to get it for ourselves. Once utter panic and chaos freefall happens in the States, and this may take only days if not hours (assuming the US is to be the main target of this withholding) the government will have internal armageddon to deal with and hopefully will have lost its taste for starting nuclear war or continuing outer conflict. If one wishes to be absolutely decisive, this would be the time to make sure the opponent suffers a crushing defeat of its military capabilities as well, read that as you may as a First Strike opportunity. It will take both China and Russia to finish off this maneuver, and doesn’t it seem obvious to anyone with two brain cells remaining that they are definitely in the same camp and working on bringing about a world order change?

            How to bring this to an even greater head as to enable these next steps–the Taiwan issue is the powder keg that will blow up in all our faces. If we look at how it may unfold conventionally, this will be the flashpoint, but the way the world is at this stage, there’s nothing that says anyone can’t play the game however it feels is the right gamble, there are no rules in love and war. But to save face and be on the more “redeeming” side of whoever is left standing, I think China will wrangle a situation where it is compelled to act, whether it be balloons or Taiwan outright, or even another pandemic causing it to shut itself internally to the West. The key point is that China can at any moment, pull the rug of necessity from underneath the West, and they will have no recourse. Even the rumour of such an act will cause enough panic to spiral out of control. Can you imagine the setting when the masses realise the source of all their worldly goods will grind to a halt? How will you control the riots at the shops all around the country? And once the shooting starts, well, that’s the end of your societal structure. In my little brain, China has always known this is their power, once the West stupidly put all its eggs into their basket and made China their cheap labour manufacturing headquarters, thinking that their all mighty petrol dollar will always be able to control it for their benefit. They never believed the dragon would awaken; their own arrogance will be their downfall. Did they forget that dragons can not only fly as high or higher than eagles, but also spew fire to singe those tail feathers and much more? Look what China has done for its own infrastructure all these years, biding its time to take the mantle of world power. Money means absolutely nothing when you have no resources and the other side who does have what you want doesn’t want to trade with you anymore.

            Continuing my usual stream of consciousness babble here, if the West really does know its precarious position, and who cannot see it? then its tiresome posturing to provoke China makes no sense. Could it be that we are seeing the denouement of the agenda in the deliberate fall of the West (namely the US) as the pre-requisite to the new global order, as in there can only be one master, and you will be assimilated kind of thing? Or will we be so caught up in this sticky web that all roads now lead to total destruction as each remaining power is fighting for its place in the new world order? The hubris that led Homo Sapiens to believe that we can outsmart a virus by doing ourselves catastrophic damage in every way and still not opening our eyes to see, will be the same that will lead some leader to think we (that is a small subset of the population) can outsmart nuclear holocaust and somehow survive when our enemies cannot. And some may think to bring it on rather than wait for another to choose the hour and day of reckoning. That is the state of affairs now. Some days I muse how true the saying that ignorance is bliss. On the rare ocassions I go out into town and witness our energy and material blind society still swirling around me in total denial, I try to wish all the fellow human beings I see some comfort in the coming days and I am glad in their ignorance because it is another day of keeping the suffering at bay. That is how I see every day now, one less for our collective suffering if we can make it so.

            Namaste. Hope your aches and pains will find some measure of comfort.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Gaia, I think your speculations are insightful, plausible, and for me, hopeful.

              I believe our western leaders are literal idiots compared to Chinese and Russian leaders. Carefully read a Putin speech and a Biden speech (or that of any Western European leader) for all the evidence you need.

              It must be obvious to the Chinese and Russians that nuclear war is inevitable unless they do something to derail the train.

              Perhaps the strange zero-covid lockdowns were phase 1 to ensure the Chinese could survive and manage their citizens during a temporary shutdown of their economy. Now that they have the tools and experience they are ready for phase 2. As you propose, China finds some excuse for economic retaliation against the US. It will not take long for empty big box stores, no spare parts for critical equipment, and the lack of many raw materials to bring the west to its knees.

              Russia by this time will have done sufficient damage to the Ukraine military, and secure in the knowledge that with their gas not flowing west Europe will be too poor to rebuild, they can make a partial withdrawal to defuse the nuclear threat in Ukraine.

              The Chinese and Russian economies will be damaged but they can rebuild using their perfectly complementary strengths, and can develop new markets with a developing world that would love a good reason to break ties with the US. And with the US and European economies destroyed, collapse due to oil depletion will be delayed by 5 or 10 years giving the rest of the world a few years to enjoy what we squandered.

              Lets all hope Russia and China are collaborating on such a plan to save the world from nuclear war.

              Gaia, this would be a great post if you have any interest in developing your ideas into an essay.


              1. I think we should remember that every country in the world is governed or ruled by human beings. I would hesitate to describe any of them as rational. Nothing can stop the collapse and it is highly unlikely, IMO, that it can even be slowed in some regions but not others, considering the interconnectedness.

                It’s easy to ridicule our own leaders because we have close knowledge of what’s happening in our countries and in countries where reporting is reasonably free (either with official or unofficial reporting). If we lived in some other countries, I wonder how much critical thinking we could do, given that information may be more controlled. In some countries, people can vote out one set of idiots for another set of idiots, whilst in other countries that may not be as simple.

                I don’t give any leader any points for wisdom.


