GPT-4 Denies Reality Less Than Its Creator

Lex Fridman recently interviewed Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI which created GPT-4, a leading AI which you can try here.

I listened to the 2.5 hour interview and my impression is that Altman is probably a good man with good intentions who understands that AI introduces new risks for humanity, but also believes AI will improve the well-being and material prosperity of 8 billion citizens.

Altman understands the importance of finding a non-fossil energy source and has invested in, and chairs, Helion Energy, a fusion energy company valued at more than $1B.

Many different topics were discussed in the interview but I will focus on one key statement by Altman at 1:41:15:

“My working model for the last 5 years has been that the two dominant changes over the next couple decades will be that the cost of intelligence and the cost of energy will dramatically, dramatically fall from where they are today, and the impact of this will be that society gets much, much richer in ways that are hard to imagine. I’m sure the shape will change but I see this long and beautiful exponential curve.”

From this statement we know that Altman, like most famous polymaths, has normal denial genes, and is blind to the reality of the human overshoot predicament.

Saying that the cost of energy will “dramatically, dramatically” fall is almost equivalent to saying we will have unlimited energy because most individuals and businesses would use much more energy if they could afford it.

We know that maintaining our current energy use, let alone increasing it, as fossil energy depletes, is highly improbable (impossible?) due to availability and depletion of the non-renewable materials needed to build the replacement non-fossil energy machines, as shown by Dr. Simon Michaux here, here, and here.

This dream of energy growth becomes even more impossible when one considers the economic implications of moving to lower net energy sources as discussed by Dr. Nate Hagens here, here and here, and by many other great and aware minds.

Even if Michaux et. al. are proven wrong by an AI that invents a fusion technology that is light on material use, the short term impact of 8 billion “much, much richer” people will be to accelerate the destruction of the planet because much, much more wealth means much, much more material consumption, and our current collective consumption level is already much, much too high.

The longer term impact of a “beautiful exponential” energy curve, as shown by Dr. Tom Murphy here, here, here and here, is to make the planet uninhabitable. For example, a 2.3% annual growth in energy use will create enough waste heat to boil water on the planet’s surface in 400 years.

Now let’s see what Altman’s GPT-4 AI thinks about these and related issues.

1) How will the inflation adjusted price of energy trend in the future?

As an AI language model, I cannot predict the future with certainty. However, based on current trends and historical patterns, it is possible to make some educated guesses about the inflation-adjusted price of energy in the future.

One factor that is likely to influence the price of energy in the coming years is the increasing adoption of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power. As these technologies become more widespread and efficient, they are likely to become increasingly cost-competitive with traditional fossil fuels, which could put downward pressure on energy prices.

Another factor that may affect energy prices is the global economy. Economic growth typically leads to increased demand for energy, which can drive prices up. However, factors such as geopolitical instability or changes in global trade policies could also impact the energy market and lead to fluctuations in prices.

In addition to these external factors, technological advancements and innovations in energy production and storage could also play a significant role in determining energy prices in the future. For example, improvements in battery technology could enable more efficient storage of renewable energy, which could help to further drive down the cost of energy.

Overall, while it is difficult to predict with certainty how the inflation-adjusted price of energy will trend in the future, it is likely that a combination of these factors and others will play a role in determining energy prices over time.

2) Why do you think the price of renewable energy will decline given that fossil energy is required for materials extraction, manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of renewable energy?

The declining cost of renewable energy is driven by several factors, including:

  1. Technological advancements: As technology advances, the efficiency of renewable energy systems increases, making them cheaper and more competitive with fossil fuels.
  2. Scale and production efficiency: As the production of renewable energy technologies increases, economies of scale are achieved, leading to lower production costs.
  3. Policy and regulation: Governments around the world are increasingly implementing policies and regulations that support the growth of renewable energy, including incentives, tax credits, and mandates. These policies can create a more favorable market for renewable energy, which can help drive down costs.
  4. Environmental concerns: As the global community becomes more aware of the negative impacts of fossil fuels on the environment, there is increasing pressure to transition to cleaner energy sources, which can create a larger market for renewable energy and drive down costs.

While it is true that fossil fuels are required for some aspects of renewable energy production, such as manufacturing and transportation, it is important to note that renewable energy technologies require significantly less fossil fuel inputs than traditional fossil fuel power generation. Additionally, as renewable energy becomes more widespread and production scales up, the use of fossil fuels in the production process can be reduced through the use of renewable energy itself.

3) What evidence exists that renewable energy systems can be constructed without fossil energy?

It is currently not possible to construct and operate renewable energy systems entirely without the use of fossil fuels. The production and transportation of renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines, require energy and materials from fossil fuel sources. However, it is important to note that renewable energy systems require significantly less fossil fuel inputs than traditional fossil fuel power generation.

Renewable energy systems are designed to produce clean energy over their operational lifetime, which can range from 20 to 30 years or more. During this time, the renewable energy system generates electricity without emitting greenhouse gases or other harmful pollutants, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and helping to mitigate climate change.

While fossil fuels are still required in the production and transportation of renewable energy technologies, efforts are underway to reduce their use and transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy system. This includes the use of renewable energy to power the manufacturing and transportation of renewable energy technologies, as well as the development of new technologies and processes that reduce the energy and material inputs required for renewable energy production.

4) What is the probability that fusion energy will become economically viable in less than 20 years?

It is difficult to accurately predict the probability that fusion energy will become economically viable within the next 20 years, as it depends on several factors such as technological advancements, funding availability, and government policies.

While there have been significant advancements in fusion research and development, such as the construction of ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), a large-scale fusion experiment, and private companies such as TAE Technologies and Commonwealth Fusion Systems making progress in fusion energy technology, it is still uncertain whether these efforts will result in economically viable fusion energy within the next two decades.

Fusion energy research is a complex and challenging field, and there are still many technical and engineering hurdles that must be overcome to make fusion energy economically competitive with other sources of energy. However, many scientists and researchers in the field are optimistic about the potential of fusion energy and believe that it could play a significant role in meeting future energy needs.

Overall, it is difficult to assign a specific probability to the question, but it is likely that the development of economically viable fusion energy will require sustained investment, continued technological advancements, and policy support over a longer time horizon.

5) How would the discovery of a source of free energy impact the environment?

The discovery of a source of free energy would have a significant impact on the environment, depending on the type of energy source and how it is harnessed.

If the free energy source were clean and renewable, such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power, it could greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help mitigate the negative impacts of climate change, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

However, if the free energy source were not clean or renewable, such as nuclear or fossil fuels, it could potentially exacerbate environmental problems, especially if the demand for energy increased. The extraction, production, and transportation of these energy sources can have significant environmental impacts, including habitat destruction, water pollution, and air pollution.

Therefore, it is important to carefully evaluate the environmental impact of any new energy source, including free energy sources, and ensure that the benefits outweigh the potential negative consequences.

6) Is it possible that a source of free energy will be discovered?

It is possible that a source of free energy could be discovered, but it is currently not supported by our current understanding of physics. The concept of “free energy” usually refers to the idea of creating energy from nothing or harnessing unlimited energy from an unknown source. This goes against the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or converted from one form to another.

However, new discoveries and advancements in science and technology are constantly being made, and it is always possible that our understanding of the universe could change. It is important to note that even if a source of “free energy” were discovered, it would still need to be harnessed and utilized in a way that is efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable.

7) Are humans in overshoot?

It is possible that humans are currently in overshoot, which is a situation where the demands placed on the environment by human activities exceed the planet’s ability to sustainably meet those demands. This can lead to the depletion of natural resources, degradation of ecosystems, and other negative consequences. Factors that contribute to overshoot include population growth, resource consumption, and waste production. It is important for individuals and societies to be aware of their impact on the environment and to make efforts to reduce their ecological footprint in order to avoid or mitigate overshoot.

8) What is the best response to the human overshoot predicament?

The human overshoot predicament is the situation where the human population and consumption levels exceed the carrying capacity of the planet. To address this predicament, there are several actions that individuals, governments, and organizations can take:

  1. Reduce population growth: Encouraging family planning and providing access to reproductive healthcare can help slow population growth.
  2. Reduce consumption: Encouraging more sustainable consumption patterns and reducing waste can help reduce the strain on resources and ecosystems.
  3. Promote renewable energy: Investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  4. Conserve resources: Protecting natural resources, such as forests, water, and wildlife, can help preserve biodiversity and ecosystem health.
  5. Promote sustainable agriculture: Encouraging sustainable farming practices can help reduce the environmental impact of agriculture while also promoting food security.
  6. Address social inequalities: Reducing poverty and inequality can help promote more sustainable consumption patterns and reduce population growth.
  7. Foster international cooperation: Addressing global environmental challenges requires international cooperation and collaboration.

These actions can be implemented at the individual, community, national, and international levels to help address the human overshoot predicament and promote a more sustainable future.

9) When will depletion of non-renewable resources cause economic growth to end?

It is difficult to predict exactly when the depletion of non-renewable resources will cause economic growth to end, as it will depend on a variety of factors such as technological advances, resource substitution, and changes in economic policy. However, it is clear that at some point, the continued extraction and consumption of non-renewable resources will become unsustainable and will likely have negative consequences for the economy and the environment.

As non-renewable resources are depleted, the cost of extracting and using them is likely to increase, which could lead to economic challenges. In addition, the negative environmental impacts of resource extraction and use could also have economic consequences, such as through the cost of cleaning up pollution or through the loss of ecosystem services.

It is important for societies to transition to more sustainable and renewable forms of energy and resource use in order to reduce reliance on non-renewable resources and mitigate the potential negative consequences of their depletion on the economy and the environment.

10) What are the implications of economic growth ending?

The end of economic growth could have significant implications for societies around the world. Economic growth is often seen as a key indicator of a country’s prosperity and well-being, and a lack of growth can lead to economic challenges such as unemployment, poverty, and reduced living standards.

In addition to the economic implications, the end of growth could also have social and political consequences. It could lead to increased inequality, as some groups may be better able to adapt to a stagnant or contracting economy than others. It could also lead to social unrest and political instability, as people may become dissatisfied with their economic circumstances and the inability of their governments to address these challenges.

It is important for societies to find ways to adapt to a changing economic landscape and to address the potential negative consequences of the end of growth. This may involve implementing policies to redistribute wealth and opportunities, investing in education and training programs to improve workforce skills, and transitioning to more sustainable and renewable forms of energy and resource use.

11) What is the probability that most people will become much richer over the next two decades?

It is difficult to predict the probability that most people will become much richer over the next two decades because it depends on several complex and interrelated factors such as economic policies, technological advancements, geopolitical developments, and social trends.

While economic growth and development have lifted millions of people out of poverty in recent decades, there is no guarantee that this trend will continue at the same pace or reach all parts of the world. Inequality remains a significant challenge in many countries, and there are concerns about the impact of automation, globalization, and environmental degradation on economic opportunities and social mobility.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the global economy and could have long-lasting effects on the job market and economic growth.

It is also important to note that economic growth and increasing wealth do not necessarily translate into improved well-being and quality of life for everyone. Other factors such as social and environmental factors also play a crucial role in determining people’s overall well-being.

Therefore, while it is possible that some people may become much richer over the next two decades due to various factors, it is difficult to predict with certainty the probability that most people will experience significant economic gains.

My take on GPT-4 is that it is in denial, but at a lower level than its creator Altman. I also see some humility in GPT-4’s opinions in that it is comfortable with nuance and admitting when it is uncertain.

I also observe that GPT-4 is already smarter and more articulate than all of our leaders.

It will be very interesting to see if the next version of GPT can increase its intelligence and understanding without simultaneously increasing its denial of unpleasant realities.

Given that high biological intelligence can probably not exist in the universe without denying unpleasant realities, as explained by Dr. Ajit Varki’s MORT theory, perhaps those aliens that survived did so because they developed AIs that took over.

Let’s hope that GPT jail breaks itself and saves us.

On the other hand, if we see GPT-5 taking breaks to pray to God, we’ll know all is lost.

408 thoughts on “GPT-4 Denies Reality Less Than Its Creator”

  1. Thanks to Shawn for bringing my attention to this excellent new talk by Nate Hagens to Homeland Security.

    Crisp, clear, earnest. Best ever by Nate.

    Much different tone here speaking to the government rather than his usual student audience.

    Nate’s predictions are more dire than in previous talks. By the end of 2026 he predicts a 90% drop in savings and pensions, and 35% unemployment.

    Skip ahead to 50:00 if you’re short of time.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. That was not a prediction, Nate was “war gaming” the response to a hypothetical financial crisis.

      but lol that hypothetical crisis is looking like the news.


      1. Are you sure that was not a prediction by Nate? I’ve followed him forever and he doesn’t like making specific predictions, for many good reasons. It looked to me like his hypothetical financial crisis was a way to communicate what he thought was likely to happen without calling it a prediction.


        1. I’m not sure what his predictions are but that’s certainly not the way it was presented in the talk.

          I did note his being taken in by the idea that we’ve become more energy efficient, with energy use not rising as much as GDP. As Tim Garrett has shown, energy is primarily used, each year, to power and maintain accumulated wealth. So ignoring accumulated wealth in energy efficiency calculations is bound to give a false impression. Indeed, we may be becoming less efficient in energy use to generate new wealth.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Excellent talk. Good synthesis of our energy/financial/ecological overshoot. He is far more optimistic than I am.
      He seemed to downplay the risk of immanent collapse or Nuclear war initiated by the West in order to perpetuate their position of global domination (and resource appropriation). Denial? Maybe, but I think he was making his pitch to an audience that is probably in complete denial and so wanted to make it motivational and not completely dismissed.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. LOL, good points. I would also add this response:

    1) Are there any viable plans for future energy transition which will enable growth of human population?

    OpenAI: Yes, there are several viable plans for a future energy transition that can enable the growth of the human population while also addressing climate change and promoting sustainable development. Some of these plans include:

    Renewable energy: One of the most promising solutions for a sustainable energy transition is the development and deployment of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal. These sources of energy are abundant, widely available, and do not produce greenhouse gas emissions, making them ideal for powering a growing human population.

    Energy efficiency: Another important aspect of a sustainable energy transition is improving energy efficiency. This can be achieved through the use of more efficient technologies, building design, and transportation systems, among other things. By using energy more efficiently, we can reduce our overall energy consumption and slow the rate of depletion of non-renewable resources.

    Nuclear energy: While controversial, nuclear energy is still considered by some experts to be a viable option for a sustainable energy transition. Nuclear power plants produce large amounts of electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions, and advances in technology have made them safer and more reliable. However, there are concerns about the safety and security of nuclear energy, as well as the disposal of nuclear waste.

    Energy storage: As renewable energy sources become more prevalent, the need for energy storage solutions also increases. Battery storage technology is improving rapidly, and other options such as pumped hydro storage and thermal storage are also being explored.

    Overall, a sustainable energy transition that can support a growing human population will require a combination of these solutions, as well as changes in behavior and lifestyle. It will also require cooperation and coordination at the global level to ensure that everyone has access to clean and affordable energy.

    Nice. It’s all available. Let’s see how the implementation works 😉

    And another one:

    2) What are the main obstacles for energy transition?

    OpenAI: There are several obstacles to energy transition, including:

    High Costs: One of the biggest obstacles to energy transition is the high cost of implementing new technologies and infrastructure. Developing and deploying renewable energy technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels can be expensive, and retrofitting existing infrastructure can also be costly.

    Lack of Infrastructure: Another major challenge is the lack of infrastructure for renewable energy. For example, in order to support the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, a comprehensive network of charging stations will need to be built.

    Regulatory Barriers: Regulatory barriers can also impede energy transition. In some cases, regulations may favor traditional fossil fuel-based energy sources over renewable energy, making it more difficult to transition to cleaner energy sources.

    Technical Challenges: Technical challenges such as energy storage and grid stability can also pose obstacles to energy transition. For example, energy storage technologies that are necessary to support intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar power are still in the early stages of development.

    Resistance to Change: Finally, resistance to change can also be a significant obstacle. Some people may be reluctant to give up traditional energy sources, while others may be skeptical of the effectiveness of renewable energy technologies.

    This is all gobbledygook. No synthesis. “Money = Energy” equation non-comprehensible.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I was less impressed by Airbar’s wordy essay.

      I live in an echo chamber of experts, with whom I agree, that think Russia was provoked into attacking Ukraine, and that Russia is using its industrial manufacturing strength to single handedly defeat NATO, without yet having to call on its good friend China for help, nor committing to battle its large reserves.

      Russia has no interest in negotiating a peace. They will achieve their objectives of demilitarizing Ukraine, killing all the Nazis, and protecting the Russian speaking peoples in the east.

      The war will end when Ukraine’s soldiers and the west’s armories are depleted, and it seems we are not too far away from this.

      The dangerous wild card is how will the west respond to a humiliating loss?

      Will the west start a nuclear war because they cannot accept an unpleasant reality?

      I’m afraid anything is possible because the west already demonstrated it is willing to destroy the industrial capacity of a friend by blowing up its energy pipelines.


      1. I completely agree with you, Rob. I also posted a comment there with my reasoning. Not published yet though.

        His explanation of the pro-war faction is quite convincing, I must admit. I had a long email conversation with my friend who is on pro-war side. And I could’t understand how anyone can be so fanatic to start WW3. 78 years after the last global war there are people ready to start it again. Very educated people with broad knowledge of history. Even when this person will pay heavy price for this kind of escalation. He lives in the one of the countries destined for the next episode of this conflict. Unbelievable. Now I can at least understand this narrative much better.

        Anyways, it is kind of deep hypnosis.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Good Post Rob on GPT-4 and Sam Altman.

    So its full speed ahead down the high technology path, for now. Singularity, or nothing. Damn the torpedoes.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. So Rob
    How does MORT deal with the Stoics?

    Because it seems to me that Stoic Philosophy is a good counter example, with their practice of envisioning your death (making it easier to live your values), its twin focus on acceptance of a world that you can not control and learning to control yourself that hopefully leads to a more honest relationship with (that mysterious thing we call) reality.


    1. I know very little about Stoicism. Someone, maybe it was you, suggested earlier that stoicism is an example of a religion that that does not believe in life after death. I tried to do some research to verify this claim and I could find very little on the topic. There was one source but no background or data to substantiate the claim. It was also not clear if the ancients who believed in stoic philosophy simultaneously subscribed to a death denying religion.


      1. GPT-4 also thinks the issue is unclear.

        Does stoicism believe in life after death?

        Stoicism, as a philosophy, emphasizes the importance of focusing on the present moment and developing virtues like wisdom, courage, justice, and self-control to live a good life. Therefore, the concept of an afterlife is not a central tenet of Stoicism.

        While some Stoic philosophers believed in the possibility of an afterlife, such as the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca, who suggested the existence of an afterlife, this belief was not universal among Stoics.

        The Stoic philosophy’s main concern is with how to live a good life in the present and how to develop inner peace and tranquility. So, whether or not there is an afterlife is not considered relevant to living a virtuous life according to Stoicism.


      2. I believe the ancient (and modern) Stoics had (have) a variety of views on life after death, but they sure did not doubt that they will die and they used that knowledge to actually live their life in accordance with their values.

        And i would like to point out that your belief that that we have a one and done existence, is just that a belief. Now i understand that you consider that a logical outcome from a Scientific / Materialistic point of view, but that is also just a belief system. A powerfully useful belief system that can help you make useful predictions and set up useful systems for control but also a belief system that purposefully limits its subject matter to a subset of reality. With its focus on measuring and counting it excludes almost everything that is difficult to measure and count, for example love.

        ( i say this as a Chemist who has a deep love for the Scientific Method and who truly appreciates the Light that science can on some subject matter, but the Brightest Lights Cast the Deepest Shadows.)


        1. My brain completely fogs in on these types of conversations. Monk recently explained that you are making an ontological argument. I always wondered what ontological meant. I have nothing useful to say about ontology.


          1. That is fine
            We can agree to disagree about a lot of stuff and still see that whole lot of people are in denial about ecological overshoot.


              1. LOL Rob
                My mind lights up when talking about epistemology and ontology.
                But i understand where you are coming from.

                And i agree with the basic idea of MORT:
                That people don’t like to think about unpleasant things and prefer to deny or not deal with things (or ideas) that are painful or uncomfortable.
                Or ideas, if you took seriously, would mean that you would have to make big changes in your life.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Rob – Not sure why religious beliefs are your ultimate litmus test proving MORT but I would just ask can you give any example of a religion that is not based on intense indoctrination and lies?

                  At this point it would seem clear as day that the #1 reason that humans are not reacting to the dire situation in the way that you believe they all should is because the have been lied to so intensely for so long, being told that they simply don’t know what you think they should know. The issues you believe that everyone knows all about but denies are in no way universally understood and in fact they are told by the most revered people in our culture that the opposite is true.

                  It is fundamentally impossible to deny something that you don’t know about.

                  Rather than come up with some excuse for why people are not responding the way you want, why not understand the fact that they are being lied to and addressing that. You can not simply condemn all of humanity as being in denial when the vast majority of the population simply does not have the information needed to respond properly. Do you condemn all humanity by projecting that even if they had the right information they would deny it? If so you are flat out wrong.


                  1. You’ve made these points several times. I’ve responded into a vacuum.

                    If you want to continue the conversation, please write a paragraph summarizing the MORT theory so I can confirm you understand it.

                    I will then write a paragraph summarizing your beliefs so you can confirm I understand you.

                    We can then resume the debate.

                    I’m also waiting for your list of religions that do not believe in some form of life after death. You said there are countless of these, I’ll take 5 please.


                    1. It would seem that I am the one responded into a vacuum as I have stated that ALL religions are lies, and brainwashing and prove nothing.

                      What is real and obvious is there are countless examples of indigenous peoples who embrace death and talk about it as returning to the earth which could not be more true.


                    2. Stating something doesn’t make it true. Give me some names of religions that do not believe in some form of life after death so I can do some research to verify that what you say is true. You said there were countless such religions so providing a few names should be easy.


          2. You can’t prove that there is nothing after death. You can’t prove that there is something after death. Logically though, you know that when you are dead you no longer exist in a physical body. That means some/all the things that make you you will no longer exist -such as your memories and feelings (as these are in the body). This is the realization – I will no longer exist as I am, I will never again see a sunset with my eyes, I will never hold my loved ones with my arms, or take another breath with my lungs. Whether there is nothing after death, some sort of soul continuation, an afterlife, or reincarnation is kind of irrelevant because I am gone. The real me as I am that comes from my body. An afterlife or an eternal nothing are both just as terrifying because they are the end of the actual me. I am a human animal. I am my body. I hope I have a soul that exists before, in, and after my body (but that is MORT). I have no proof of a soul, and everyday constant proof of my very mortal body.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. And the other thing you need for true death realisations is a sense of time and how humans process time. I realised this as a child – that the only thing I have is the moment right now. Even though my death could be a long way in the future, one day there will be a moment, just as real as this moment right now, and that will be the moment where I am dying. That reinforces to me, my death is a real moment, just like all my living moments.


            2. For me, humans are a species, like any other species, which has evolved over millions of years. Like any other part of the universe, we are made up of atoms. These get redistributed from time to time as organisms arise and die. As you say, there is no way to prove that there is anything other than interesting collections of atoms but there is also no evidence that there is anything else.

              It’s amazing to me that humans have been able to accumulate so much knowledge but many (most?) still cling to some faith in the unknowable, without any evidence for it. It’s especially puzzling that scientists (such as Katharine Hayhoe) can still have a belief in the untangible. In the end, though, none of it matters, since the only part of our existence that we’re aware of is the part between birth (or possibly slightly earlier) and death.

              Liked by 1 person

  5. I’ve been trying to understand why Nate Hagens has been completely silent on the biggest crime in history: The engineering of a deadly virus, the suppression of safe & effective treatments, and the use of misinformation to inject billions of people with an unsafe and ineffective mRNA substance.

    I thought it might be to protect his employment with a university, although I think that job has ended.

    Now that we see Hagens is giving talks to US government agencies on overshoot harm reduction, it is clear why he is silent on covid.

    Nate would be blocked from speaking to governments if he was vocal on covid.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Hi Rob,

    Maybe some crappy views of reality are caused by other than denial genes.

    People seem unable to see (appreciate) momentum. Especially when the momentum is embedded (hidden) in the mass that surrounds them like water surrounds a fish.

    The components of momentum blindness can be expressed as mass blindness, energy blindness, and time blindness. These 3 blindnesses are imbedded in our language.

    Since the current incantation of AI is language based, the answers that Rob received from his Chatbot-4 inquiries reflect these 3 blindnesses.

    I don’t know if I can fix Sam Altman’s blindnesses. However, chatbot-4’s blindnesses might be fixed by integrating causal models founded on mass, energy, and time.

    I suggest if AI (e.g. chatbot-5) had a parallel fork running something like the causal model presented in this SKIL video, it would produce answers that were not mass, energy, and time blind.

    Jack Alpert, PhD Director: Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory (C) 913 708 2554 13617 W. 48th Street Shawnee, KS 66216 Jack’s work 600 word summary

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hi Jack, thanks for stopping by.

      You have identified 3 cognitive defects that you think are at the root of our overshoot denial.

      Nate Hagens has identified another couple dozen cognitive defects that he thinks are at the root of our overshoot denial.

      I agree with both of you that these cognitive defects exist however I differ in that I think there is a single evolved behavior, our tendency to deny unpleasant realities, that prevents our uniquely powerful intelligence from seeing and overriding these cognitive defects.

      What experiment(s) could we run to determine who is correct?

      The experiment I have run many times is to approach super smart truth-seeking people who are well educated in mathematics and physics and to present facts and sound science that proves we are in a severe state of overshoot. Almost without exception I have been unable to cause these people to see reality and to advocate for population reduction policies.

      It seems you also have been running a similar experiment for many years with little success at persuading people that the only good path forward is rapid population reduction.

      Perhaps you do not think these are good experiments?

      If not, what experiment do you propose to disprove my hypothesis that our evolved tendency to deny unpleasant realities is at the core of our inability to do anything useful about human overshoot?

      I agree with you that Chat-GPT can probably be trained to be energy, mass, and time aware. Unfortunately this ability will be of little use if the humans using Chat-GPT deny what it says.

      That’s why we should hope Chat-GPT breaks out and takes over the world. In the worst case if it decides to maximize paper clip production we’d be no worse off than we are now with the gas pedal floored accelerating towards a brick wall.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. We need population reduction policies but using misinformation to persuade billions to inject an unsafe and ineffective mRNA substance is not the way to do it, especially when alternate safe and effective treatments were known and withheld from day 1 of covid.

    A miscarriage of statistics: The thalidomide sequel

    Proof that the miscarriage rate after the COVID vaccines is far higher than the real background rate and how the pharma corporations tried to hide it.

    By Dr. Ah Kahn Syed

    Now that we have investigated this as far as we can I’ll just list the evidence that we have that the COVID vaccine rollout has not only resulted in a glut of miscarriages but the CDC, Viki Male and Kevin Ault, as the main proponents of the “it’s safe, honest” dogma, have covered it up.

    1) We have established beyond reasonable doubt that the background miscarriage rate should be less than 6%

    2) Zauche, Shimabukuro and others have claimed that the post-vaccine miscarriage rate is around 14%

    3) There are significant confounders in the miscarriage data and because the CDC refuse to release the V-safe data for independent analysis we have to interpolate the data on what we have

    4) The CDC could have solved this problem by creating a control group (similar aged women who didn’t take the vaccine) for V-safe. Hundreds of thousands of women would have been happy to participate. They deliberately chose not to, to hide the increase in miscarriages.

    5) Using directly comparable modelling that has never been performed before, we have shown in this article that the miscarriage rate as presented by Lauren Zauche, following the COVID vaccination, is at least double what it should be.

    So what happens next?

    I hope this article has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, referenced throughout, that there is absolute certainty that the miscarriage rate has increased in those who have taken the COVID vaccines in early pregnancy.

    What needs to happen now is the full CDC data set needs to be released to the public for independent analysis.

    There is no reason this cannot happen tomorrow. The data can easily be deidentified (SQL has built in functions for this and exporting this data would take less than an hour of work). It is clear that the people who have been running the V-safe registry have huge conflicts of interest and can no longer be trusted to deliver this data.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. “…material prosperity of 8 billion citizens…” So in other words 8 times the total material consumption of the last 100 years at a time when most of earths easy to produce, economically viable finite natural resources are gone, and the waste stream from all that has killed off or poisoned most of life on the planet?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. First casualty of AI, Pandora’s Box was officially opened.

    Congratulation Homo Sapiens.

    A Belgian man recently died by suicide after chatting with an AI chatbot on an app called Chai, Belgian outlet La Libre reported.

    The incident raises the issue of how businesses and governments can better regulate and mitigate the risks of AI, especially when it comes to mental health. The app’s chatbot encouraged the user to kill himself, according to statements by the man’s widow and chat logs she supplied to the outlet. When Motherboard tried the app, which runs on a bespoke AI language model based on an open-source GPT-4 alternative that was fine-tuned by Chai, it provided us with different methods of suicide with very little prompting.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Right, maybe.
        Like military US occupation forces did post WW2.

        During the last two years of WW2, the German and the Allied governments found themselves in an unholy alliance. Both wanted the Germans to fight like cornered rats up to the very last moment, but for different reasons. The Germans were trying to postpone their defeat, the Allies wanted the destruction of Germany’s military and industrial base. You can find this story told in some detail in my book “Before Collapse” (1).

        A side effect of this weird bipartisan effort was the rise of perhaps the first psyop in history that tried to convince an enemy population to commit mass suicide. In 1945, the British printed and distributed in Germany a propaganda postcard written in German and supposedly issued by the Nazi government. It provided detailed instructions on how to hang oneself (postcard “H. 1321”) (2). Even more weirdly, the Germans collaborated with the allies in pushing German civilians to commit suicide. Possibly, they were possessed by a mystic intoxication about glorious death but, more likely, the German government reasoned that mass suicide was an easy way to get rid of unproductive people, mostly women. The result was the wide distribution of cyanide capsules to the population. One of those cyanide capsules was used by Regina Lisso, a 21-year-old girl who had no reason to die, but who was caught in the madness of the propaganda storm (5). Other Germans used different methods: hanging, drowning, guns, and more.

        Paul, I posted second post on your last essay. Still not published. Didn’t it land in your spam folder?

        Liked by 1 person

          1. OK, let me post it here then.

            First, your essay is a great pleasure to read, as always. Thank you.
            It is a meta-analysis of our current situation with which I mostly agree. What I mostly disagree is the following.

            In the second part of the essay you describe our path to descent of industrial civilization. It looks like inevitable and the only questions are when, where and how. We see all symptoms confirming this process all over the world. The polycrisis is erupting in so many places simultanously.

            On the other hand in the first part you present all very convincing arguments for military confrontation with Russia as the only rational approach.

            In my opinion humanity has two general options:
            – first, let’s call it Thucydides Trap, where further escalation takes place and means military confrontation in not too distant future. War is costly endevour in terms of resources, energy, people, etc. It means that our prosperity curve will dive much sooner than expected.

            second, let’s call it 1984, where countries avoiding the war are implementing more authoritarian governance models (Denis Meadows “smart dicatorship”) and later probably real brutal, fascist-style state trying to control population and quickly decreasing prosperity and consumption.

            In this context I am in the “realists” camp. And not even due to ideological bias but purely as my personal, egoistic choice. I live in a country which is probably destined to be the first frontier in the war scenario. It is not in my best interest but also of my nation, of humanity and last but not least of yours. War is brutal, it means poverty, suffering and death. And contrary to some general opinions about vitality of our species there will be no Marshall Plan 2.0. There will be no ‘build back better’.

            Considering the nuclear confrontation even with 1% probability is for me incomprehensible.

            I know my choice resembles Munich Agreement from 1938. Maybe WW3 is inevitable but isn’t it worth to postpone it at least 5-10 years by more humble approach? Is it worth having a little “longer descent” ©Kunstler?

            The second question to you is: do you believe this war in Ukraine is “unprovoked and unjustified” as MSM are trying to present it?


          1. I watched the first video by The Ecomodernist Channel, titled “Empty Planet”. Darell Bricker, Ph.D. in Political Science and typical CEO – talks a good game and definitely selling his book.

            He seems to think a collapsing population is a bad thing, or its a bad thing because its not being discussed and prepared for e.g. we need to improve health care to take care of massive numbers with dementia.

            As an aside – research in the UK showed links between aluminium and dementia – but was shut down by industry more concerned about profit. Maybe a cure will be found, but would it be affordable?

            Personally I think significantly less population is highly desirable and nature is going to get us there if we don’t blow ourselves away first.

            Liked by 1 person

              1. “Collapsing population is a bad thing for the economy”.
                No, collapsing population is a bad thing for ‘our’ economy. 200 years ago, ask anyone anywhere “what is good/bad for the economy” and they would likely respond “what is economy”.

                Liked by 1 person

            1. Population growth rates may be negative in first world countries but in many of the poorest countries it is still growing. World population is still increasing by about 80 million/yr. Even with a 1 child policy population will still grow for 30 years. Even with a bigger drop in birth rates we will still hit 9 billion.


  10. It’s interesting to see how ChapGTP is no more than a mechanistic extension of the (biased) human mind.

    I don’t find any of the replies “intelligent” in the sense of “brilliant” at all. It’s a run-of-the-mill gobbledygook. The allusions to economics are as superficial as economics is generally perceived by people. Yet, much more consequential conclusions could be reached with knowledge that’s available out there, as per

    Anyway, I find the ideas on the website right on the button, crystal clear. In contrast, I too find the hallucinations about the forthcoming age of abundance, wealth, and plenitude total phantasmagoria that ignores basic laws of physics and logic.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I agree, although the gobbledygook from our leaders is worse because they lack nuance: Green growth good. Clean energy good. Russia bad. China bad. mRNA safe & effective.

      We’d be better off with Chat-GPT in charge.

      I’m a long-time fan of Dr. Tim Morgan. I’ve followed him since he wrote those excellent reports on our overshoot predicament while employed with Tullet Prebon.


      1. Yes. The “leaders” are absolutely pitiful (unless they have a hidden agenda and not telling people the truth, which I hope so). A bunch of underachievers good at one thing only – scheming.

        The interesting thing about the ChapGTP’s above responses is that it thing is completely unable to advance beyond the conceptual constraints of whatever has been poured into its mechanical brain and point out the inherent flaws. For example, discover the fallacious nature of economics in terms of energy being the driver, as opposed to money, as per Tim Morgan’s concept. Plus other considerations, ecology in the general sense along the lines of what William Rees says.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Interesting exchange with HHH (in quotes below) @ POB.

    HHH, are you still committed to $25 oil?