                1. When a leader gives a speech they are on public display and will be putting their best foot forward. So if a speech is filled with poor grammar and devoid of facts with zero understanding of history and biophysical realities, we can safely make assumptions about the competence and intelligence of the leader.


              2. Hi there Rob,

                I think you’ve done a very admirable job fleshing out my skeleton thoughts into a logical and pragmatic exposition, thank you very much! If it were a movie script synopsis, I think Hollywood would go for it!

                Seriously, you don’t know how much it means to me to have this space to dabble (blabble?) with the ideas that churn ceaselessly in my head as I try to make some sense of it all as a rational and emotional being. I’m not saying it’s wrong to be crazy, but the thing is, I don’t think I’m crazy (but of course that’s what a crazy person would say). Some days you do wonder if anyone out there even thinks remotely like you do, so when you find that you can actually be understood, it’s like a huge sigh of relief and pat on the back at the same time. Please feel free to use whatever you think is worthy as a scaffold for furthering the discussion as you already have. I am totally of the same mind at this point with what you’ve scenarioed, especially tying in with China’s response to Covid. I always thought that was a war-footing exercise as well as a trial of economic shut down. Not to mention that both Russia’s and China’s main vaccine candidates were not the gene-therapy ones, very telling there. China can very well maintain a social grip along with a certain economic stability in both the short term and longer range view, as you have clearly painted. It’s perhaps my own idiosyncrasy but for me, a hypothesis that is tidy and can explain multiple arms of action should always been sought out first, because if there is something that fits, that just makes more logical and energy sense. This is of course assuming the parties involved are logical minded which we have to trust is more likely with China and Russia given all evidence to date.

                What buoyed me up quite a bit in your response is that you considered what I suggested as hopeful, as in, this may and can be the best possible result (aka the least worst) in the tragically dire situation we’re in. It is what I can see as a way forward, but of course it will mean the end of the empire we’ve known. But so it must be, everything has its time under the sun.

                Today’s news of China’s 12 point path to peace proposal goes a far way to supporting this vision we are harbouring. They categorically state that nuclear escalation must be defused, and also research and development of chemical and biological weapons by any country, under any circumstance, is opposed. The tone is decidedly a warning to the US and NATO, that China is under no pretenses of their “expanding military blocs” and in abstaining from the UN vote for the fourth time, shows the West that it is not intimidated in the least and is rightly secure in its relationship with Russia. The global power transfer will be complete with the one-two punch that both China and Russia can deliver, starting with economic free-fall for the West, leading to internal societal collapse. This destabilisation is the hope for nuclear disengagement. When total annihilation of the planet is a possible outcome, no sacrifice is too great to prevent this from occurring. It remains to be seen if Homo Sapiens (or at least the very few with which our fate rests) are both wise enough and have enough courage to make the decisions to see this through.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. The west is certainly primed for some kind of social breakdown thanks to unsustainable debt & deficits, social media, polarized politics, prescription drugs, bad diets & health, entitled expectations from soft pampered lives, and total ignorance of all biophysical realities.


                2. The 12 point peace plan seems devoid of any specific proposals but many points seem aimed at Russia just as much as nations supportive of Ukraine. For example, points 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are either equally condemning or more so.

                  Given that China’s relationship with Russia supposedly has “no limits” it is odd that China has tried to stay neutral at the UN. It’s also hypocritical to have point 1 as an affirmation about respecting the sovereignty of nations but refusing to condemn the disrespect that Russia showed in invading a sovereign country.

                  However, the proposal doesn’t really contain any specific actions designed to resolve the conflict, so I’m not sure how it helps.


                  1. I listened to the Duran’s analysis of China’s proposal (but did not read it myself) and my take away of the important points were:
                    – sanctions should be decided by the UN Security Council
                    – China did not condemn NATO supplying weapons to Ukraine, presumably so it can supply weapons to Russia


                    1. As the proposals weren’t explicit about anything, I suppose almost any interpretation could be placed on it. However, point 3 about parties not fanning the flames could be a reference to support of other nations through armaments. If that was the intention, China couldn’t supply weapons to Russia with a straight face. As for the sanctions issue, that’s the easy way out for China, knowing that any country that has veto powers would never be the subject of any sanctions. Still, I can’t see China giving up the right to unilateral sanctions itself, if it sees them as being in their best interests.

                      I wouldn’t trust any politician as far as I could throw them. Still, all of this is insignificant in the huge predicaments the world faces right now but no country is addressing those.


                  2. Hi Mike,

                    In my humble and very insignificant opinion, I just wanted to say that I thought China through their ambiguous 12 point plan (I’m sure 12 is a very auspicious number) is showing a high degree of political acumen that no-one would have even thought possible from that country 20 years ago. Everything is constructed in well-known platitudes that have been bantered about by the West for as long as they have held geopolitical dominion, and now being parroted back to them by China does seem a bit incongruous! Especially the parts about invading sovereign countries, as if that wasn’t the raison d’etre of the Western empires! And therein I think China is having a bit of a side chuckle, not that there’s any humour to war. In a way, the plan IS ironic and maybe that’s the point, but I don’t believe for a minute that China is going to go along with the same game, they are ascendant now and can do pretty well whatever it wants, especially with brother Russia at its back. It’s the consummate leader who can infiltrate the diplomatic domain speaking the opposite’s language and be convincing enough to seemingly following the playbook–all the while without obviously committing oneself and very much keeping one’s counsel to oneself.