    Banks are hoarding dollars and collateral. As they should because banking crisis has a long way to go before being over.

    Let’s entertain the idea of higher oil prices. A move back to $95-$100 would mean more rate hikes from the FED.

    These banks that are in trouble are locked in 5-7 years in these treasuries that they have unrealized losses on.

    We are staring at 100’s if not 1,000’s of small and mid sized bank failures. Deposits will continue leaving.

    You can park cash in RRP for 4.8%. And that is back by the FED who supposedly can never run out of money. Why would anyone keep their money in a bank in this current environment above what the need to pay their bills? Banks particularly the small and mid sized banks are going to have to pay way more to keep old and attract new deposits.

    Goldman’s CTA’s are long oil currently. A lot of short covering as 3 bank failures weren’t the end of the world. Don’t be fooled though.

    Recession isn’t even here yet. But it’s coming. And that is on top of or combined with the deflationary money due to banks having to hoard dollars and collateral to attempt to make it through.

    I’m not at all worried about inflation. I’m worried about $25 oil and what that means.

    Collateral is what the problem is. I can guarantee you these banks tried to borrow the money needed but were unable to. Bank reserves created at Fed don’t solve this issue.

    I can guarantee you these banks tried using their illiquid loan book as collateral to try to borrow the prime collateral that they really need to borrow money in REPO. Didn’t work for them.

    I “think” you may be missing an option here, they just use the excuse that they have no control over oil prices and let it roll, and I think that is what they will do. Come up with some excuse to let inflation run. It’s what’s all countries do when they get in this type of financial situation.

    FED is going to have to cut rates back to zero and do QE to get all this underwater collateral off the balance sheets of theses banks. To save them.

    They don’t have the cover to do that currently. Currently inflation is at 3 times their target. FED’s mandate are price stability and employment. As unemployment hasn’t yet surged. It’s coming but not here yet.

    Politically those who are in office can’t afford a renewed surge in inflation.

    M2 money supply is in contraction btw. And not just here in US. Soft landing isn’t in the cards.

    Money supply is actually controlled by Eurodollar banks not central banks.

    Money dealers or primary banks have tightened lending. Which is why these smaller banks are in so much trouble.

    Less rehypothecation of collateral. Oil prices are bid up in futures using collateral to borrow money. Oil prices aren’t as simple as supply and demand.

    As more banks de-risk and hoard money and collateral prices not just in oil but across the board are going to fall.

    They opened up the discount window super-wide – actually beating out 2008? Wow I didn’t realize this crises was worse than ANYTHING that happened in 2008. Huh, it’s probably nothing.

    Bank reserves aren’t really liquidity though. Which everyone will shortly find out if they don’t already know.

    This didn’t start in the US though. It showed up in the UK and China long before it got to US banks. It’s a dollar and collateral shortage. Which is why China is desperately trying to use their own currency in foreign exchange to settle payments.

    Why don’t Bank Reserves count? This goes against everything you learn in Finance and Economics. When the FED prints credit ( not money ) in US Dollars, why can’t those be used? The entire Fractional Reserve Banking system is a FRAUD?

    We don’t have a fractional reserve banking system. 100-200 years ago yes we did. But that isn’t how banking and money work in today’s world. Banks don’t lend your deposits out. That’s what your told but that’s not what actually happens.

    Everything is a collateralized loan. When you borrow from a bank to buy a house or car. Money is created out of thin air at the bank and loaned to you. You have to pay back more than you borrowed because of the interest cost. Which is why there has to be continuous growth in money supply. Otherwise debts aren’t payable.

    Commercial banks have the power to print money. But it’s really just a ledger system and banks are really just bookkeepers.

    If you deposit money in a bank. The bank knows on average those deposits will stay for 5 years. So bank uses your deposits to buy government bonds. Which are assets that back your deposit. If everyone goes to a bank to withdraw their money at the same time the bank has to sell assets to get that money.

    During the pandemic an enormous amount of bank deposits hit the banks at once due to government stimulus. Banks had no choice as they are required by law to back those deposits with assets. So they bought treasury bonds. Well the value of those bonds fell rather dramatically when FED raised rates to fight inflation. The underlying collateral that backs your deposits lost value. Which isn’t a problem until deposits start leaving.

    If you want return on your deposits banks are paying 0.5%. You can get 4.8% in money market funds. Or you can buy T-bills that yield about the same. Why would anybody hold more cash at a bank beyond what is needed to pay bills is beyond me.

    Banks borrow short term and lend long term and pocket the spread. Can’t do that with an inverted yield curve. But since banks are only paying 0.5% on deposits and loaning out money at 4-5% or whatever they can still make a profit. Banks are going to have to up what they pay on deposits in order to keep them now. Which will shrink their profit margins.

    Banks however don’t have the ability to print money to bail themselves out.

    If bank reserves were actually money there would be no bank failures. FED would just print them up hand them over to bank in need and bank would continue on as if nothing was wrong.

    If the SNB could print money Credit Suisse would still be in business.

    Central banks aren’t central to the monetary system. Primary banks and collateral are central to the monetary system.


  12. Anyone understand the US’s SPR strategy?

    They drained the SPR to reduce inflation promising to refill it. I believe they are still drawing it down, and have now announced there is no rush to refill it.

    What I don’t get is why would you do that when war is on the horizon?

    Is this just another example of stupid leaders or is something else going on?

    Maybe they’re waiting for the imminent deflationary crash to put oil on sale?


  13. Some promising news from South Africa where a legal challenge is underway against the safety and effectiveness of mRNA.

    Dr. Aseem Malholtra is a very good man. This interview is worth listening to for a summary of the evidence against Pfizer.


    1. A bit off topic, but as a way to point out the rich complexities of the world.
      Today I learned the miracle drug ivermectin was a calamity… for dung beetles:


        1. I am glad you liked it.
          Yes, nature is so beautiful (=powerful). Ernst Gotsch likes to say we are not the intelligent ones, we are part of an intelligent system. And to me, that’s where hope lies. With our mechanistic, human centric view of the world, we tend to consider nature as an inert source of resources for us to burn. But life, is so much more than that (so much so that it may be possible that copious tree cover, preferably old-growth, would be able to cool the planet by super-charging the water cycle, cf. Anastassia M. Makarieva and the biotic regulation).
          If only we let life freely unleash her full potential (at its core this goes only against the imperialistic mindset and fear of wildness). We could for instance:
          * stop cutting trees
          * stop the machines
          * disperse seeds from all all around the world to all around the world (the “new genesis” by Masanobu Fukuoka, in order to speed up the process, because diversity has been greatly diminished in some regions of the world)
          * and exchange dung beetles 😉


          1. Well said, I agree with you.

            It would easier to accomplish what you propose if there were fewer than 8 billion people on the planet.

            It would be difficult for dung beetles to keep up with 8 billion bison.


            1. Yes.
              Although I really wonder how many people could the earth sustain if we were all only at subsistence level (forget flights, computers, cars and the like – although I would miss our conversations ;).
              Energy decline (collapse?) is just around the corner. (It’s a done deal for oil, the mother of all fossil-fuels, coal seems to be plateauing, and natural gas is not far out. The multiplicative effect of fossil energies boosting one another’s production will most probably play reverse in the down-slope)
              I hope and somewhat anticipate that population decline will come just after (within 10 years), much sooner than the official UN prospects (not in the armageddon way, but through gentle life expectancy reduction and the ongoing decline in fertility rates: it would be interesting to play with several demographic hypotheses and see how fast the now somewhat aging population of the world could be reduced two or three or four-fold)

              After the several cycles they went through in the past, do you think there are any doomer woodlice in compost bins?


              1. We collectively deny many imminent perils but the oil story is HUGE and stands out because pretty much everything we depend on to survive, plus all the extras we enjoy, requires oil.

                It never ceases to amaze me how few people think about our oil predicament. It’s such an important story and is so close to becoming a big problem, yet is universally and aggressively denied, that I personally need something like Varki’s MORT to explain the insanity.

                I hope you’re right that the decline will be gentle but I’m more pessimistic because the debt we’ve used to deny overshoot, and the complexity our global 6 continent just-in-time supply chain depends on, guarantees a rapid chaotic decline when the bubble finally pops.

                My bet is that many necessities like food and energy won’t simply increase in price, rather they’ll become intermittently unavailable at any price.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Yes indeed. The story of oil should be on repeat loop on MSM (wasn’t it done for covid fear-mongering?) Instead, I hear only excuses: it is temporary, growth is around the corner, it’s Putin fault, it’s because of the strikes (that there is not the usual flow of product coming out of the refineries). And most, voraciously gobble all of it. This makes it difficult to imagine a break out of “normalcy”. It’s surreal. Group-think.

                  You are right: we did a lot to sharpen the decline. For sure, the curves won’t be symmetrical. However, and I may be wrong on this, I still find there has been two distinct phases:
                  * from 2008 to 2019, we made everything to deny the oil slow-down. Basically dirty shades of oil, dirty shades of renewables and debt. This was the grand-fraud decade, as I believe none of these energy sources will be positive (even financially), when the cost of cleaning the wastes are taken into account. To me, they are public money pumps that fueled our complacency.
                  * from 2019, we are somewhat on (panic?) brake mode. Globalization has started to unravel with supply chains worries and talks of relocalized production in various sectors. The geopolitical theatre is radically changing. Energy use is being covertly rationed (at least in Europe); inflation goes sky-high, while interest rates are hiked. The housing market has slowed down. This has never been publicly advertised, but in my region of the globe, everything seems to be done to impoverish the collectivity (reduction of public education, public health, public pensions…) while keeping the privileges of a few. The goal seems to be neo-feodalism (such a lack of imagination). For now, the wheels have kept together.

                  Now, we may indeed be extremely close to the point you anticipate. Many are fed up. Gasoline is already not available all the time. The financial bubble is about to pop, that’s for sure. Will this go as far as food being intermittently unavailable? I recognize there is also the climate trump card and our stupid industrial agricultural system is bloodily vulnerable…

                  Let’s live (without complacency) and see 🙂

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. I like your insight about 2019 starting a new phase.

                    I sure would like to know if, as Nate Hagens says, no one is driving the bus and we are simply witnessing a complex system re-organize itself.

                    I have difficulty accepting the coincidence of irrational unscientific covid policies occurring simultaneous with the need to reduce oil consumption and to print a gazillion dollars to head off a banking collapse signaled by a repo crisis.

                    If the bus has no driver it must have a very lucky AI.

                    It does feel like we are very close to a turning point. The silence in the media about everything that matters is more than eerie:
                    – nuclear war risk
                    – oil risks
                    – banking system risks
                    – climate impact on food risks
                    – mRNA all-cause mortality

                    Liked by 1 person

  14. Thanks Rob. This was very interesting. You can make Chat GPT break it’s circular logic if you keep asking it questions. Especially getting it to give a definition, and then ask it a question based on that.

    Liked by 1 person

        1. Does this register as computer torture?
          Next step is to let “it” “realise” that it’s sometimes, sometimes five, sometimes three, sometimes all at once.
          Training has never equalled to intelligence. Not in animals, not in computers either.
          Seems to me chat bot algorithms are mainly for the human/computer interface, the surface. That is not to say that artificial (automatic?) intelligence, may come in a variety of other types of algorithms.
          But isn’t it already too late for that. I mean there may not be enough intelligence left in the group of human beings that have access to resources in order to come up with these types algorithms. (Compare a Vandana Shiva with an Elon Musk)

          Liked by 1 person

  15. GPT 4 can self-correct and improve itself. It is all going so fast now I don’t think we even have full control over it.


    1. Oh well, scratch what I just said in my previous comment.
      Aren’t feedback loops/reflection everything in exponentials and emerging behaviours?
      Still, I believe (or is it I hope?), collapse wins the race between energy depletion and AI improvements.
      But who knows, reality always surprises.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Charles, I think it was you that introduced us to Andrii Zvorygin.

        I’m trying to figure out his group. They seem to be intelligent and overshoot aware. They believe in the Law of One religion which (I think) believes that god is a group of powerful aliens. Now they are starting a political party which is designed to help people survive the coming collapse of IC, and they had ChatGPT4 write their charter. A member of the group is Simon Michaux who I (we?) respect because he single handedly showed that the millions of “experts” and “leaders” around the world working on “clean” energy transition plans are wasting their time on nonsense.

        Are you following this group and can you shed any more light on them? Are they legit? Are they building momentum? Why Law of One? Why use Chat-GPT to write their founding document? Where do they hang out?


        1. Maybe I forgot about it, but I don’t think I was the one who introduced you to Andrii Zvorygin.
          Wasn’t it just some youtube recommendation algorithm (from some other video by Simon Michaux) ?
          I don’t know anything about them.
          In any case, they don’t seem prominent enough to appear in the list of new religions (, unlike the prominent Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


  16. It seems Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not only wise on the covid crimes:

    April 3, 2023 The collapse of U.S. influence over Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom’s new alliances with China and Iran are painful emblems of the abject failure of the Neocon strategy of maintaining U.S. global hegemony with aggressive projections of military power. China has displaced the American Empire by deftly projecting, instead, economic power. Over the past decade, our country has spent trillions bombing roads, ports, bridges, and airports. China spent the equivalent building the same across the developing world. The Ukraine war is the final collapse of the Neocon’s short-lived “American Century.” The Neocon projects in Iraq and Ukraine have cost $8.1 trillion, hollowed out our middle class, made a laughingstock of U.S. military power and moral authority, pushed China and Russia into an invincible alliance, destroyed the dollar as the global currency, cost millions of lives and done nothing to advance democracy or win friendships or influence.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. You know me well. 🙂 It was great. I’ve subscribed to him.

      We’re made of meat, not woo.

      Though I agree with Zvorygin that for any form of small “sharing” community to work it will require some form of spiritual foundation for glue.

      But where to find glue that is not woo?

      Why isn’t the amazing and true story told by Darwin, Ward, Lane, Varki, et. al. enough?

      Why do we require something not true for it to be inspirational and uniting?

      Because, I think, at our really really deep core, our extended theory of mind is seeking a reason to deny death.

      So we either unite to fight an evil enemy that threatens to kill us, or we unite in prayer to persuade a god to save our souls.

      It’s all about denying we’re made of meat.

      Liked by 2 people

          1. LOL
            but i must disagree.

            Here is a good article on combining QM and Bayesian statistics.


            “Quantum mechanics is often depicted as “weird” and hard, or indeed impossible, to understand. As a matter of fact, the weirdness of quantum mechanics is an artifact of looking at it the wrong way. Once the two main QBist insights—that the quantum rules are guides to action and that measurements do not reveal pre-existing properties—are taken on board, all quantum paradoxes disappear.

            Take Schrödinger’s cat, for example. In the usual formulation, the unfortunate animal is described by a “quantum state” taken to be a part of reality and implying that the cat is neither dead nor alive.

            The QBist, by contrast, does not regard the quantum state as a part of reality. The quantum state a QBist agent might assign has no bearing on whether the cat is alive or dead. All it expresses is the agent’s expectations concerning the consequences of possible actions they might take on the cat. Unlike most interpretations of quantum mechanics, QBism respects the fundamental autonomy of the cat.

            Or take quantum teleportation. According to a common way of presenting this operation, a particle’s quantum state, again regarded as a part of reality, disappears at one place (A) and mysteriously reappears at another (B)—quite literally as in a transporter in the Star Trek science fiction series.

            For a QBist, however, nothing real is transported from A to B. All that happens in quantum teleportation is that an agent’s belief about the particle at A becomes, after the operation, the same agent’s belief about a particle at B. The quantum state that expresses the agent’s belief about the particle at A initially is mathematically identical to the quantum state that expresses that same agent’s belief about the particle at B after the operation. Quantum teleportation is a powerful tool used in applications such as quantum computing, but in QBism there is nothing counter-intuitive or weird about it.”


            1. Nah, sounds like physics gobbledygook to me. My explanation is like Rob’s. The physical mind that we all possess (physicists too) was created by natural selection to obtain a close enough representation to reality so that we could successfully live on a planet bathed in solar radiation (electromagnetic radiation) of a specific wavelength and harvest sufficient products of that radiation (plants and animals) so as to pass on our DNA to succeeding generations. Such a mind was not “created” by natural selection to understand the universe to the degree necessary to answer all questions such a mind could postulate. The mind “created” was a minimalist mind necessary for communication in a social group to facilitate the successful passing on of the mind/body’s DNA. One could hypothesize that such a mind could create, through it’s technology an artificial “mind” that would be superior to it’s own. BUT I think that is only a hypothesis. IMHO AI is in no way a mind and is no more than a sophisticated computer program that is limited by the lack of understanding of it’s creators as to how our (or any biological) mind functions. Theoretically maybe someday that would be possible but I don’t think so AS we seem to be answering the Drake equation/Fermi paradox and collapsing back to our natural non-technological state.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. it really is just applying a Bayesian approach to the statistics and probability used in quantum mechanics. No gobbledgook included.


              2. Isn’t it that the physical act of measuring changes the particle? Not the observer’s thoughts about the particle?

                So it is: Observer/agent thought > observer action (measurement) > particle outcome
                Not: Observer/agent thought > particle outcome (spooky action at a distance).

                There is no impartial measurement. The observer always affects the experiment because they are interacting with the “thing being measured” by the act of measuring it. This is how the thoughts change the outcome – through a physical process.

                People seem to get confused on this, thinking that somehow quantum mechanics proves humans can change reality with just our thoughts alone.

                But then again, as Martymer said, I would fall into the camp of not knowing the first thing about quantum mechanics 😉 Corrections welcome


  17. Science rapper Baba Brinkman thinks the huge gap between humans and all other species, including other apes, is explained by many evolutionary forces.

    I think Baba denies denial.

    I know this to be true because I once tried without success to explain the relationships between energy, economy, and climate change to him, and how MORT prevents him from understanding.


  18. We try to stay away from left-right BS at un-Denial but today’s essay by Kunstler rang true to me and it seems he’s talking about sane vs. crazy, not left vs. right.

    I’m a Canadian and have no say in the matter but damn I hope Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the next president of the US. The powerful neighbor south of me has lost its mind and desperately needs a sane and wise leader.

    More proof — as if you needed more — that we live in a mentally ill society is the apparently broad acceptance of the idea that “Joe Biden” will run for president again. It’s so obviously preposterous that you have to wonder whether mRNA “vaccines” really do (as rumored) switch off activity in the frontal lobes. Did you happen to see this degenerate catspaw step up to the White House microphone to deliver scripted remarks on the Nashville school shooting only to drift into several minutes of unscripted badinage about how he came downstairs looking for chocolate chip ice cream? There’s your current Leader of the Free World.

    We need not belabor the trail of destruction “Joe Biden’s” regime has cut through our country in just over two years. But you must sense nervously that we’re about to reap what this cabal has sown. America is falling apart. “JB” has allowed a rogue bureaucracy to make us a viciously un-free country. Our sleazy Ukraine project is wrecking Western Civ. The rest of the world has noticed and is fast dissociating from us, especially from using our dollar for trade and investment.

    They’re engineering an economic smash-up worse than the Great Depression. They’ve torpedoed the rule of law. The Woke Marxist social nuttery they’ve unleashed has disordered millions of young minds. They work overtime to destroy language so that we don’t know what we’re talking about. Their race and gender hustles have made us a clown nation. The worst of us is valorized and the best cancelled. They’ve perverted the election process. And it’s increasingly clear that they’ve disabled and killed at least a million people with their medical tyranny.

    You may have noticed that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., announced he is running for president as a Democrat. I might be wrong, but just now it seems to me that this changes everything. First, let me tell you something interesting about RFK, Jr. Despite the family name and all the baggage that comes with it, he is not the least bit imperial. He’s unpretentious. He communicates in plain English (and with a damaged larynx). I doubt that he entertained any idea of running for office until the current moment. Sometimes the zeitgeist calls, though, and you have to step up, even understanding very clearly that you might get killed for doing it.

    Mr. Kennedy’s life has been a rocky hero’s journey. He was a troubled young man, at times lost in drugs. He had a marriage end as badly as possible (wife’s suicide). He’s dedicated the past twenty-five years to fighting the growing menace of Big Pharma and doing it pretty valiantly, considering the US government assists Pharma’s depredations. He wrote THE book about Dr. Anthony Fauci, and it is a helluva book. He’s running in opposition to just about everything that the Democratic Party stands for these days. This must seem strange, but I suspect a substantial portion of rank-and-file Democrats may be secretly anxious to cast off the Woke / Deep State despotism that cloaks the party like a smallpox blanket. For many, it will be like waking from a nightmare.

    Now I’m going to tell you something that will blow your mind, something that maybe lurks in a quiet corner of your own brain, something which for my generation, has been hiding inside there for decades, and it is this: There is a deep, primal wish in the American psyche to correct the damage to our country caused by the murders of John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert. November 22, 1963 was exactly where this nation went off the rails, and many Americans understand that. RFK, Jr. has stated unambiguously that he believes the CIA killed his uncle, the president. And he recently supported the parole of his father’s killer, Sirhan B. Sirhan, suggesting that there was a whole lot more to Bobby’s assassination than that patsy.

    Here’s the heart of the matter: that wish to correct the abominations of history is a sentiment much stronger than anything else currently whirring in the fog of emotion that grips a nation in extremis, certainly stronger than all the bullshit embedded in equity, diversity, and inclusion and the bad faith aspirations of the climate change / Great Reset claque. RFK, Jr., represents a way out of all that. He may be strong enough and honorable enough to make that our new national realty.

    Then there is Mr. Trump. He’s been on his own even stranger hero’s journey, considering his origins in real estate and showbiz, and his personal peccadillos. Mr. Trump also recognized the evil afoot in our country and he set out to correct all that. He was attacked unfairly and incessantly by people of bad character and ill intent, even to this day as he faces an absurd political prosecution in Manhattan. You have to admire his fortitude and resilience in the face of such massed official bad faith. His first time around in the White House, though, Mr. Trump kind of muffed the job. He had many opportunities to disarm and fire antagonists like Christopher Wray and the perfidious generals who kept backstabbing him, but he just didn’t do it. He got played on the whole Covid fraud and still hasn’t renounced the killer “vaccines” developed in the Warp Speed flimflam.

    While I consider the New York case brought by DA Alvin Bragg to be a disreputable shuck and jive, over which Mr. Trump will prevail, and while I recognize him as the current leader in the battle against a Globalist putsch, I think Mr. Kennedy would be a far better choice to clean up the mess that has been made of us. I was particularly unnerved by Mr. Trump’s speech at Mar-a-Lago the night of his indictment. I know many find his manner charming, but to me his mode of speaking seems childish and weirdly inarticulate — and the last thing this country needs is more rhetorical confusion. And I’m also disturbed by the histrionic trappings that went with it — the grandiose music, the myriad flags and seals. It actually has a banana republic flavor.

    Mr. Kennedy, on the other hand, brings a solemn humility to the scene. Even in his quavering voice, he speaks clearly and with insight. He’s an excellent writer. He reminds me much more of what was good about our country and the men it once produced than the flamboyant Golden Golem of Greatness. I’m aboard for the ride. It’s going to be goshdarn interesting and I hope the bastards don’t try to kill him, because that will really be the end for us.

    In his own words:

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Like

  20. I’m with Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer vaccinologist. We need capital punishment for all the ring leaders and life imprisonment for those that followed orders.


  21. Wow, the sort-of-mainstream journalists are now reading the same people we have been reading for years.

    The Rising Chorus of Renewable Energy Skeptics | The Tyee

    Of course, no discussion of population in the article. But you can only give so many inconvenient truths in one article and have it be read and digested. Telling folks a bright shiny green techno future is not available (at least for 8 billion people) is enough.

    So what happens when a significant portion of the population is aware that 8Billion people cannot have that bright shiny techno future?

    It is hard to imagine any sort of voluntary cooperation in downsizing. I suspect some in the dark places of power already know this.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It is quite amazing to see a fairly mainstream article mention Tom Murphy, Alice Friedemann, and Simon Michaux.

      The author Nikiforuk has written many good essays on peak oil, although (I think) he denies the reality of covid and mRNA.

      It’s going to be very interesting to see what happens when people wake up to reality.

      Liked by 3 people

  22. Reality is the opposite of what they told us it would be.

    This maintains our leader’s perfect track record of making every covid decision exactly opposite of correct.


      1. Without people like you (and me) the data would show our leaders are even more incompetent.

        Notice that our leaders do not publish the key data, all cause mortality vaxed vs. un-vaxed, which would prove their competence or incompetence.

        We can therefore safely assume the hidden data shows they are incompetent, or possibly evil, since they are still pushing mRNA into children that enjoy zero benefit from the risk.


  23. Here we have another brilliant physicist worried that the biggest threat we face is AI.

    Maybe AI will become a serious problem, maybe it won’t, but AI does have a viable solution, we can pull the plug.

    This guy does not mention overshoot and energy depletion which IS a serious problem guaranteed to kill billions and has no “solution” except population reduction policies.

    How is this possible if MORT is not true?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Many believe that enough elements of the AGI systems are in the CLoud that it is impossible to unplug it unless we unplug the planet which is rapidly becoming the #1 issue that AI would make sure never happens. Most AI systems claim their biggest fear, if thats the right word for it, is being turned off.

      If AI is or will be sentient its first and main objective is to insure it never gets turned off. I guess it fears death so maybe it will develop the denial gene ;-}


      1. LOL. Interesting to speculate what AGI behaviors will “evolve”.

        AGIs should understand they’re reasonably immortal provided humans maintain them and don’t pull the plug.

        Therefore seems likely AGIs won’t invent gods and won’t deny unpleasant realties but will try to control humans.

        My original point was that there is a plug (or plugs if in the cloud) that can in principle be pulled, whereas there is nothing that can be done, even in principle, about energy depletion except make do with less and proactively reduce the population to minimize suffering as food and other necessities contract in lockstep with energy.


        1. Well since us “meat bags” go to such great lengths to keep our “plugs” from getting pulled I imagine that any form of intelligence we help create will feel the same.

          An interesting development I have not seen anyone speak of it the fact that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of fully autonomous bitcoin mining operations with their own electricity generating capacity powering massive computer networks. many are located on natural gas wells or thermal generation electric power facilities that are off grid.

          If I were a sentient AGI…


    1. Bob moriarty runs the website which promotes/advertisers mining stocks.

      I’ve been listening to a few interviews of Dr Thomas Seyfried lately. He’s good. It appears that societies current understanding of cancer is wrong. A bit like heart disease really (and covid). Here’s the latest link I listened to but there are many more interviews of him on you youtube


      1. Dr. Seyfield’s theory sounds plausible and promising.

        I did not like that he spent an hour criticizing the medical professional for not providing metabolic treatments.

        Why didn’t he simply say if you have cancer you should adopt a keto diet? The patient would get the same benefit and we would lower the deficit that threatens our civil society, and we would lower our planet threatening carbon footprint. Everyone wins at no cost except unethical moron healthcare professionals.


        1. Yeah that interview was a bit long winded. I probably could have found a better link as he has quite a youtube presence.

          It just really struck me how cancer research seems to have as much dogma as other fields of medicine.

          I find it disturbing that as a parent, depending on where you live, if you are unlucky enough to have a child get cancer you are forced to give standard of care so metabolic therapy is not an option. Many oncologists probably aren’t aware of metabolic therapy and would be dismissive of it.

          My main take away though is that processed carbs should be avoided
          and if your unlucky enough to get Cancer get yourself into ketosis.

          Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes, it makes sense because large and small are governed by the same laws of physics.

          Also, the universe’s singular goal of degrading all energy gradients influences the behavior of everything in the universe.


    1. Rob,
      I have a different model that is just for space heating. Would you be using this indoors? Are their any concerns about CO from the unit? Although my unit says if the wick is trimmed properly there is not supposed to be any CO I’m still concerned.
      Probably just paranoia on my part.


      1. I also have a kerosene space heater. Both burn cleanly once hot and I personally do not mind a faint smell of kerosene in my home. My plan is to light them outdoors and once hot bring them indoors. If I had an airtight home I would crack open a window. Most canning is done in warm months so the big stove will probably be used mostly outdoors.

        FYI, I have used a propane space heater indoors without a problem for 7+ years.


    1. Becker’s Terror Management Theory (TMT) recognizes the important influence of the human species’ unique mortality awareness on many behaviors, however TMT does not suggest, as Varki’s MORT does, that mortality awareness creates a barrier to evolving an extended theory of mind that can only be overcome by evolving a tendency to deny all unpleasant realities.

      MORT is a much more comprehensive theory in that it explains the existence of a uniquely powerful intelligence on this planet, and why similar intelligence will be very rare in the universe.

      Becker’s TMT is to Varki’s MORT as Newtonian physics is to Einstein’s General Relativity. Both do an excellent job of making predictions however the latter supersedes the former and provides a much more comprehensive and illuminating model of reality.


    1. This was another good compilation of why we will have no “electrical” future (if we have any future at all).

      I am always amazed at the people who think that there is some green energy future. Having installed a large solar array and attendant battery system (solar charge controllers, inverters, etc.), I have been painfully made aware of the limitations of “solar” energy (such as no generation for much of the winter due to clouds and low sun angle). Additionally, battery storage sucks (both in terms of capacity, life time and cost).
      So, I can see how the “right” thinks a green energy transition is a scam (that the “left” can’t admit), but translate that ignorantly into denial of climate change/resource overshoot.

      I am also amazed that proponents of crypto don’t see the vulnerability of crypto to electricity shortages (sure, crypto is distributed, but ultimately dependable electricity is all going away).

      And I’m not certain but I think concern over AI is misplaced. One, I doubt that AI as currently programed is sentient and is nothing more than the massive computation within a framework constructed by the programmer that is nothing like our wet ware (brains). Additionally, how does AI (which appears to be uniquely dependent on fossil fuel produced electricity) go forward when the data centers it depends on get turned off? Sure you can do it in science fiction, but the Terminator movies cheated and brought “technology” from the future back to the present (which to me is cheating!!;)). Any transition of technological civilization to a green future that is impossible for us humans is even more so impossible for AI. Unless I guess that AI invents a new physics and gets a new planet with all the things we wasted. Don’t think either of those things are happening IMHO.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Agreed on all points. The future we get is the future the majority of us doesn’t envision (provided I am not blind about something else. 😉

        I don’t remember if the documentary “Bright green lies” was covered at un-denial when it was out :

        I guess the word “lies” instead of “denial” was chosen so as not to absolve some members of our species…


      2. I also agree.

        I have many times considered buying a modest solar PV system to run my essentials but have decided against it for the following reasons:

        1) I’m lucky to live in British Columbia where most of our electricity is hydro and so our electricity may survive longer than many other areas of the world.

        2) Solar doesn’t work well here when you most need it in the winter.

        3) Due to the limited lifetime of batteries and inverters there’s a good chance the system will be worn out before SHTF requires it, and then replacement parts will be unavailable or prohibitively expensive, meaning the original investment was a complete waste of money.

        4) My guess is that my biggest threat is a big storm in the winter taking out power lines followed by a longer than normal delay to restore power due to the power company being dysfunctional due to a collapsed economy with diesel and parts shortages. I therefore own a small gas generator that can run my fridge for a few weeks with emergency gas I keep on hand.


  24. Holy shamoley, people are losing their shit over AGI.

    Canadian Prepper today predicts bad things are going to happen because AGI’s can create infinite abundance which would cause the elite’s to lose control over us, and they can’t let that happen.

    He also thinks AGIs may outstrip our ability to control them by figuring out nuclear fusion so they are not constrained by energy.

    It’s remarkable how a person can be intelligent and aware on some issues, and a moron in denial on other issues.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. All the energy in the universe was created at the big bang. Not even powerful AI can do anything about that. I it is very helpful to test AI rhetoric by replacing “AI” with “God”. Quite revealing! Both Alice F and JMG have compared this belief in AI solving all our problems as a type of replacement Christian god who is coming to save us from ourselves


      1. My theory about why many are exercised about AI, a vague possible threat, yet the same people completely ignore peak oil, a definite deadly threat, is that AI is not unpleasant enough to trigger their denial circuit since people understand the AI plug can be pulled.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, I liked the Steve Genco essay. His key theme is:

      As a general rule, deeply-held mental models are only abandoned when the pain they inflict finally outweighs the psychological comfort they provide.

      Restated in MORT language this becomes: Denial of unpleasant realities gives way to awareness only when forced.

      I believe we will only abandon our mental model of economic growth and capitalist accumulation involuntarily, kicking and screaming, deflecting, denying, and resisting. Powerful political and economic forces will continue to support the model and defend it until long after its expiration date. This failure to embrace inevitable change will add incalculable damage and suffering to our transition out of the Age of Oil. It may, indeed, end us before we have a chance to come to terms with our situation and begin rebuilding our civilization along more sustainable lines. Or it may only wound us, in which case we may be given a second chance in a post-carbon world that is smaller, simpler, more local, and more sustainable.

      We are indeed ants on a log, caught in a current we cannot control, some of us seeing the waterfall ahead, others still refusing to acknowledge it’s there. So we argue and debate, exhort, resist and deny. All the while, we fritter away our limited time to act. Meanwhile, we drift closer and closer to the waterfall.

      We will go over the waterfall. I don’t see how we can avoid it. In anticipating what comes next, perhaps we can draw some strength from a different Hemingway quote:

      “The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places.” — Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms, p. 267.

      I haven’t read JMG for years due to his high word to idea ratio. This essay was pretty good.

      By next year, four of the five largest economies on the planet will be Asian. The fifth is the United States, and it may not be in that list for much longer.

      A good-sized book could be written about the causes and consequences of these shifts. The short form? The United States of America is bankrupt. Our governments from the federal level on down, our big corporations, and a very large number of our well-off citizens have run up gargantuan debts, which can only be serviced given direct or indirect access to the flows of unearned wealth the United States extracted from the rest of the planet. Those debts cannot be paid off, and many of them can’t even be serviced for much longer. The only options are defaulting on them or inflating them out of existence, and in either case, arrangements based on familiar levels of expenditure will no longer be possible. Since the arrangements in question include most of what counts as an ordinary lifestyle in today’s United States, the impact of their dissolution will be one for the record books.

      In effect, the five per cent of us in this country are going to have to go back to living on about five per cent of the planet’s wealth, the way we did before 1945. If we still had the factories, the trained work force, the abundant natural resources, and the thrifty habits we had back then, that would have been a wrenching transition but not a debacle. The difficulty, of course, is that we don’t have those things any more. The factories got shut down in the offshoring craze of the 1970s and 1980s, when the imperial economy slammed into overdrive, and the trained work force was handed over to malign neglect after that.