                    I think it’s high time I have another read of The Art of War, this time around I think I will recognise the game being enacted out play by play in plain sight, as least to those with eyes to see. “Know thy enemy and know thyself, and you will win a thousand battles.” I think China would know the West’s weaknesses very well and they have been working on rectifying their own for quite some time. Everything they are doing now is biding time for when they have the opportunity to deliver as quick and decisive of a victory as possible in the overturn of the global order, in my opinion. Even if it means putting the guise of a mediator and peacemaker to draw out even more from the other side, whilst also hiding one’s true strategy behind what seems to be the agenda of the moment. The elements of subterfuge and surprise feature very much in Sun Tzu’s treatise. And I am most impressed and hopeful with this quote “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”. Let us hope that Sun Tzu is correct even in these nuclear times and we can avoid annihilation of the planet.

                    Hope you’re going well and this will be a calm autumn for NZ weatherwise and all the rest.


                    1. Well, whatever the new world order is, assuming there is time for it to become apparent, the age of empire is probably coming to a close, with all of the resource and environmental predicaments there are.

                      I’m doing fine, thanks, and hope everyone else here is, too. Weather-wise, who knows? We’re keeping an eye on two more potential cyclones that may threaten us just as autumn starts. Is this the new normal? Well, no, since an unstable climate has no normal. We’ll be keeping our fingers crossed.

                      I may reduce my time on social media, since I have a lot of stuff to get done over the next few months.


  35. Restating Tim Morgan today in un-Denial language: energy depletion will not cause the economy to collapse, rather our use of debt to deny energy depletion will cause the economy to collapse (via deflation or inflation, as determined by luck and the political winds).

    Surplus Energy Economics has never predicted that the economy somehow ‘must’ collapse, noting that the rate of decline in prosperity is comparatively modest, and could be manageable. Recognition of the energy dynamic of prosperity erosion does not compel anyone to join the ranks of the collapse-niks.

    But the financial complex, rather than the economy itself, is where real and extreme systemic risk does exist. We might be able, to put it colloquially, to ‘get by with less’, but we cannot ‘meet our commitments with less’. Much of this is a result of ignorance (about the real workings of the economy), intentional denial and limitations in oversight.

    With the idea of economic contraction deemed to be (quite literally) unthinkable, it has suited us to assume, quite wrongly, that we can energise the material economy with monetary innovations. As well as failing, this has burdened us with financial commitments that we cannot even fully quantify, let alone honour or manage. An admittedly speculative possibility is that decision-makers might, in desperation, opt for the ‘soft default’ of runaway inflation rather than the ‘hard default’ of reneging on interconnected commitments that cannot be honoured.

    As we have seen, the convention of disregarding asset prices within the calibration of inflation has enabled us to operate the system on the basis that ‘QE doesn’t cause inflation’. The situation changed when, during the pandemic crisis, QE was no longer confined to investors, but was extended to consumers as well.

    At this point, inflation extended from asset prices to CPI, prompting action – rate rises and QT – from central bankers.


  36. Meanwhile while I focus on Ukraine, covid, and economic collapse, the weather continues to spin out of control everywhere in the world as nicely captured today by Panopticon.

    “First 100F/37.8C of 2023 in the United States! Falcon Lake in Texas reached the triple digit, while in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee monthly records are falling like flies.

    “Atlanta rose above 80F in winter for the first time in its history.” [Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport reached 81F / 27.2C, breaking the old record of 80° from Feb. 7, 2019].


  37. Tim Watkins today with his spin on Jack Alpert’s scarcity death spiral.

    An economic death spiral occurs when a system loses critical mass. For example, the UK’s energy death spiral – which is reaching its crisis phase – is the result of rising energy costs creating an involuntary loss of demand across the system. In part, businesses and households engage in energy-saving and conservation methods to lower their demand. And in part, they self-disconnect – in the case of businesses, they go bust, while household simply shiver in the dark. The reason this becomes a death spiral is because the system was designed around cheap energy and mass consumption. But as the cost of energy rises the mass consumption is lost. And so, the rising cost must fall on a shrinking consumer base… which, in turn, causes more businesses and households to disconnect. In the UK, this reached the point last year, that the state had to step in to bail out the energy companies by paying a portion of household energy bills – although with the cost running to billions of pounds, and with the UK economy outside London already in a recession, this is unsustainable. And so, the crisis point is reached. Without state aid, the energy industry is no longer profitable, companies will go bust, most likely followed by a period of mergers and acquisitions until it becomes clear that the entire economy will have to readjust to using far less energy and at a far higher cost.

    Energy is far from alone in facing a death spiral. Pretty much all of our critical infrastructure – which is another term for our life support systems – has the same dependence upon mass consumption.

    The broader economic death spiral is that as a critical mass of the population is forced back to spending on essentials only, then the – currently much bigger – discretionary sectors of the economy will implode – most likely very rapidly, setting off a chain reaction as the ensuing job losses result in a massive decline in aggregate incomes, and even more critical mass is lost.

    The sad reality for those of us living in western economies, is that our entire lifestyle has been underwritten by artificially low prices generated through mass consumption. Had we been living on an infinite planet, this could have continued indefinitely. But as we run up against resource limits, and especially as we face declining surplus energy, there is no way of preventing death spirals spinning up across the economy. And while some degree of income redistribution and public or non-profit ownership of some critical infrastructure might delay the inevitable, in the absence of yet-to-be-discovered, cheap and high-density energy and the resources this would unlock, standards of living that we might have associated with extreme poverty a decade ago are likely to be the source of envy for most of us in years to come.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Rob-I think you meant Tim Watkins.