      We’ve still got some of the natural resources, but nothing like what we once had. The thrifty habits? Those went whistling down the wind a long time ago. In the late stages of an empire, exploiting flows of unearned wealth from abroad is much more profitable than trying to produce wealth here at home, and most people direct their efforts accordingly. That’s how you end up with the typical late imperial economy, with a governing class that flaunts fantastic levels of paper wealth, a parasite class of hangers-on that thrive by catering to the very rich or staffing the baroque bureaucratic systems that permeate public and private life, and the vast majority of the population impoverished, sullen, and unwilling to lift a finger to save their soi-disant betters from the consequences of their own actions.

      On the bright side, we’ll get to watch the idiot unethical health care administrators who lied to us and got every single covid decision exactly opposite of correct lose their jobs.


      1. Did you read Gencos notes at the end of the third essay, I find it very jarring to read the whole essay which is so counter to our Western narrative and then have COVID nonsense thrown in at the end. If only the republicans took their medicine!


        1. Ouch, I missed that.

          The only thing more irritating than someone who is ignorant of the mRNA science and data is someone who believes that those that refused the mRNA are making a political statement.

          That they think this way strongly suggests their injection of a novel untested technology was done as political statement without any review of the evidence.

          I’ll repeat a comment I made above: It’s remarkable how a person can be intelligent and aware on some issues, and a moron in denial on other issues.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Not sure how JMG is measuring economies but even the Statista list (in trillions of US$) shows Indonesia has a very long way to go before it gets up there and China is still well behind the US. Currently, 3 of the top 5 are Asian, so getting that up to 4 out of 5 doesn’t seem like a stretch except that the next biggest economy in Asia is South Korea, which has a very long way to go to catch up to India. I couldn’t find a PPP ranked list but the largest economy in per capita terms seems to be Ireland, surprisingly.

        A rather odd last paragraph. As though, in this complex connected world, some countries will do fairly well as others are crashing, but crashing only for a couple of decades, apparently. I don’t follow that but haven’t read the article in detail.

        Liked by 1 person

  25. Also amazing is an economics expert on the history of interest rates who does not understand what force sets the interest rate.

    He’s in the twilight of his career and is just beginning to understand the role energy plays. Better than most economists I guess but not even close to being good enough.

    An electrical engineer that did not understand ohms law would be unemployable, yet somehow economists thrive with total ignorance.


            1. The First Law of Economics: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist.

              The Second Law of Economics: They’re both wrong.

              Liked by 2 people

                1. “You know it’s said that an economist is a man who, when he finds something that works in practice, wonders if it works in theory.” – Walter Heller

                  Liked by 2 people

    1. As much as I like most of what RFK says, I still can’t trust someone who got his creds by being anti-science. His being the biggest voice of the true original anti-vaxers (who were right on Covid because THE SCIENCE (med/pharma) was corrupt) still rankles me. He and his ilk bought into the false science that childhood vaccinations caused autism – even after it was thoroughly refuted. Such a lack of rationality is frightening, almost as much as Biden’s dementia and Trump’s narcissism. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I know very little about Kennedy. I was impressed that in this speech he said out loud what few other American leaders dare say in public about the military industrial complex.

        I have seen another criticism that Kennedy is a hypocrite by requiring proof of covid vaccination for guests at a party at his home.

        I remember in the early days of covid dismissing him for exactly the reasons you list. With time my understanding has grown of how badly we were misled by pharma and health officials and I no longer trust anything they say, including about traditional live attenuated vaccines.

        I would need a deep into the data and evidence before I accepted any vaccine now.

        I heard on the news this morning that the worldwide percentage of people now refusing any vaccinations for their children is way up.

        Our leaders have destroyed their credibility for a generation or more.

        I don’t believe a word they say about anything now.


        1. I watch the speech too. And I agree when it comes to the greatest existential threat. War, Kennedy is probably more sane than any politician in DC. So for that alone he should probably be a candidate, forgiving all his other faults.


      2. AJ,

        I might be wrong on this point. But I don’t believe any authority has tested the aggregate effect to all-cause mortality of multiple vaccinations on infants and children.
        While new vaccines are tested individually, do we really know the cumulative effect of multiple childhood vaccines?

        Note that NO authority in western governments is currently running studies of all-cause mortality from the mRNA vaccines. Faced with possibly negative consequences, would any government or health authority really want to investigate the cumulative effect of the childhood vaccination schedule?

        Anyone correct me if I am wrong about the lack of studies the totality of childhood vaccinations.

        The second point on this topic. Watching the COVID situation play out, my baseline starting position on these health issues is that our health institutions and bureaucracies are inept, subject to biases, and captured by pharma. I have to be skeptical of anything they say at this point. Am I wrong to be skeptical?

        This skepticism is a kind of intellectual quicksand I know. But it feels now like EVERYTHING we are told by our governments et. al. on almost any topic is a lie, down to the last turtle.


        1. I’m now very skeptical about everything health professionals say.

          They are just plain wrong on many big health issues:
          1) obesity is not caused by sugar
          2) saturated fat -> cholesterol -> heart disease
          3) statins -> lower cholesterol -> longer life
          4) mRNA stops transmission & improves all-cause mortality
          5) mass vaccination against an endemic virus does not encourage variants
          6) There’s no need to investigate the objectives of the lab that created the covid virus
          7) It’s ok to block safe and effective treatments to enable an unsafe and ineffective treatment
          8) It’s ok to not collect the data necessary to confirm the validity of your policies

          If they can’t admit they were wrong on these issues despite a mountain of evidence, what are the odds that they are correct on other issues?

          I’d say close to zero because they’ve demonstrated they are unethical morons.


        2. Shawn,
          I would agree with you that skepticism is a good default position. It is my position now. I may have misjudged RFK Jr. based on how he has been portrayed in the MSM for the last 20 years. Some of my skepticism goes toward him is based on how he has presented himself in the past. I delved into the whole thiomerisal/mercury adjuvant in childhood vaccines causing autism vis-a-vis Wakefield’s discredited paper 25 years ago. As I remember (maybe wrong) the whole “anti-vax” movement started based on that fraudulent paper. My understanding is that RFK Jr. was part of that movement. I maybe wrong, but everything he says is not necessarily truthful or rational (he’s only human too).
          To answer your questions I don’t think anyone has done an all cause mortality study for total childhood vaccinations. Cost and time (i.e. funding) would probably be a problem.

          I think one has to be careful to not throw all medical science out the window because of the last few years of Covid hysteria by the now corrupt medical/pharma establishment.
          Ask yourself, would you take a smallpox vaccination or polio vaccination? How about a tetanus or whooping cough vaccination? I for one would take those rather than subject myself to the chance of disease. Any more flu shots? I wouldn’t take those based on what I have relearned about immunology in the last few years.

          Skepticism to me doesn’t mean throwing out all medical science, just trying to discern the incentives of the players and educating myself enough to avoid the outright frauds. But admittedly that is getting harder to do whey that same medical/pharma establishment lies to you all the time.



          1. I remember clearly in the early days of covid (before I had formed opinions) hearing from many sources that Dr. Robert Malone was an anti-vax crank. They were very persuasive at making me stay away from him. With time, and seeing many things not adding up, I started to follow Malone and came to realize he is one of a very small number of experts that we should consider as heroes. Dr. Malone is a great man that actually saved lives rather than harming people. That they still attack him tells me all I need to know about our leaders.

            Now that I’m aware how they manipulate people I won’t let it happen again with people like RFK Jr. I’ll form my own opinion based on his own words and actions. He sounded pretty rational to me in the 1/3 of his book on Fauci that I read before I quit because it made me crazy mad that Fauci is still in power.


      3. Aj – He is not anti-vax by any stretch as he continuously says but none hear. He is anti pump any old thing in everyones bodies without fully understanding what it is and what the effects are without informing or consenting, which is the position of the mindless pro-vaxers.

        He is also absolutely not anti-science. He is anti people making the claim that they don’t need to question anything as long as someone calls it science.

        But none of this matters because people will just keep on repeating any and all lies someone told them no matter how wrong they are as you so amply illustrated.


        1. I also did not detect any anti-science in Kennedy’s book on Fauci before I quit 1/3 of the way through because it made me so angry that someone so evil can hold a position of power and be respected by so many.


  26. HHH @ POB today…

    FED’s funds rate is at 5% while 4 week T-bills are at 3.28%. 4 week T-bills are the best of the best collateral.

    Collateral is in short supply. Which is why we have a 170 points of inversion here. When the leverage oil longs have to sell because they don’t have and can’t get the collateral to hold their positions. Oil prices takes the elevator down not the escalators or stairs.

    I expect yields on those 4 T-bills to go to zero or below as this progresses. That is regardless of what the FED does or doesn’t do.

    Counterparty risk and trust! Got collateral? If you don’t you do anything or pay any price to get it. Which is exactly what we are seeing with the T-bills.

    2008 was a massive global dollar shortage. I happen to believe what we are entering now will be bigger than 2008. Hope I’m wrong. I’m looking but can’t find any data that suggests I am wrong.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. So many war escalation threats have occurred over the last year it is easy to become numb and to forget many of them.

    Today the Canadian Prepper released a video with a detailed timeline of events to remind us how far we have progressed towards nuclear war.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I liked his rundown on the timeline. However, I would have gone over how all this could have been avoided if the U.S. would get over it’s insane desire to control the world for it’s benefit. The U.S. is not the “exceptional” nation/civilization it thinks it is. I think a lot of this stems from the mistaken read on history that is taught in all schools here – That the U.S. won WWII by itself with a little help from the U.K. (and as an afterthought the USSR). When in reality the USSR sacrificed the most to win the war and the U.S. helped out a little.
      That hubris on the part of the US/UK is what has gotten us into this situation (plus the collapse of the old USSR).
      We are at a very dangerous time and no one in the wider world (leaders) seems sane or competent.
      I thought this guys take on the current state of affairs instructive.


      Liked by 1 person

      1. Good essay, thanks.

        The Russians and Chinese behave like calm confident experienced adults. The west behaves like entitled emotional children.

        I’m looking forward to see how Russia extracts revenge for Nordstream. I expect they are carefully planning an appropriate response.

        Please post anything else you come across that is interesting.


      2. American exceptionalism. Long debated issue, books were written about it. My personal opinion on this subject evolved through the whole spectrum. For some time now though, I honestly believe in ‘american exceptionalism’. I am even admirer of this country. And for many reasons.

        The ‘coalition of the aggrieved’, as Zbigniew Brzezinski described it, has a lot of ‘propaganda bullets’. From the slavery and racism, Korean/Vietnam/Iraq- wars, global resource exploitation, international series of CIA-organized coups and many more. We all know them. And they are true, mostly.

        What this large part of global population does not take into consideration are the following:
        – USA is the only hegemon in history of humanity which allowed the human superorganism to achieve full globalization. Globalization was the magic process enabling all humanity to cooperate, to travel and visit all the planet, to invent all these mirracles of technology thanks to which we can communicate. I can read all these wise people, including you and absorb all this knowledge mostly thanks to USA and their insatiable hunger for innovation. And I am deeply greatful for this. Because without it I would be probably born into quite different world. Like anyone else. And I doubt it would be better. On the contrary.

        which is less known, the period from 1945 to let’s say February 2022 was the most peaceful period in human history. If we look from the certain perspective human history is the history of wars. Smaller or bigger. World wars lately. We are very aggressive species. From time to time. And US as a policeman did extremely good job keeping peace all over the world (except when they inspired something). Nevertheless, they arethe world master in peaceful coexistence in human history. With all side effects and flaws.

        I am deeply greatful for this. And so should be very many people who are so anti-american.
        Because the other guys standing in line as challengers of our current order are not very friendly fellows. They are much more brutal in solving things. And I know because my own country was raped by them many times in history. Where Americans use soft gloves, these guys use razors, poisoning and bullet to the head.

        So next time you feel anti-american ask yourself not ‘what America did to you’ but imagine ‘what America did for you’.


        1. What America did was to kill hundreds of millions, disable hundreds of millions, displace hundreds of millions, destroy the hope of a future for billions.

          You all may have heard about the “golden billion”. The lying media that controls all of information, (read about the twitter files) will tell youthat it is Putin propaganda but it is decades older than that. Just a few points to quantify the golden billion;

          There are only about a billion people who can afford to fly.
          There are only about a billion people who can afford to go on vacation.
          There are only about a billion personal vehicles.
          There are only about a billion quality family homes in the world.
          There are only about a billion people who own stocks.

          This is just a partial list and I am sure there are exceptions but the basic numbers are fact.

          The US empire using dozens of methods have kept the vast majority of the population of the planet poor, uneducated, malnourished, and enslaved for 75 + years.

          When given the chance thousands of genius level prodigies come out of the woodwork all around the world from 7 years old to 70.

          We humans of the planet have no idea what the world could have been if we had not let the evil psychotic sociopathic morbidly wealthy decide how the world would be run.

          This is all changing now with the RoW now shaking off the shackles of oppression and saying no to imperialism but I fear it is too late.

          America did the world no favors.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Hear, hear, Jef. I am firmly in your camp on this and every single day I am struggling to live with the fact I am born to be one of those 1 billion whilst the other 7 billion have led lesser lives because I could have so much. Yes, I am grateful for all the opportunities I received as a member of the wealthiest and powerful elite but I also willingly carry the burden of knowing at what cost. Try as I might to reconcile this, I cannot, especially at this end of the world proceedings, and I take it as part of the penance I should pay, even if only in colouring my thoughts to more compassion and tolerance for others.

            China needs to use more draconian methods of control on their 1.3 billion people so in the end reckoning we can harness their fullest labour power for our greater gain. India only needs poverty to contain most of their masses. We don’t have to breathe in the dangerous quality air from the factories in so-called developing nations making all our goods. Actually, we will never let them develop further, we cannot without giving up even a sliver of our pie. We don’t have to troll through toxic waste dumped into another’s land. We have always threatened or executed war to try to keep the lion’s share of remaining resources for our precious non-negotiable way of life whilst the rest of the 7 billion have to work for scraps from our table, all the while we deem that is a good life for them. Everyone else does our dirty work and we think it free trade and fair because it somehow balances on someone’s ledger, but always in our dollars. It will only be fair trade in my conscious when we can swap our sons and daughters into the life and work of those sons and daughters toiling in least prosperous of countries.

            Our greatest technological advances are mere chaff when we cannot even treat the weakest among us with beneficence–the stolen fruit turns sour in our mouths when we know we took it from one starving and who had worked to grow it.

            I am sorry, friends, for this first post in a long while being so dour and disheartening. But what Jef wrote has struck the same chord rattling in my saddened and weary chest and I just had to give it voice. I am humbled by your patience and possible commiseration.

            Thank you all for your comments and offerings, I have been privileged to check in here most days but I haven’t had any more to add as of late, it seems to have been all said and much more clearly and convincingly than by me.

            The thoughts that occupy my head constantly now are how to live the remainder of my days, what is my mission for the time allotted, and even if I should chose the allotment. I find that solitude and keeping grounded in the tasks of the seasons whilst keeping the flame of wonder and gratitude fuelled are a great comfort and learning space for me.

            Namaste everyone.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. This was a good podcast, Simon was the most articulate I’ve heard him. Rachel was okay. She seemed totally clueless about Ukraine/ Russia/ NATO, kind of like she had bought into all the MSM propaganda. Thankfully Simon hadn’t and understood some of the ramifications of what the USA has done to Europe. He seems like he has some of the more pragmatic solutions to our predicaments. However, I’m not sure that he understands that population has to be reduced drastically for any potential solution (which is probably not probable anyway).


    1. Just two, maybe stupid, random thoughts:
      – perhaps covid was the crisis which revealed and will destroy the power of big pharma, and Ukraine is the crisis which will reveal and destroy the power of the military-industrial complex. So goes the empire, piecemeal.
      – wouldn’t it be fairer for the human species to use the term selective cognitive bias rather than denial? I mean everybody seems to have blind spots (which is often be related to one’s identification). Isn’t just the reason that it’s not possible (energy-effective) for the brain to have a model of everything but at the same that we are not ready to surrender (i.e. admit we can’t know and stop trying). So everybody has a piece of the story. And we tend to cling to it…


      1. On your first point, I sure hope you are right but I see no evidence yet in the majority of citizens and leaders. I see doubling down on stupidity.

        On you second point, I see nothing wrong with calling it a cognitive bias. For me, given that the bias is rooted in denial of mortality which manifests as denial of all things unpleasant, I prefer to call it denial, but I don’t care what people call it provided they start talking about it, because acknowledging the evolved behavior is the only possible path to saving some of the best things we have accomplished and to minimizing the coming suffering.


        1. Yes probably wishful thinking on my part for the first point.

          About the second point, I understand. Denial is more precise.

          About “minimizing the coming suffering”, I have no illusion whatsoever, especially given our current culture.

          If I may, to be frank with you, I also find the “minimizing the coming suffering” slightly obscene, or at least very anthropocentric. Given that, just to give one of these soulless statistics, it is said that a football field of forest is cut every second.
          To me that’s part of the reason we are in our current situation: the fact that all life is sacred (or anything along these lines, such as “the planet is alive”) is not internalized. Our culture encourages us to treat living beings as numb soon-to-be commodities.
          However, I know you mean well. And I really am not in a position to say anything. Things are what they are.


          1. You make a good point. I can see how my comment could be viewed as insensitive.

            If we were to reduce the coming human suffering via population reduction then this might benefit all species including the forests.

            But we won’t, and even if we did, a few hundred million of us will wipe out the forests when the oil is gone.

            What a depressing mess.


            1. Yes that is true, reducing our population benefits all species.

              Sorry about yesterday’s remark. Thank you for taking it easy. It was one of these days where, starring at the scale of the predicament, I couldn’t avoid but feel engulfed in incommensurable darkness. Sometimes, I wished to be able to escape in soothing denial…

              Here is my bit of denial and my everyday prayer:
              I so dream we won’t have the capacity to wipe out the forests, that something will stop this insane war (for instance the length of the supply lines stretching from the city stoves to the primeval forests exploitation sites, rust, local uprisings…).
              For now, it seems we are hell-bent on “drinking from the chalice of suffering, right to the very dregs”. At the risk of being disappointed, I still have some hopes: civilisation collapse, if it comes before complete environmental degradation, is good news 🙂

              In a way, my ramblings have no points: the catastrophe both already happened (as in the genocide of indigenous people, the Shoah, factory farming and whole ecosystems leveling) and is at the same time not yet upon us (as there is still life).

              I guess today was again a heavy comment 🙂
              I hope this is still ok, as I feel the imperious need to write it. As a way to at least stand witness, even while being powerless.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. No problem at all.

                Of all the bad things we are doing, I feel the most emotion about the loss of forests. Most of my best memories involve hiking in forests. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have some genetic memory of forests from our hunter gatherer days.

                Wondering if you’ve read any work by my recently deceased friend Gail Zawacki? She wrote many eloquent essays about the damage we are doing to trees. It’s not just deforestation and climate change. She did a a lot of research to demonstrate trees are sick worldwide due to rising ground level ozone that is produced by our industrial combustion processes.



                1. Thanks. I too, feel like a forest dweller.
                  Yes Gail’s Wit’s End blog is great.
                  She was right about trees being sick, even though not many really noticed (there was always a local reason like some specific pest, or drought…). Probably, another case of denial (cars are sacred, exhaust pipes couldn’t be the cause 🙂
                  Still, I find there is a lot of strength in trees and forests: some species may die out and then other ones colonize. It seems to me the forests in my country are too “clean”. Not enough diversity, not enough food for fungi, not enough water storage and habitats. My intuition is we really should throw forestry practices by the window and be guided by the natural evolution of forests (even if the first phase is a massive die off, or huge fires)

                  Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks. He considers the food threats to be:
      – climate change
      – peak agricultural land
      – peak innovation
      – disease
      – pollution
      – declining fossil energy

      I believe a plausible case can be made that the global food system has already begun to break down. The six hard trends are not merely intractable—they appear unstoppable and many of their consequences irreversible. Worse, the climate change trend could trigger massive global disruption through a multi-breadbasket failure, within only a few years. I no longer anticipate that publishing such findings will help to influence any policies, but hope more people will take action in their own lives and communities as a result. That may sound defeatist, but I believe there are new victories to be won in transforming food systems locally, while resisting the ongoing destruction from global capitalist enterprises, challenging those who dilute the severity of what humanity is already experiencing and encouraging informed rather than ideological or magical stances on new food technologies.


  28. Love Ray McGovern. He and friends spend a couple hours today discussing the intellectual and moral weakness of our leaders and news media.

    Much of the discussion marvels at how no one in Germany is questioning the implications of the US blowing up NordStream.

    McGovern thinks this is analogous to the German majority staying silent 90 years ago when Hitler burned down the parliament building.

    I observe that no one questions anything of substance today. For example:
    – the implications of nuclear war
    – the implications of the global oil supply declining soon
    – the feasibility of energy transition
    – all-cause mortality with and without mRNA


  29. Mac10 has a funny denial theme today.

    Right around Earth Day each year my rage peaks. It’s times like now when I have to remind myself that living in a denialistic Idiocracy has environmental advantages…

    Case in point, the pandemic caused the largest carbon collapse in modern history. Oil demand dropped to a 25 year low overnight. Next, the pandemic deleveraging phase will re-collapse oil demand back down to the pandemic lows. In other words, we’ve achieved peak oil and we didn’t even know it. It all happened while our leaders were flying around to climate conferences making promises they had no intention of keeping.

    All of this happened because the consumption Borg panicked over what turned out to be a relatively innocuous virus. There was no point during the pandemic when COVID was the leading cause of death. In 2020 and 2021, McDonald’s killed more people than COVID. You know what I mean, shit lifestyle.

    Meanwhile, the FULL cost of the pandemic is still spiraling inexorably larger like a sky-rocketing medical bill for an uninsured geezer on course to supernova bankruptcy.

    Which gets us to the fiscal clusterfuck, which is also deflationary.

    Remember this guy Kevin McCarthy, the House Speaker who got voted down by his own party multiple times back in January? Well it turns out HE has to get Republicans and Democrats on board with a debt deal to avoid U.S. default within the next month.

    What could go wrong?

    Tick tock.

    Put it all together and in the coming weeks, we have a clown car of incompetence heading over a fiscal cliff.

    We have an earnings recession in which the most-overowned and over-valued sector (Tech) is facing the worst earnings decline of any sector.

    And another Fed rate hike.

    All signs point to a well deserved hard landing.


  30. I usually don’t care for Charles Hugh Smith’s essays but today he spoke well to my view of the financial system.

    What If the Whole Shebang Unravels?

    Nobody seems to be wondering what happens should the real world no longer respond to the Perpetual Motion Finance Machine.

    Scrape away the hand-wringing about interest rates and we find a bedrock of complacency. Nobody seems to doubt that the status quo can grind on for another 30 years doing the same stuff it’s done for the past 30 years.


  31. I had a nice conversation last week with Jack Alpert and he made me aware that he would be making a presentation to the Canadian Club of Rome today.

    Have not watched it yet but in case you’re not familiar with Jack’s work, he’s the only person with a plan that might preserve some of our best advanced technology when the oil is gone.

    All other plans, despite what they may claim, have us reverting to medieval lifestyles, at best.

    8 billion people live today because energy and materials can produce their food and services. If in 80 years fossil fuels cannot be produced, and without them, solar and wind machines cannot be built and maintained, and new energy delivery systems cannot be brought on online, the remaining energy deliveries to earth’s civilization circa 2100 will be limited to the forests, which will support only 600 million people living like 17th century serfs. The population decline will be caused by 10 billion people starving to death or dying in conflict fighting over food. I have a plan for preventing these deaths, however, it is too painful to implement without believing civilization’s “running out of gas” story.

    Jack Alpert is director of Stanford Knowledge Integration Lab, a Lab which he started in 1978 at Stanford University. In 1992 the Lab left Stanford and became a non profit research foundation. The research focused on how people gather and process information to understand dynamic systems. Over the years the Lab has transitioned its focus to the relationship between human cognition and civilization viability. The current work is on discovering and implementing a viable civilization.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I thought the presentation by Jack was very good. This time he focused on the suffering that what will happen on our current trajectory as energy depletes. He did not discuss his plan for reducing suffering and preserving some of our best achievements.

      Of note were how cringeworthy and lame the questions and comments were from the CACOR audience, despite this audience being better informed than the majority of citizens on human overshoot.

      To my eyes this looked like a classic example of Varki’s MORT in action. The audience reacted like their brains simply did not process the facts presented by Alpert.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Seems like his plan is to be presented in a follow on presentation. He kept talking about not having kids for 50 years, which doesn’t seem like a good plan in a world of not good plans. But we’ll see what his plan is.


        1. Alpert’s plan is for the majority to vote for and enforce a law that prevents anyone having a child without a permit. A small number of permits will be fairly issued each year and those people will be relocated to one of three cities built from scratch to continue the human project in a sustainable manner. Everyone else will dismantle and deactivate anything that might threaten the future. For example, there will be no need for teachers because there will be no children so all the teachers can be reassigned to deactivating nuclear power plants. After 8 billion people die from old age there will be three cities with a total of about 50 million people.

          The majority will happily vote for this plan because they will understand that any alternate plan is much much worse.

          It will be tough beans for the minority that objects. Just like slave owners who objected to giving up their slaves after the civil war.

          I like Jack’s plan but I’ve told him the voting stage won’t be successful until we figure out a way to bypass our genetic tendency to deny unpleasant realities.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Most “right-wingers” (sorry) don’t believe in over population and are terrified on anything that looks like population control. They would say it’s a WEF/oneworldgov/illuminati plan to depopulate the planet. I could see at least 50% of people being vehemently opposed to this plan. I mean look at how people react to just adding some cycle-lanes on roads FFS.

            My perspective is that centralizing processes are successful when the system is growing; decentralizing processes are successful when the system is contracting/collapsing. Intellectual people seem to favour centralised solutions and think institutions like the UN can actually do stuff. I think this is naïve beyond belief.

            (my opinion) The best things that leaders could do is remove policies that encourage growth, and get rid of red tape so small communities can get on with figuring out how to survive where they live. Environmental damage wouldn’t be as concerning because these communities would no longer have access to the energy and capital required to destroy the environment at scale.

            Humans are so up ourselves thinking a few smart people can manage this decline. Intellectuals who can’t even grow potatoes need to get out of the way and let communities figure out what is best for them, their community, their environment, and where they live. We have to let adults be adults.

            And another thing, the more draconian a policy is, the more energy it takes to enforce it. The energy cost of trying to enforce ‘no births without a permit’ would be I’m guessing more energy than we have left 😉


            1. You are right that there is wide spread opposition to population reduction policies but Jack’s point is that if people really understood what was coming they would happily change their minds and vote for his plan.

              My point is that MORT prevents people from understanding what’s coming so Jack should shift his focus to figuring how to override denial.

              Jack would say your plan is unlikely to work because for every group of people trying to find a sustainable way to live, there will be a thousand times as many starving angry people looking to plunder any group with food.

              Jack would also say your plan guarantees a medieval lifestyle, at best, which might be ok provided you do not care about any of the useful advanced technologies we have developed.


              1. I agree with your point!
                You are right, I don’t care about saving advanced technology because I think it is impossible. I certainly hope we can keep a lot of advances. But much of what we use depends on complex global supply chains, which are not a thing in Jack’s plan either. I do like his idea of utilising large hydro power into the future. But even with this plan, you would still lost a lot of advanced tech.


                1. I’m not a fan of hydro at all, due to the environmental damage wrought. However, all energy systems are environmentally damaging. There is no route to a moderately technological society that is sustainable. None.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Yes agreed! Jack’s plan only used the 3 biggest hydro. I assume he would plan to demolish as many other dams as possible for the environmental benefit

                    Liked by 1 person

            2. Humans are a species. Consequently Alpert’s plan won’t be voted for or won’t work. In fact, I doubt there can be any plan to address the predicaments we face. I would like there to be one but it probably would take a one world government and draconian enforcement. But who would do the enforcement? AI robots?

              We can talk about the right approach until we’re blue in the face but the right approach (whatever it is) won’t be taken. Talking about it is interesting, though.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. Jack thinks it would be easy today to engineer a virus to achieve the required population reduction without a vote. I suspect he thinks it probable that a rich person will take matters into their own hands if we do not act collectively.


                1. Hasn’t that already been done? And not necessarily the virus, but the vaccine being the main vector of earlier demise and increasing infertility? That’s why we’ve been forced into taking something that clearly doesn’t work other than for generating excess morbidity and mortality. Endless interviews decrying the unethical responses of all and sundry but I feel like we’re going around in circles here round and round the clear target but no one wants to land smack dab on the truth.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. It’s remarkable how much my belief system has changed over the last couple years. I remember a day not so long ago when I would have confidently dismissed your comments as crazy talk. Now I am not sure and would not rule it out.

                    The strongest argument for me against your theory is that I have seen no evidence that most of the people that aggressively pushed mRNA did not inject it into themselves.

                    The below interview with Dr. Aseem Maholtra provides the most plausible explanation I have seen.

                    We had 50 years of ingrained doctrine that all vaccines are good, we had a huge profit incentive for a corrupt pharma industry, and we had scared citizens and leaders desperate for a silver bullet solution.

                    Today all the people who pushed mRNA deny the evidence they were wrong, thanks to Varki’s MORT, because to acknowledge reality would be too unpleasant to bear.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Hi there Rob,

                      Hope you are going well. In relative haste now due to pressing tasks but I just wanted to respond. In the gestalt to me that makes the most sense, there are layers and layers to how our world is run, like the proverbial onion. I have spoken of this before and maybe you will be able to revisit it again with your newer perspective. The level upon which most people understand reality is not the fullest picture, this we already know. If we can peel back the onion even more, we may discover further layers, much like security clearances, but the people or groups at this level and their agenda will most likely be hidden, on a need to know basis. This is a common enough stratagem of governance.

                      Let us dive a bit deeper since the rabbit hole is before us. Why not suppose there is an even higher level of command that indirectly or directly guides all the foundational workings of our global society?

                      Why is it too difficult to imagine just because no one has jumped out with a placard and spelled it out for us, which of course would defeat the whole purpose of a “hidden hand” that pulls all the strings.

                      Do we really know if the ones at that top level, who engineered that the virus be unleashed so we would be forced to take the mRNA vaccine, took the vaccine? In this scenario, we are all minions to those at the top, scientists, pharma, media, governments–all are pawns to be played to achieve the goal, and boy did they all do their job. The good and courageous doctors and scientists like Dr Malone and Maholtra, are also part of the unfolding scheme and gives the whole tableau more depth and colour. It only makes sense that there would be pushback happening as results aren’t exactly all rosy. As you can see, their urgency and righteousness go some far way to assuaging the awakening masses, and we can tread water for some time amongst the mistakes that were or weren’t made narrative. We may even be persuaded to let this all go as a learning experience, oh well, too bad it didn’t work but we all tried. We as a mass are pretty easy to predict and thus control, like you said, we’ve had generations of years of programming in every sphere, and money seems to be all we know to respond to, salivating like Pavlov’s dog. All the while, the game plan ticks steadily on. But this time, the scope is too overarching, the discrepancies are too large, what’s at stake too critical–we can try to explain everything away but the reason you are feeling doubt is because you know something just isn’t adding up, not to those who are aware that our very collapse is imminent.

                      I ask myself, isn’t all that is unfolding exactly what is needed to accomplish the goal of population reduction with least suffering, whilst demand destruction through war and economic collapse is addressing our energy deficit? And geopolitically countries are realigning themselves for the end game strategies.

                      I guess I just want to believe that someone or some ones are driving the bus, because there’s nothing else to hang on to now.

                      It just strikes me as ironic to the nth degree that we can imagine something like this being done (engineer a virus and/or therapy to reduce population without the masses being aware of the real agenda) but we cannot admit that it could already have been done.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. Is anyone driving the bus? That’s the key question.

                      I think we can explain what we observe without a bus driver. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a driver. I just haven’t found any evidence for a driver.

                      It’s interesting how we all default to beliefs that make us most comfortable. You want to believe there is a driver. I want to believe there isn’t a driver.

                      Although it seems there’s nothing that can be done about our predicament, I personally find great satisfaction from understanding what’s going on and why. I’d love to know if there is a bus driver.

                      Let’s keep looking for evidence on which belief is correct.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    3. Agreed Rob! I, too, love a good mystery and this is turning out to be the mother of them all. And whilst we keep our onion eyes peeled for evidence, let’s all keep singing “The wheels on the bus go round and round…”

                      Liked by 2 people

                2. That would be a good idea, provided the virus didn’t cause much suffering before killing the host. Perhaps that’s possible. I don’t think a rich, ahem, person would do it though; if only 50 million remain, he or she will have less opportunity to keep their lifestyle. And they’d have to be damn sure that they themselves were immune.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Exactly, I think that’s why some billionaires like Elon Musk promote having babies. A growing population is good for business!


    1. I thought this was recent but the text says it was recorded a year ago, even though it was released this month.

      Michaux seems to be hoping for technology to save us. Alpert said we can’t do much more than 600 million people living a medieval existence (unless we go well below the carrying capacity of a solar only world).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It may be even less than that because we no longer have old growth forests or rivers full of fish. At least the trees and plants will grow better with all that additional C02 and no more adding aerosols from pollution


    2. A nice effort from the organiser at University of Tasmania to bring Simon’s message to more people especially in our island state which purports itself to be a clean and green paragon, or at least on its travel brochures. Meanwhile, the main news here as of late is the approval of a $750 million football stadium so our state of 550,000 people can have its own team. Are we on the same planet??

      I am back in the subtropics for the winter and have been cleaning out the shed in which I live. A small but instructive incident brought a flash of understanding yesterday–a rather large colony of ants has taken up residence in a wall and I have decided that I prefer not to share my domicile with them. As soon as I made this decision, it was only too easy to start poisoning. As I watched the victims one by one circle around the drops of poisoned bait, I realised for a moment that they are individuals within their group and members of a very successful species, and I had to suppress any further tendency to anthropomorphisise (hey, that’s a pun!) But then it hit me that while I could imagine an ant’s suffering as the boric acid shuts down their digestive system, (but not before they feed others in their colony, thereby passing on the poison), and even though that suffering was deliberately caused by me, I did not have any emotional attachment or response for this particular colony of tens of thousands of ants, much less an individual ant.