      A couple of weeks ago I went with my wife to Kent for a short break. On one of the days we visited Dungeness, a large shingle spit, and genuinely a rather strange,and in it’s way, beautiful place. What makes it even stranger is that at the tip sit a couple of defunct nuclear reactors being decommissioned (one after only 30 years service). Getting to Monk’s point here is an article that explains why the closure has not lead to job losses and will not in the foreseeable future-pretty costly

      But there is another little wrinkle in the EROEI story which speaks to Gail T’s reservations on such calculations. It had been by English standards a long drive (just under an hour), and I was in need of refreshment so we headed towards the Britannia Inn, near the ex-power stations for a quick pint before the walk. As I was pulling into the Pub car park, coming in the opposite direction on the single track road was a large yellow lorry preceded by a safety van. After the walk I noticed the same lorry and van again.

      All part of the decommissioning I thought. My wife had bought a book on Dungeness in a charity shop and later on while reading it I found out what the lorries are really for. Now as I said, Dungeness is a shingle spit and, as any A-level Geography student could have told them, liable to longshore drift. Soon after they constructed the first power station they discovered what any 18 year old geographer could have told them for free. Since then, they have had multiple lorries (perhaps less now the lorries are bigger) going backwards and forwards carrying shingle from the east side to the west side to counteract the drift.

      This goes on 365 days a year apparently with, presumably, additional cranes, draglines and bulldozers. This has been going on for 50 years (?) and how many more to come? Should the EROEI calculation for Dungeness include the dissipation of all that lovely diesel? I would have thought so. Hope someone’s making plans for the supply of the diesel for the next thirty or so years.

      Sorry post is so long.


      1. I fixed the typo, thanks.

        Interesting story. I had to do a search to figure out what shingle was. We call it gravel.

        Its quite tragic how we waste something so precious as oil. I suppose shifting shingle is not as bad as hundreds of millions of individuals driving 2000 Kg vehicles 100 Km to work every day at some non-essential job that also wastes fossil energy.


    1. Did the idiot Mike Stasse notice that this peace is not “real TV” in France, but a scene taken from a 2019 series named “L’Effondrement”, which means “The Collapse”?
      Or did you forget to mention that? Of course we have in France constantly the idiot female ministers on power to destroy all the good the wise men tried to build up in the world.. Luckily these kind of ministers (-politicians) are taken down asap by aware scientists & Co as fast and violently as possible. Denial seems to jump up in almost every human brain, n’est ce pas?

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Hi Rob,
      this is a short scene of the final episode of “The Collapse” (L’Effondrement) – a french mini series with 8 episodes, that are worth a watch.
      Each episode shows different aspects & situations, which have one thing in common: no happy end like in Hollywood…

      Maybe you can find it at any streaming service. Otherwise I found a link with some “backup files” (no garuantee, if it works):

      Liked by 1 person

  38. Adding to the list of things they got wrong:
    – useful, unbiased, and transparent data
    – independent testing
    – adjusting policies to new evidence
    – applying historic lessons learned
    – uncorrupt officials
    – censorship of dissenting experts
    – gain of function research
    – lab leak
    – vitamin D
    – Ivermectin
    – post mortem analysis
    – support for vaccine injured
    – mRNA longevity
    – mRNA injection locality
    – mRNA manufacturing quality control
    – obesity risk
    – age stratification risk
    – novelty of technologies
    – financial incentives for bad behavior
    – pharma indemnification
    – ignoring and blocking success stories
    – accountability


  39. Mike, if you pretend you didn’t know this was written by Kunstler I’m sure you’ll agree he has an incredible talent for clearly articulating our insanity.

    If you think about it at all, can you come up with any good reasons why our country has involved itself in the Ukraine war? To defend democracy, many say? An emptier platitude does not exist in the vast slippery lexicon of spin. To thwart Russia’s imperial overreach? You apparently have no clue about Ukraine’s history, ancient or modern. To incite an overthrow of the wicked Putin by his own people? The Russian president is more popular there now than even John F. Kennedy was here in 1962.

    There actually are no good reasons for what we are doing in Ukraine, only bad reasons. Mainly, stoking the war there diverts Americans’ attention from our own problems, which is to say the titanic failures of America’s political establishment. The USA is falling apart from a combination of mismanagement, malice, and negligence. Our economy is a tottering scaffold of Ponzi schemes. Our institutions are wrecked. The government lies about everything it does. The news industry ratifies all the lying. Our schoolchildren can’t read or add up a column of numbers. Our food is slow-acting poison. Our medical-pharma matrix has just completed the systematic murder and maiming of millions. Our culture has been reduced to a drag queen twerk-fest. Our once-beautiful New World landscape is a demolition derby. Name something that hasn’t been debauched, perverted, degenerated, or flat-out destroyed.

    This next bit blows my gaskets…

    Did you notice, by the way, that the CDC just added those unapproved, still-experimental shots to the childhood vaccine schedule, considered official “guidance” that is followed by virtually every school system in America. Rochelle Walensky did that despite massive evidence that the “vaccines” damage children’s hearts, nervous systems, reproductive systems, and immune systems?