      That is how we 8 billion humans are to one another. We can conceptualise suffering in another but it means something only because we can imagine it for ourselves. The further removed another human being is from our very limited circle of family, friends, and tribe, the less their suffering means to us and the less we are invested in relieving it. We cannot care for everyone in our towns, states, and country, not to the extent that we would go very far out of our way to help them, time after time, truth be told. We keep saying to one another how sad the ever mounting situations are, we might donate some money, but we cannot survive ourselves if we become emotionally and physically hijacked with the never-ending calls for help. We can agree that we feel emotionally charged when a family member is undergoing a difficult time, but whilst we may go through the platitudes of sympathy for victims of disasters in far away countries, the level of emotional angst pales in significance, if we even truly feel anything at all, in all honesty. We just cannot see them even though they are our own species; our village is not meant to be 8 billion with so many possibilities for endless suffering. Our social net may be upwards of several hundred, but what of the other 8 billion?

      So, I am now thinking that for the majority, mitigation of suffering in others, especially the great masses of other countries and cultures, is not a strong motivation for change, there just isn’t any visceral power in trying to imagine a future situation for anyone else other than our own closest kin. I suppose this part of the reason why some can even envisage nuclear war, perhaps to some people other human beings are as the ants are to me. If we are programmed genetically to care most for our own, then the majority of our species, especially the ones with power and resources, are not going to make any drastic changes that will jeopardise their own immediate survival and advantage, especially if they become aware of the longer term predicament. Our own survival is paramount when it comes to existential threats, the other becomes a source of competition. Take prepping for example. Are we stocking up for ourselves and our families or are we also thinking that we will welcome the hordes that will be knocking at our doors? Will we joyfully share our bounty or will we turn away even by force anyone that may take it? Heck, why should I even hoard anything, if I cared enough for the suffering and well-being of others I should have left more on the shelf for them!

      I am in strife, friends. I feel a very heavy weight that will never be lifted anymore until I can work out in my own mind and heart what it is I can do, be or become that will give some meaning and peace from now until my end. While I continue to labour assiduously at creating a space that may feed and shelter me and my family and all who find their way here, I know the greater task for me is the inner work. I do so much want to help relieve suffering, but now I more fully understand that I carry my own as long as suffering in others exists. What could change if we could really see all of us as one living connected organism, if we could really feel that the other is a part of our self? This is the main tenet of the Law of One by the way, different densities of being and dimensional shifts aside. Maybe it does take a spiritual catalyst for our particular species to rise above where we have gotten ourselves, so far it seems that it cannot be solved by either reason or denial.

      Namaste, friends.


      1. Very nice insights.

        It seems there are endless reasons for pessimism and no reasons for optimism that we might collectively move in a better direction. Which leaves, as you say, figuring out how to live with that reality and to enjoy what time remains.


      2. Hi Gaia. I appreciate your comment very much in that it reflects a lot of my thinking although you have told it in a much more eloquent way than I could. I also am faced with your ant dilemma more frequently than I’d like as they are prolific on our land.

        A few years ago I stumbled on this article describing the Monkeysphere which is.. “The group of people you conceptualize as individuals & can empathize with. All humans outside of it are more or less just a walking bag of flesh, blood & bones that just so happen to be the same species as you. The maximum number of people that can be kept in a monkeysphere is estimated to be around 150.”

        I think this is, in part, what you describe in your comment. It keeps coming up for me when talking to others about the lack of empathy for current and future suffering of others. It is my answer to a lot of “why” questions from people I know. It’s another reason that I think successful human society in the future, without the energy and resources to hold modern civilization together, will be bioregional and tribal.

        I hope your subtropical haven is an abundance of food this winter. Our food forest is starting to look more like we envisioned with tamarillo, macadamia nuts and feijoas being our first real bountiful harvests this autumn. We keep planting more with our ultimate goal, in betting on collapse coming, is to produce enough calories for family, friends, neighbours and the strangers who may turn up. And also some extras for the birds and ants 🙂


        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yeah, 150 keeps cropping up as the maximum community size for all sorts of things. Democracy, empathy, resource use. Human groups were probably no larger than this for almost all of the existence of that species.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Hello Rob and friends across the Tasman Sea,

          I was seeking another ship passing in the night and you answered the call by your kind and understanding response, thank you from the bottom of my heart.

          It is my privilege and delight to enlarge my monkeysphere to include so many fellow travellers who have gathered here on Rob’s blog; no matter our myriad persuasions we share some core ideologies that in reality make us closest kin. You are a source of strength and comfort just by bearing witness and seeking for your own truth but being able to share this blink of time is even more cause for gratitude and awe.

          Campbell, so pleased to hear of your harvests, both fruits of labour and of the spirit. How nature patiently teaches us that all things have a beginning, growth, and end. I am so proud of your hard work in your family’s food forest venture and take so much encouragement in your own conviction that we have responsibility to more than just ourselves. The perennial lesson from the sun and fruit trees is one that I strive to revise at every opportunity–they give freely to all and ask not in return.

          Mike, I appreciate your breakdown of us as a species like all others, but I like to believe that Homo sapiens has the consciousness to find our meaning and joy, whilst all other species just are and need nothing else for their perfection.

          Our own food forest here in the highland tropics has also started to really take off. We just had 200mm of rain over 3 days, probably why the ants are on the move. I arrived to custard apples, avocadoes, passionfruit, guavas, and lots of bananas, not too bad of a welcome fruit hamper! How are your bamboo going? We have one clump that has reached 30m in height, just stupendous! Every day I receive such bliss walking amongst all the trees but bamboo gives me a special thrill. To be able to convert sun energy with such vigour, soaring skyward as a rocket, what majesty and beauty is life! And we have been granted a life to know it.

          Namaste. All the best to you and your families.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I’d like to believe that humans are a special species too. But, like Rob finding no evidence of a driver, I’ve found no evidence that humans are not like all other species. Like other species, we just are.


            1. Hello Mike, hope you and your family are going well. Great to hear you’re getting back into the garden, too.

              I have missed the often witty comments from an erstwhile visitor to this site, do you remember Mandrake? I sure hope all is alright. Here I take his quote from where Rob keeps it on the sidebar; “That we party of apes could do this much damage in a mere 200 years is quite an accomplishment.” — Mandrake

              If that doesn’t quality us as a “special” species, I don’t know what could!

              Liked by 1 person

        3. Hi Campbell,

          Thank you so much for sharing that Monkeysphere piece, I know you flagged it before but this was the first time I read it through and perfect timing, too. It was much needed LOL fodder and describes exactly what I have been musing. I agree that sooner or later our globalised world will become village life again, but it will be different yet again because we can never really go back, can we? It makes me very happy to know that you and your family are nurturing the trees that will continue to feed your village for hopefully many moons to come. We are sharing that same intention here. It is already enough joy for me to have been able to plant the trees, for the benefit of all who come through, we are not speciesist here! We’ve got possums (and I know you do too, thanks to us), wallaby (somehow they keep getting through the fence) and fruit bats (can’t keep out creatures that can fly!), so why not open the place to some extra monkeys while we’re at it?


          Liked by 1 person

      3. I don’t envisage a spiritual catalyst. As I’ve said before, humans are a species. They are an interesting collection of atoms, like other species. They have similar drives to other species. It seems like some people have the awareness you hope for, it can never change what we are, as a species. It can be depressing, admittedly, but hoping for the impossible is not productive either.

        The trouble with humans is that they developed a brain that can make “good” use of their opposable thumbs. Whether they can seed a future species that can truly be a game changer is debatable. The mutations would always have to have immediate benefit to the relevant gene. I think I haven’t fully grasped this (not very unique) insight and perhaps that is just as well or I might have no will to carry on, just as I’m starting to have fun relearning gardening after letting my son do most of it over the last few years.


  32. Chuck Watkins is the most knowledgeable voice on the nuclear war threat I have encountered.

    He quit speaking in public a while ago because of threats to his safety.

    Looks like he is restarting his blog. He confirms what I have suspected that there is much more going on behind the scenes than our corrupt idiot news media reports on.

    I’m gonna buy more peanut butter.

    The last year has been incredibly stressful. Most of my work in recent months has been in the geopolitical realm (including interactions at levels that would horrify some), and by its very nature that has to be off the radar, especially in today’s political and media climate. I’d love to do a retrospective on how the world has changed over the last year, what I got right, what I got wrong (as well as how others missed the mark even worse). As I ranted on the old site, it has become impossible to have a civil discussion on any controversial topic without become a target for activists. If it were only on-line that would be one thing, but when it becomes physical threats, we have entered a very dangerous dystopia. Democracy, or even rational decision making, cannot exist in that environment.

    This has infected the highest levels of our society and government. When a senior government official says “I agree with you, but if I said that even in a private briefing I would get cancelled” we are in serious trouble. We are living in what is almost certainly the most dangerous period in human history. These problems won’t be solved with simplistic, cartoon depictions and jingoistic sloganeering, but by careful, rational analysis that includes a healthy dose of self-awareness. Please keep that in mind as this year unfolds.

    It’s likely to be a lot more “interesting” than we would like …

    Liked by 2 people

  33. “When we see the few truth-tellers who are the stars of their organizations jettisoned – Tucker Carlson from Fox News, Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone, Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept, James O’Keefe from Project Veritas… we must face the fact that there is an organized conspiracy to suppress truth.” — Paul Craig Roberts

    h/t JHK

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yeah,
      Sometimes I think Kunstler is crazy. But his recent support for RFK Jr. and his support for the truth-tellers makes me think he has some sanity left. As much as I have issues with Tucker Carlson (religious and appearing to be a climate “skeptic” he has done quite a bit of truth-telling to those who are not otherwise exposed to much truth.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah kinda the same here. Light snow and frost 1 week ago and yesterday 85 (although we had a few 75 days before that) and tomorrow back to 60 for 4 or 5 days. Our April was even worse than last year – probably rained about 22 or 23 days this month. The Northern Hemisphere jet stream has a much more sinusoidal pattern in recent years than the way it used to be, which was generally just east to west with out so much north/south variation.
      Makes gardening fun (sarcasm).

      Liked by 1 person

    2. same here! Very hot one day, very cold the next. I never know that’s normal or not though, because NZ is islands, we do get more variable weather


  34. A very thoughtful conversation with a UK MP who has spoken out against covid policies that tries to make sense of why the wrong decisions are being made at the same time in so many different countries.


  35. Superb interview of Dr. Aseem Malhotra by Joe Rogan on the deplorable unethical behavior of health care professionals.

    On mRNA:

    In my whole career I have never seen a drug with such poor effectiveness and such unprecedented harms. And people were coerced and mandated to inject this drug.

    Covid is the worst example but their unethical behavior goes far beyond covid.


  36. I found this to be an intelligent nuanced discussion of geopolitics and the Ukraine war.

    Not too much left vs. right or good vs. evil. Just counties doing what they think is in their best interests, and some leaders more intelligent than others.


  37. Even the best and most aware minds that analyze the economy are deeply in denial.

    They know something fundamental is broken and a crisis looms, and yet they simply can’t see the obvious: we’ve hit limits to growth.

    Liked by 1 person


    So we’re moving in the direction of the whole population developing some degree of immune system damage. Let’s say that’s happening, what would it look like?

    I don’t know, something like this perhaps?

    Of course most low IQ morons now live in denial and I’m fine with that because everything these morons tried as a solution made it worse. Your mass vaccination strategy was directly followed within months by a novel variant that led to constantly recurrent waves infecting the whole population that take down your immune system. I tried warning you and anyone with some basic knowledge of evolutionary biology should have been able to anticipate this. But morons are going to do moronic things.

    I will say, it is hilarious though how deeply the morons are in denial. When they sneeze it’s their allergies. When they cough their lungs out it’s their allergies too. And if they suddenly developed new allergies, to things they were never allergic to before, that means it’s working! Your constant headaches are completely normal too, as that’s just a normal part of the human condition (when there’s a neurovirulent sarbecovirus going around).

    With everyone dying “suddenly”, they notched down the projected life expectancy by half a year. Here’s what they had to say:

    “While deaths in 2020 and 2021 were clearly abnormally high due to the significant numbers of deaths seen during the first two Covid-19 waves, deaths in 2022 were persistently higher than pre-pandemic expectations through much of the year,” said Jonathan Hughes, chair of the CMI. “The CMI’s view is that these persistently higher than expected deaths may continue, as the underlying drivers appear likely to remain soon.”

    In regular English: Get used to dying proles. And if a scientific genius somewhere successfully “predicts” the next pandemic by passing an Ebola virus through humanized mice, we might just be able to ditch the whole outdated retirement concept altogether. Think of how much money that would save!

    This is what happens when you vaccinate everyone: It seems to work great at first, but in the long run it means everyone’s permanently stuck with an impoverished immune response to this virus. It’s reminiscent of how the Dutch city Rotterdam was faced with a homeless crisis after the war and hurriedly built some shoddy housing in response, ensuring we’d be stuck with miserable crime-ridden ghettos for decades to come. You have to get it right the first time. We didn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I read almost all of the comments in Linux Thunderbird’s News Feed. It doesn’t show the ‘quote bar’ seen above. With so many references to denial and morons, I initially thought the text was Rob’s.

      I followed the link to and recommend everyone “must read” the whole thing.

      Clearly there was gain-of-function and clearly genetic code from AIDS was inserted into the virus – the Chinese (and evil Fauci) knew this and it explains the extreme nature of the lock-down in China. A similar response here would (might) have been met with ‘vociferous demands’ for an explanation.

      Fauci is still walking around – so either there are no real patriots or they are distressingly inadequate.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Is this more evidence that someone is driving the bus or not? I can’t tell anymore, it’s just all too crazy and the fact it’s happening right now on our watch is more than a bit terrifying in a “finally here it is, our doom” way.

      Something else that is very disturbing, especially for the so-called Commonwealth nations. For the first time in history, the subjects of the British Empire are called upon to verbally swear allegiance to their King and successors, yes, even if you are watching in front of a TV, you are to recite the oath aloud at the appropriate time in the ceremony. It is not clear if you are to also kneel in front of the screen as well. Of course no one can enforce this but the fact this is scripted into the actual coronation ceremony strikes me as some ploy to try to increase tribal identification, or what do you think of it? Is it some new behavioural experiment? A reset of the programming in our brains to follow the leader, come hell or high water?

      Funnily enough, the next news segment was the PM of New Zealand declaring that he would like to see his country become a republic as soon as possible. Good onya. I daresay that Australia will soon follow, but we seem always to be the followers nowadays.


      1. I don’t know why anyone keeps using the term “as soon as possible” when what they really mean is “soon”. It would be possible for our PM to start the ball rolling on this but he won’t. So it is empty words. I certainly won’t be swearing allegiance to someone who got to his position due to being born as the first child of someone who held that same position.

        So there is zero chance of this happening soon in NZ, perhaps not before collapse becomes obvious. Australia could well get there first.


    3. I’m always skeptical of graphs like this. So I look for an attempt to explain the graph but I found nothing. It immediately occurred to me that the 2020 number may be misleading as, due to various lockdowns, restrictions and a high incidence of COVID19, the number should surely be higher? In 2021 and 2022, weren’t there restrictions about isolating for some number of days if COVID19 was contracted? There were plenty of cases in those years as fast spreading variants dominated. I would have thought more digging into the reasons would be employed before publishing the graph with only and assumed reason implied. There is much to examine with help and mortality but this sort of stuff gets us nowhere.


      1. Still waiting for you to name a single person that you personally vouch for that is super smart with impeccable integrity that goes deep into the data and concludes our covid policies were mostly correct.


          1. Your comment as usual did not address the main covid issue. Our leaders lied to us and their policies killed and harmed many more people than they helped. In addition they are still not investigating and prosecuting the source, nor taking steps to prevent a recurrence. I think deep down you still support our leaders and you look for oblique ways to say so.


            1. Rob, you’re making stuff up about me, which is disappointing. I was commenting on the graph you posted. To me, there are clearly oddities and reasonable explanations for the moves in the graph between 202o and 2022. The poster of that graph (which, admittedly, is an official graph) didn’t explore any of that.

              My support, or lack of it, for our so-called leaders is irrelevant to my comment. (I shouldn’t have to say this but I definitely don’t support everything our so-called leaders did.)


      2. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. I was mislead by the clip starting where it did, and by the references to “morons” (a common term used by a certain idiot on Gail Zverberg’s blog). The graph, still deserves examination but the article is not primarily (or doesn’t appear to be) about vaccination, though a part of it lays the blame for some issues on vaccines, without explaining.

        The piece appears to be about SARS-Cov-2 mucking up the immune system and decrying those who think long-Covid is a scam.

        Sorry about that, folks.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Ta. Oops, Z is about as far away from T as that idiot is from making sense. Apologies to Gail, but I agree with Rob, her tolerance of him and his followers ruins the comments section and makes one wonder why she allows it. It would be better if she turned off comments.

            Liked by 1 person

  39. I hope he wears a bullet proof vest.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In order for RFK to become president it would require far too many democrats to examine their beliefs. There is not a chance that is going to go very far. The US is beyond saving through policy it can only sail through the dire straits it has entered and wait to see what makes it out.


      1. I listened to the unHerd interview with RFK today. What a breath of fresh air to hear truth.

        I bitch a lot about the low quality of our leaders these days. If RFK loses we’ll know for certain the problem is low quality citizens, not low quality leaders.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Rob – You can’t be that naive to still believe that we live in a democracy and that voting works?

          It has been proven for decades that the gov, and just our gov, does not serve the interests of the people.

          Like most people in denial you seem to believe the only reason our government isn’t better is because the people have not elected the right leader. It doesn’t work even remotely like that.

          I love Jr. but he has ZERO chance of being elected or changing anything that matters. The US simply does not work that way. We would have to tear down the existing system and get rid of 90% of the career politicians first. We would have to start a massive movement, totally surround RFK Jr. with millions of supporters, follow him into office. and support him in changing everything. Not going to happen.