    Do you know why Ms. Walensky did that? Because adding the mRNA shots to the childhood schedule supposedly confers permanent immunity from legal liability for the drug companies, even after the current emergency use authorization (EUA) runs out.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. There are some intelligent overshoot aware people that believe Russia is in the wrong.

    For example, Tad Patzek, a Pole raised in Poland, who has done some excellent presentations on overshoot:

    I imagine my father, who was also raised in Poland, would agree with Patzek.

    I, having been raised in Canada and estranged from my father at a young age, am now able to see the hypocritical evil of our western governments, and do not share their views.

    One year ago, 42 million human lives were interrupted at 3:40 a.m. in late winter, when the genocidal Russian Mafia state attacked Ukraine.

    A year ago, 10 million Ukrainians crossed the Polish border. The Polish civil society self-organized instantly, not waiting for the government and NGOs to step in. It is important to understand that at the peak this nation of 38 million people received and housed 4 million Ukrainians, while others continued west. Ordinary people had let refugees into their apartments, and gave them their second, rental or vacation homes. All on their own dime.

    Contrast this Polish attitude with the utter selfishness of too many Republicans in the US. When criminals are killing innocent people, women and children, you do not air your grievances, wait and equivocate. Ask yourselves this question: Scaling up to the US population, would Americans let 35 millions of refugees into their homes?


  41. Good on Steve Kirsch for continuing to drive hard to fry our health leaders.

    A whistleblower gave him some of the important data they’ve been hiding from us.

    This may well be the most important article I’ll write in 2023.

    In this article, I publicly reveal record-level vax-death data from the “gold standard” Medicare database that proves that:
    1) The vaccines are making it more likely that the elderly will die prematurely, not less likely
    2) The risk of death remains elevated for an unknown period of time after you get the shot (we didn’t see it return to normal)
    3) The CDC lied to the American people about the safety of these vaccines. They had access to this data the entire time and kept it hidden and said nothing.

    If there is one article for you to share with your social network, this is the one.

    Executive summary

    Isn’t it a shame that none of the world’s governments make the vaccination-death records publicly available? My claim is that if they did that, it would end the debate instantly and prove to the world that the vaccines are unsafe. So that’s why they keep it locked up.

    But apparently there is one whistleblower who is interested in data transparency.

    Last night, I got a USB drive in my mailbox with the Medicare data that links deaths and vaccination dates. Finally! This is the data that nobody wants to talk or even ask about.

    I was able to authenticate the data by matching it with records I already had. And the analysis that I did on the data I received matches up with other analyses I have received previously.

    The nice thing about this Medicare data is that nobody can claim that it is “unreliable.” Medicare is the unassailable “gold-standard” database. It’s the database that the CDC never wants us to see for some reason. They never even mention it. They pretend it doesn’t exist. So you know it is important.

    Do you want to know what it shows?

    It shows that these shots increase your risk of dying and once you get shot, your risk of dying remains elevated for an unknown amount of time. And that’s in the very population it is supposed to help the most!

    Now you know why the CDC, which has always had access to the Medicare records, has never made them publicly available for anyone to analyze to prove that the vaccines are safe. Because the records show the opposite. That’s why they keep the data hidden from view and it’s why they NEVER talk about it.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. I really enjoyed this Feb. 17 interview of Chris Martenson by Royce White.

    I’ve followed Chris since he first published his Crash Course many years ago but this interview displayed a side of him I have not seen, perhaps because I’m not a paying member of his community, or perhaps because he’s speaking to a new audience here so went super wide on his comments.

    He discusses among other things:
    – the importance of spirituality
    – what was really going on with covid
    – why is the insanity concentrated in the Five Eyes countries
    – China’s strategy and opinion of western leaders
    – what we should be doing vs. what we are doing
    – American culture is a death culture
    – confides he has very little hope & therefore is prepping

    Fair warning that the interviewer is not overshoot aware and is not too bright but is articulate and made a few good points.


  43. Thanks to Monk for introducing us to the Canadian Prepper channel.

    I’ve been watching him most days. I don’t care for his dialed up drama (although I’d probably do the same if that was how I made my living) and so I have a filter turned on, however he does occasionally make an excellent point like he did today.

    For three years anyone claiming lab leak has been demonized as a conspiracy nut. Then, when it became clear that Russia may win with the help of Chinese weapons they instantly got the entire population worked up over the threat of a surveillance UFO from China. Then when the weather balloon popped the US Defense department immediately released a report confirming covid was a Chinese lab leak, of course with no mention that the US funded research in that lab, or Fauci’s role in the cover-up.

    We are clearly being manipulated towards a war footing.


    1. At approximately 28 minutes he says some things about oil that I hope are true. I don’t know if I’m understanding what he says,something along the lines of “the US is saving its oil for later” ?! After a century of being a major producer of oil?


      1. Yeh, I caught that error too. I think it’s a subtle form a denial that I see often.

        It’s ok to acknowledge the threat of nuclear war because it is a political problem that can and may be prevented.

        It’s not ok to acknowledge collapse of civilization in the next 10 years due to oil depletion because there is no possible solution other than reducing suffering via population reduction.


    1. Good onya Rob! Even though you probably don’t eat a lot of processed foods anyway, cutting out refined sugar completely is a huge step and I’m sure your cells are doing a little jig now to thank you! Keep up the fresh fruit eating and if you do crave something sweet for the cuppa, there’s coconut sugar which comes from the sap of the coconut palm flower, and therefore considered to be less processed with retained minerals, of course it is still a sugar and best used sparingly. It will be great to know how you’re going and what effects you are experiencing. I think your aches and pains will be saying bye-bye soon!


      1. Thank you for the tips. I love my coffee and tea black so that’s not a problem. I also scratch cook most everything from whole foods so processed food is not too big a problem. The problem is I enjoy something sweet after lunch and dinner like one of my home-made chocolate chip cookies or ice cream.

        Maybe I’ll treat myself once a week. We’ll see.

        I got motivated by a book I’m reading titled “Metabolical: The Lure and the Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition, and Modern Medicine” by Dr. Robert H. Lustig.

        The case against sugar is VERY strong.


        1. Never fear, you can still have your cake and eat it too, sugar-free. If it’s ice cream you’re craving, get yourself a decent blender (I can’t live without mine which makes smoothies, nut milks, and ice cream which I am just about to tell you how) and always have a stash of frozen bananas at the ready–the riper the better (like brown spots all over, peel then freeze whole). For lovely ice-creamy goodness, chop up a couple frozen bananas (they slice pretty easily even when frozen), add what ever else fruit or flavouring you want (cocoa powder is excellent, and so is peanut butter!), sometimes I throw in walnuts or cashews (soaked for a few hours) for extra nuttiness and richness, a pinch of spice like cinnamon or cardamon (depending on your other flavours), a dash of vanilla extract, and enough liquid to get it to blend (nut milks are good, or even water–cold coffee works really well, too, especially with cocoa powder!) and voila, you will have a super delicious and healthy treat, with the consistency of soft ice cream, if you want it firmer, you can add some ice cubes but your blender should be a more powerful one. Some of our favourite combos with the frozen banana is pear with ginger (and cardamon!) and cherry and chocolate (use pitted cherries and cocoa powder). But even just frozen banana alone with a dash of vanilla is nice and simple.

          And for the cookie monster in you, there’s all kinds of sugar free date based snacks that should do the trick for a little something extra to go with that black coffee–most of them involve using a food processor to blend up dates, some kind of nut (walnuts and almonds are common, but you can also use sunflower seeds), and rolled oats as the main ingredients (and any number of add-ins including shredded coconut, raisins or other dried fruit, spices, lemon or orange zest, cocoa powder of course, your imagination has no limit) to a dough-like consistency which you can roll into balls or press into bars.

          I have not used white sugar for over 15 years now and still enjoy baking lots of treats made using other forms of sweetener, usually fruit based.

          In any case, after a few weeks, what you thought was sweet will be almost too cloyingly so–the good thing about fruit based sweetness is the fibre that comes with it that helps regulate absorption of glucose and insulin production. Soon you’ll be able to really appreciate other flavours and not just the sweetness, as your taste buds adjust, too.

          There’s a whole new world out there for you to discover, so excited for you! Let me know if I can help in any way, nutrition and yumminess is my passion!


        2. I’ve been off sugar now for a year. I swapped the sugar and milk in my coffee for cream. Expensive but a nice treat.

          I wish I new earlier in my life that sugar/refined starch and not saturated fat is the the enemy.

          The big fat surprise by Nina Teicholz is a good read. Like The Great Cholesterol Con by Kendrick, it made me realise how much I thought was true was in fact wrong.

          I now only allow myself a sweet treat on birthdays, Christmas and Easter. I only eat fruit when it’s in season. I no longer believe there is a difference between natural sugars found in fruit and refined sugar/ starch. To your body it’s all the same. We only would have encountered sweet stuff occasionally.


          1. Agree except on maybe one point. My understanding is that unrefined starch like potatoes and rice are not as bad as sugar and refined starch because they take longer to digest and therefore don’t spike insulin as much.

            Do you agree?


            1. The starch in potatoes and rice is quickly converted to glucose in the body, so that is not a problem at all. Sugar, or sucrose, is a combination of fructose and glucose. Only the liver can metabolise fructose and will usually store it as fat, unless you’re a high performance athlete. I’m still not completely clear on fructose wrapped in its fibre in whole fruit. It seems to be handled differently and I’m sure Lustig talks about this but it’s a few years since I looked at his work.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Well I guess it depends on how you define unrefined starch. My understanding is that white rice, white bread, pasta, mashed potatoes all have a reasonably quick impact on your insulin levels.

              I remember listening to something once about eating whole potatoes verses mashed potatoes. The mashed spud resulted in a measurably quicker rise in blood glucose levels.


              1. Agree. But potatoes and rice are still a lot better than sugar, and there are things you can do to improve the situation.

                For example, the glycemic index of brown rice < basmatti < jasmine rice. I never eat jasmine rice for this reason.

                Boiling potatoes, refrigerating them, and eating them the next day somehow changes the starch to slow digestion. This apparently also works for pasta.


                1. Re fiber and sugars.

                  The fiber allows more gut bacteria to live on it and eat the sugars before you can digest them.
                  The sugar that goes into you is sugar regardless of the source, the amount is all that varies.
                  Having too much glucose is also very bad as it creates insulin resistance over time eventually leading to diabetes. Essentially a low carb diet (which means not eating much fruit high in sugars) will help. Everything in moderation is the key.
                  If you want a wonderful substitute for making something sweet use monk sugar, it is an alcohol sugar that does not get metabolised.

                  Re aches and pains.
                  interestingly when I do a 3 to 5 water fast my feet become instantly insensitive to walking on my gravel driveway. Usually I tread gingerly as it is painful. Takes about two weeks to go back to being sensitive. Probably inflammation being quietened down, not really sure, a little weird.


                    1. The monk fruit sweetener available where I shop has as the main ingredient Erythritol which is produced in an industrial process.

                      I’m thinking I will abstain from sugar with occasional treats rather than switching to something suspicious.

                      Erythritol is produced industrially beginning with enzymatic hydrolysis of the starch from corn to generate glucose.[22] Glucose is then fermented with yeast or another fungus to produce erythritol. Other methods such as electrochemical synthesis are in development.[23] A genetically engineered mutant form of Yarrowia lipolytica, a yeast, has been optimized for erythritol production by fermentation, using glycerol as a carbon source and high osmotic pressure to increase yields up to 62%.



                    2. Erythritol is then main ingredient in monk fruit and has been used for a long period. The chemistry to make it is not hard and considering all the other chemicals and drugs we make it is not going to be different from the natural sources. I agree that getting off sweet tastes is the best route though. I find most sugary things far too sweet now and don’t want them.
                      Dark chocolate 76% is my go to treat.

                      RE fasting

                      I do one at least 3 – 5 day water only (+electrolytes) per year to clean out the system. Wish I could do it 4 but life interferes too much. I do low carb mostly and intermittent fasting most of the time.


                    3. Erythritrol is linked to higher risk of heart attacks and strokes.

                      When I mentioned glucose, as a sweetener, I use it sparingly anyway. At the moment, only for making chocolate, though I have used it in sourdough muffins and scones. Actually, I need even less for chocolate as I’ve started substituting some of the cacao powder with carob powder, which is naturally sweet.

                      It’s also possible to make a sweetener from yacon, a root vegetable (nice), which has inulin, which isn’t absorbed by the body. I think I’ve heard of some downsides to even that, though.

                      I don’t agree with the everything in moderation message. If it’s toxic, try to avoid it even in moderation. If my 80/20 diet works, then that will be a point against the message, too.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. Will look into that. Thanks Rob and Mike.
                      I thought erythritol was in monk fruit but no.
                      essentially looking at the ingredients it is 99% erythtritol and maybe 1% monk fruit extract.
                      not so good.
                      BAck to fasting.


          2. I would seriously recommend looking into polyunsaturated fats, especially canola oil and the like. These fats are unstable and oxidize easily. This causes inflammation in the body, which leads to disease. Many popular food are some form of highly processed carb and canola oil.


            1. Agree. I’m trying to quit all bought salad dressings in favor of my homemade olive oil/balsamic vinegar dressing. Unfortunately I’m still eating mayonaise because I can’t afford the olive oil type and I don’t want to make my own.

              I cook exclusively with coconut oil and butter.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I am so in love with mayo. I don’t like the taste of the olive oil ones. Im considering trying to substitute with sour cream and or yoghurt


                  1. You could try wild rice. It’s not really a rice but the grain looks similar. It’s expensive and takes a long time to cook but is very nutritious. I’m going to use more of it, since it is alkaline forming (rice is acid forming) so I can use it as part of the alkaline portion of my current diet. And it tastes great.


                    1. Good grief, Rob. At the price, I would never suggest eating wild rice every day. We might have rice once a week, if that, so I’ve missed being able to do that, hence the wild rice approach.


        3. Lustig seems to know what he’s talking about. Sugar is a toxin.

          When I cut out sugar, it was as part of the Body Ecology Diet, which never combined starches and proteins. It put things right but, boy, it was hard. For both myself and my wife. The main difficulty seemed to be that the candida within our bodies started dying out, leaving all sorts of detritis. We felt worn out and just plain rotten. A friend, who recommended the diet, suggested a strong probiotic tablet – Nature’s Way Fortify Optima (though it had a different name then) – which really helped nullify the bad effects and set us on our way to ridding us of candida and getting on a sound footing. We don’t follow that diet strictly any more but it was one of a number of dietary approaches which all seemed to converge on some key messages: avoid processed foods, avoid added sugar, avoid vegetable oils, eat some fermented foods frequently. To me, even fruit juice and fruit smoothies are sugary drinks (the blending process frees the sugars) and I try to avoid even so-called raw sugars, except as feedstock for my kefir soda (the bacteria and yeast need something to feed on).

          I don’t recall if I felt good so soon after giving up sugar but I definitely had much less get up and go as the candida died off (until I got on the probiotics), so don’t get too deflated if that happens to you, Rob.

          I make my own chocolate – no sugar except glucose or stevia (glucose can be metabolised by every organ in the body and your body even produces it) – so that is my occasional treat. I cheat every now and again, but it’s so rare that there is no risk of falling back into old ways and I definitely find many sweet things just too sweet now.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Thanks for the tips. It seems I’m late to the sugar party. Not the first time.

            Was wondering where to get glucose and then realized after some googling that I already have some in the form of corn syrup which is 100% glucose. I bought it for making butter tarts.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Hello Mike and Rob,

            I also saw some lectures of Dr. Lustig, they are really informative – I guess he was also a primary source for Dr. Jamnadas. Another known expert on the fasting topic is Jason Fung, who is also worth a watch.

            In one of Dr. Lustig’s videos he broke down the metabolism of glucose and fructose.
            As Mike said, glucose can be utilized by every organ, but fructose is basically a toxin, which is converted into liver-fat. Too much of it on a regular basis results in non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL). In normal fruits, there’s lots of fibre which slows down the absorbtion of fructose into the blood. But not so with juice and other sweet beverages, which can release its sugar into the blood immediately.

            Since this fructose to fat conversion is very similar to the metabolism of ethanol, one conclusion of Dr. Lustig was, that drinking a glass of juice is as toxic for the liver as drinking a glass of beer. Now think of all the people drinking juice and sugary drinks all the time…


            1. Thanks!

              Dr. Lustig has 2 key messages:
              1) Protect the liver (avoid sugar and other toxins in processed foods)
              2) Feed the gut (fiber & ??? in chapter I have not read yet)

              Lustig says this message is a more useful and scientifically accurate refinement of his friend Michael Pollan’s message “Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants”.

              Liked by 1 person

  44. Tim Morgan gets his doomer card back:

    “it’s worth asking ourselves what is the worst thing that can happen, in economic terms, in this kind of nightmare scenario. The answer would seem to be the destruction of the purchasing power of money. We may, then, find ourselves needing to find a new medium of exchange. That could be one of the most difficult tasks that we have ever been compelled to undertake – and we’re likely to find ourselves tackling it under very chaotic conditions.”


    1. Thanks! I saw that this morning.

      I’ve been following Morgan since he got started with his Tullett Prebon reports in 2010. Gotta say I’m getting a little fatigued of his message which is restated over and over and over without ever drawing the obvious conclusion that we have to get the population down if we want to reduce suffering.

      In fairness, I imagine readers of un-Denial are getting fatigued of my “genetic denial explains everything” message.


      1. Not fatigued at all. So much denial going on it’s hard to cope with all the denialists out there. Morgan does get repetitive. I’ve taken to scanning his posts.
        Keep up the good fight Rob, it is appreciated.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. What, getting tired of denial? That can’t be so! Unless getting immune to denial talk is actually an end-stage symptom of terminal denial?

        I’ve been enjoying the back and forth discussions about sugar and fasting and generally very encouraged that others here in this space are on their own health journeys and figuring out things that work best for them. The proof is in the the pudding (sugar-free!) as health and disease speak for themselves. However, in the path to get to our healthiest state, it is interesting to note that there are so many diametrically opposed views on what the ideal diet is for us. Perhaps what we can agree on best is cutting down/out all processed foods–that takes care of sugar and oil, too, and way increasing fibre which is found in plant based foods only.

        I know there is bias in all things (that is a common denial symptoms at all stages) but if we are still thinking that peer-reviewed “science” can still be taken with even a half grain of salt nowadays, then I wonder what your view would be on NutritionFacts, the life work of a Dr Greger, whom I know has already brought up mixed review here due to his association with Seventh Day Adventists who are proponents of a plant-based diet. He purports to sift through all the scientific nutritional articles (well, he and his team at his organization) to come up with data that supports his plant-based view, his favourite catch phrase being “you don’t know until you put it to the test”. He has thousands of nutritional videos on his free site, all supposed to be supported by studies, what else can one go by in this and any other field?

        His latest video (and/or transcript if you can’t stand his somewhat over the top presentation voice, but then you miss the screen shots of all the journals he’s taking the data from) suggests a link between endotoxins from bacteria found mostly in foods containing saturated fats and the development of Alzheimers dementia. According to one of his curated studies, even a single meal of high fat can affect cognitive function.

        I am not putting this out here to suggest that saturated fat is the culprit of anything, only as an example that our understandings can be heavily based on what others have chosen to bring to our forefront attention.

        At the end of the day, we must all do our own research and decide for ourselves what makes the most logical sense for our bodies and situations, including our own tolerances for risks and benefits and the energy it would require for us to make certain decisions and follow-through. The main end goal is good health and we each have our own definitions of that as well, and even for different stages of our lives. What we would consider good and functional health at one life stage may not be tolerable for another time in life, or for another person. Because it is so subjective and indeed, maintaining our physical and mental well-being throughout life is the main game in town for all 8 billion of us, there will never be a one-size fits all solution. It’s all part of the wonder and joy of being alive to have the privilege of figuring out for ourselves what keeps one most alive and well.

        We are in the luckiest echelon of people on the planet at this time in history to even be able to decide which among the myriad thousands of things we can eat, is the best for us to eat. Most in history were stopped at just being able to find something to eat, whether it was salubrious or not.

        But, back to the important subject at hand, I make a very enjoyable (at least for me and my family) mayonnaise using silken tofu, sunflower seeds, nutritional yeast (or miso), apple cider vinegar, white pepper, paprika (try smoked paprika), and salt or tamari to taste. Blend all together till smooth. The amounts are up to you, but usually for one small rectangle of silken tofu, I use about 1/4 cup plus a bit sunflower seed. If you want it extra creamy (and if budget allows), use cashew nuts instead, but soak them for a couple hours to get them to blend easier. Vinegar and the rest to taste. You can stir in chopped cornichons at the end if you want an extra zing.

        Namaste, everyone. Welcome to a new month, the Ides of March approach!


        1. You made a similar point that Dr. Lustig makes in his book. He commented on the raging debate between vegan and keto advocates and said it’s pro