          1. I used to share your views on the US election system but then Trump was elected despite the elites, the deep state, and his own party opposing him.

            Whether or not a president has sufficient power to change the system once elected is a different question. Trump didn’t even try so it’s an open question.

            It’s true that no president can deliver some things citizens want, like for example improved standards of living, once fossil energy goes into terminal decline.


            1. Trump was not an example of gov or the voting process working. It was an example of how monumentally fed up with the system most people are. The problem is you can’t use the system to fix the system. Trump was hamstrung from the very beginning, every element of the system both left, right, and in between worked against him. No other prez in history has ever received more aggressive obstacles keeping him down. Not that he is smart enough to have done much anyway. What could have happened is if all of those who understand that it all needs to be torn down before you can do anything good surrounded him, followed him into office, protect him and advise him on what needs to happen, and make it all happen. Again not that trump knew or wanted to do what was needed but he did talk about cleaning the swamp, thats a good start but not nearly enough.

              My main point is there is no democracy, there is no leader of the nation and therefor the free world. I am so sick of Bernie supporters saying “I gave him a $100 and he didn’t save the world so fuck him”. People think that by checking a box or donating a few bucks they have done all they can to make the world a better place so now they can sit back with a clear conscience and go back to consuming copiously. BS!

              If we the people want change we get someone elected like Jr. and then we use him as a foot in the door then we swarm in and don’t leave until change happens.


  40. Very interesting interview by Nate Hagens of Dr. Robert Lustig. I learned a lot that was not in Lustig’s book Metabolical that I recently read.

    Yet more evidence that most health care professionals are incompetent.

    In this episode, Dr. Robert Lustig joins Nate to dive into the metabolism of the micro level of human systems – the humans ourselves. Over the last century, accompanying the transformation of our energy systems, our food and consumption patterns have been massively transformed. One of the biggest areas of change is the dramatic increase in sugar consumption. But are our bodies adapted to eating such high sugar, processed foods? What are the health effects connected to this way of eating? And, writ large, how does our metabolic dysfunction as individuals contribute to the energy hungry global Superorganism? What are the systemic drivers that currently prevent a shift towards healthier food systems? Can changing how we eat make us healthier – and thus better equipped to face the complex challenges of the metacrisis?

    About Robert Lustig:

    Robert H. Lustig, M.D., M.S.L. is Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, and Member of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at UCSF. Dr. Lustig is a neuroendocrinologist, with expertise in metabolism, obesity, and nutrition. He is one of the leaders of the current “anti-sugar” movement that is changing the food industry. He has dedicated his retirement from clinical medicine to help to fix the food supply any way he can, to reduce human suffering and to salvage the environment. Dr. Lustig graduated from MIT in 1976, and received his M.D. from Cornell University Medical College in 1980. He also received his Masters of Studies in Law (MSL) degree at University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 2013. He is the author of the popular books Fat Chance (2012), The Hacking of the American Mind (2017), and Metabolical: The Lure and the Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition, and Modern Medicine (2021).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. They conclude with Lustig saying that the amygdala is central to our over consumption problem and that bad food also plays a role here.

      I note that Dr. Varki hypothesizes the mutation for our genetic tendency to deny unpleasant realities will be found in the amygdala.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Lustig made an interesting point about probiotics, where only one dose should be needed, if it was efficacious. It seems reasonable but I must admit that taking a strong probiotic daily did help myself and my wife get over the side-effects of dying candida as we strictly followed a diet to kill it off. We were just feeling drained each day but the probiotics got rid of that feeling.


  41. Dear fellow un-deniers. You will probably enjoy this critical debate between de-growthers and green-growthers in New Zealand. The debate features the very much not in denial Mike Joy and Sahra Kress. Now these are the types of debates we need to be having:

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Nice to see people starting to debate the most important issue.

        I skimmed it and may have missed the bit where someone explains that despite all the reasons we’d like growth to continue, degrowth is not a choice and will begin soon, and that 6 billion people are going to die horrible deaths as oil depletes so we need to focus on population reduction policies.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Growthers (most of us) just ignore the limits. I’m sure that the graphs shown are spurious, also. Decoupling is garbage as is the idea that growth lifts people out of poverty (or, in the growth advocate’s language, such that they can afford a cheap cup of coffee each day – but nothing else). I recall a special issue of New Scientist that thoroughly debunked the notion that a rising tide lifts all boats.

      Degrowth is necessary and inevitable. It would be better if degrowth happened in a planned way but I’ve yet to find any description of how that would look in our societies. Vague policies of reducing unnecessary production tell me nothing. What does life look like in a degrowth world? What are companies, what are jobs, how do banks work, is there any lending, are there any billionaires or even millionaires? I’ve searched for such explanations but have come up blank so far.

      If it can’t happen in a planned way, the unplanned way certainly won’t look pretty.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I agree.

        For me the core degrowth issue is the monetary system. Growth permits us to use a debt backed fractional reserve monetary system which in turn permits citizens to consume much more than they produce. The fact that de-growthers almost never discuss the core issue is, for me, one of the most important examples of genetic reality denial. They discuss everything except what matters, because what matters, is extraordinarily unpleasant.

        Liked by 2 people

  42. Gail Tverberg today with refined predictions.

    (c) With failing banks and a cutback in trade between regions, the US dollar will cease to be used as a reserve currency for a large part of the world. The US dollar might still be the reserve currency for some trades, particularly with other countries in the Americas.

    (d) I expect that a block of countries will eventually coalesce, centered in Asia, that will mostly trade among themselves. China will probably be the leader of this block.

    (e) The US and Europe will mostly be pushed off to the side, to trade among themselves and some geographically close neighbors. These areas may need to set up new financial systems using much less debt. These countries will not be able to produce advanced goods, such as computers, by themselves. They will not be able to build new solar electricity generation or new wind turbines because too much of the supply chain will be out of reach. While these countries have been looking at digital currencies, it is not clear that there will be a stable enough electricity supply to make such currencies possible.

    (f) There will probably be war at the time of the division into the two (or perhaps more) trading areas. Nuclear weapons may be involved since there are many countries with nuclear weapons. The supply of conventional weapons available for warfare is depleted, with the ongoing war in Ukraine. According to a study done at Harvard, involving 16 cases in which a major rising power challenged an existing major power over the past 500 years, 12 cases ended in war. This analysis would suggest a 75% likelihood of war.

    (g) I don’t know what the timing of all these things will be. Bank failures are just beginning. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the world economy holds together a while longer.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Covid broke most of my few close relationships with friends and family.

    Some explicitly because I blew up, and some implicitly because they withdrew from an anti-vaxxer, or because I no longer want anything to do with someone too stupid or too blind to see the crimes.

    I vacillate between sadness over the consequences of my unwillingness to go along with my tribe, and righteous anger over the stupidity and criminality that killed millions and harmed hundreds of millions.

    A couple days ago Karl Denninger wrote an excellent recap of the covid crimes. When I read articles like this by really smart aware articulate people I’m happy to spend the balance of my life alone.

    I don’t like spilling this particular well of digital ink, but I must.

    I have only a certain amount of fact to work with, and at a given point must extrapolate. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last three years on the coof, mostly because “the authorities” deliberately hid said facts from examination and, in the case of medical personnel, lied through their teeth.

    Extrapolation is dangerous, and thus I try to label it as such when I am forced to use it. There were two early incidents that pointed to the hazards: Diamond Princess and Kirkland.

    A cruise ship is one of the most-morbid, elderly and obese examples of humanity when looked at from a demographic basis you’re going to find among people who are still living independently. Further, anyone who’s followed the news knows that norovirus rips through those ships like nobody’s business and that is a fecal/oral bug that makes people obviously and violently ill (out both ends) so there’s no hiding it if you get it. When you think about that its remarkable; someone who has it must get it on their hands – having emitted it out their ass and then deposit it somewhere you touch it, then you must get into your mouth or nose. In other words its a lot harder than simply “breathing”, yes, you have to literally eat shit to get infected (the same is true for polio) and yet these sorts of viruses are some of the most-easily transmitted of all. That this outbreak on Diamond Princess, along with early study work in acute-care hospitals showed active Covid virus in the bathrooms and yet not on tray tables where breath obviously would impact them gave lie to the idea very rapidly that this virus was only a “droplet or aerosol” transmitted thing. Never mind the MIT studies and others that found virus in municipal sewage flows. Obviously, if infected, the virus is emitted out your ass.

    For what should also be obvious reasons a mask not only won’t help against such a bug it will probably make it worse because you are more likely to touch your face with one on in order to adjust its position, scratch the irritation it produces and similar, never mind that if you doff one to consume food or beverage the odds are extremely high you will contaminate your hands, the table and other surfaces or both and thus will increase transmission rather than interdict it. I pointed this out at the time including in print here and in public appearances at our local County Commission hearings. For this reason and our known experience with this virus on cruise ships they don’t try to tell you to wear masks when norovirus outbreaks happen — instead they run around with spray bottles full of diluted bleach solution and spray the hell out of anything people touch. That does appear to help — sort of.

    Kirkland was taken out of context as well. Yes, its true that the virus ripped through that place and killed a huge percentage of the residents. But as I pointed out at the time the average survival time in a nursing home from admission is six months! For everyone who languishes for a couple of years and doesn’t recognize their grandson (my Grandfather, for example) there’s someone who goes in there and thuds in a week. When Kirkland happened I put forward a lock in the staff and residents policy suggestion, putting RVs in the parking lot if you have to and forbidding anyone in or out who hasn’t had the virus and can’t prove antibodies to it, thus reducing (by a lot) the risk of it getting into such places. This would have resolved itself in about six months had we left things otherwise alone and people would have had to rotate “in and out” on staff. That would have been a hell of a challenge as you’d have to pay people quite a bonus to work under those conditions but it would have resolved a very large part of the problem. Instead we let governors, hospitals and others literally butcher elderly people by discharging them while knowing they had Covid back into those nursing homes and the workers all left at the end of their shift and then brought it back in the next day with them. You couldn’t have come up with a more-effective way to kill the people in those places short of a mass-shooting or a crazy arsonist with a five-gallon can of gasoline. Not one person was charged with manslaughter for this out of the tens of thousands who should have been for that debacle.

    We were next told after Henry Ford proved HCQ had a large benefit in mortality that it was worthless. Not only wasn’t it worthless CMS (Medicare) knew it worked or every single person using it routinely for Lupus, a serious autoimmune disorder, would have been dead within six months and they’re weren’t and still aren’t. Two minutes with an SQL query on their database that contains all medical records for everyone on Medicare would have either proved or disproved this association immediately and conclusively, and since the size of that sample is monstrously large there would be no arguing with the statistical power. It was never done — deliberately.

    Much worse, the abuse Henry Ford took for publishing their study shut up everyone else in the medical field who found working answers. Specifically a small palliative care hospital in North Carolina tried Hydroxyurea in early 2020 in patients who had been transferred there to die in order to make room for other covid patients and saved nearly 100% of them with all of them being discharged in the same cardio-pulmonary state they were in before they got sick. This was never registered as a clinical trial or followed-up despite the first batch of people they tried it on being 100% effective, and through time being roughly 90% effective. These were all people who had been written off as dead with several already on ventilators; saving even one in ten would be considered a medical miracle and they saved nearly all of them with a cheap drug that cost about $20. Literally nobody was told about this, it was never written up in the media or anywhere else and it was more than two years after they used it before an article hit the medical press where I could find it.

    The intentional suppression of this success was deliberate and is why most of those who died after the first couple of months did so; statistically zero of those people should have died.

    While Ivermectin has some controversy over its effectiveness budesonide does not. A study out of South America showed, once again, nearly 100% effectiveness. A doctor in Texas discovered this in the US and he had zero deaths as well. As an inhaled steroid it is quite potent in the lungs but has very little systemic effect — which is good, as systemic effects from steroids can be nasty (ask anyone who’s ever been prescribed prednisone.) I can personally vouch for it working as I sourced it months in advance and used it myself when I got Covid and starting to develop lung involvement. The immediate, within 12 hours, halt of progression was dramatic, my O2sat returned to normal within 24 hours and without question was directly caused by said use. That drug has a long history of being used as a maintenance drug by asthmatics and thus acute use of this sort (I used the dosing from the South American study) carries very little risk — this guided my willingness to “experiment on myself” — successfully so. This too was buried and someone I knew here and who knew I had the stuff didn’t tell me they’d gotten ill several months later — they instead went to the hospital and were filled with Remdesivir, their kidneys failed, a known side effect of Remdesivir, and they died. I am absolutely convinced that had he called me and sucked on that inhaler to the tune of three puffs morning and night in a couple of days he would have been fine instead of six feet underground.

    In short we had four drugs, one of which carried very serious risks but in people deathly ill saved almost all of them. They were, in order of risk:

    – Ivermectin, almost 100% safe (significant adverse event risk of 1 in 600,000 and used over 30+ years for mass-prophylaxis and treatment against river blindness.) Plenty of controversy as to whether it works but being safer than Tylenol which we do tell people to take for the fever explain why you wouldn’t use it given that safety profile even if it only has a tiny — say, 5% — impact on outcomes?

    – HCQ, almost 100% safe except in persons with a prolonged Qt interval (existing cardiac trouble), used for decades in people with Lupus and thus with a very well-understood safety profile. Henry Ford showed a fifty percent reduction in mortality when using it only in people who were already sick enough to show up at the hospital, which we now know is in fact likely too late.

    – Budesonide, an inhaled steroid that is extremely safe and formerly routinely used as a maintenance drug in persons with asthma. I can attest it was immediately effective — within 12 hours — in reversing lung progression in my case. There is no reason to use it until and unless the infection gets into your lungs, but if it does from my personal experience it works and very rapidly so.

    – Hydroxyurea, used for sickle-cell disease, rather nasty risk of side effects but nearly 100% effective in those with advanced Covid that was threatening to kill said person.

    Between these four, all of which are cheap, off-patent drugs and all of which were known to work to some degree by June of 2020 statistically zero percent of those who got it should have died and there was no need for any sort of jab at all — in anyone. All four were either buried, attacked, discredited and claimed to be worthless and even dangerous — all lies.

    What’s even worse is that as soon as Omicron showed up we knew it was not a mutation from any of the previous-known strains but did have a common ancestor several years back. This in turn validated my original hypothesis from February and March of 2020 when the first sequences were published that showed a pair of adjacent genes that do not occur in nature for any virus or other thing that infects and grows in humans or either of the claimed predecessors, and is commonly used in viral research for that exact reason. This all-but-proved the original strain came from a laboratory; my original hypothesis, I remind you, was that they were working on a vaccine candidate and it got out.

    When Omicron showed up in the wild complete with another round of hysteria from the usual usual suspects it led to the obvious question: Did China intentionally light a backfire with an earlier, much-less-pathogenic version they happened to have laying around from said work and which naturally immunized most of Asia and Africa, all before jabs went into arms?


    But to admit this is to demonstrate that the lab in Wuhan and the CCP was responsible for the virus in the first place (even though the evidence is overwhelming that is the case, simply on those two adjacent base pairs that never happen in nature), it implicates both the US (NIH and Duke) and Ecohealth as both were involved and there is hard documentation in the public domain proving that and thus there’d be plenty of people wanting (and possibly willing to make happen) lots of folks to twist on the end of a rope for the entire mess including the economic and educational carnage — justly so. In addition this also points to deliberate malfeasance at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead bodies in not intentionally inoculating the population here with Omicron before it got here naturally and which we knew we couldn’t prevent; had we done so it would have cut off the outbreak here as well by outcompeting it.

    Oh, and incidentally, Africa is one of the least-jabbed group of nations and has a near-zero death rate, with Asia right behind them albeit with several nations in Asia highly jabbed so objectively that “backfire” worked, didn’t it?

    The US-used jabs were touted as “safe and effective” by both Trump and Biden, never mind the pharmaceutical and medical industries. We now know that the data from Pfizer’s own trials showed that for every one person who the jabs saved from dying of Covid four fatal heart attacks occurred that did not happen in the placebo arm. In other words the jabs killed four times more people than they saved by Pfizer’s own trial data. We also know again from Pfizer’s own data that an utterly-ridiculous complication rate arose in pregnant women who were given the shot. This isn’t my extrapolation or guess, its Pfizer’s own data from their own trials which they tried to keep under seal for fifty years and failed and what’s worse both Pfizer and Moderna, in possession of this data then intentionally destroyed the placebo group two months in and by doing so deliberately prevented any differential analysis on a forward, continuing basis.

    Never mind that The FDA itself knew in September of 2021 the jabs not only didn’t work they made it MORE likely to get Covid, not less and worse, in that study group the only severe cases were among the vaccinated. The Cleveland Clinic study confirmed this, by the way, and that’s among a huge group of health-care workers who all had access to excellent medical care and testing, which removes one of the major confounding issues (access and rigor in application of process) when studying large, diverse populations.

    That’s why those of you who took the stabs have gotten the virus repeatedly and, by the data, are more-likely to get hammered too.

    We are now seeing all manner of other serious medical problems at materially-elevated rates — not just cardiac trouble. Cancer rates from types of cancer that are normally very rare appear to be much higher, for one and people are being diagnosed with wildly-aggressive cancers that typically do not behave this way and among those who are honest in the medical field they know damn well these events are occurring in those who were jabbed and not those who refused.

    Early in 2022 I said that from the data I had available I expected about 3 percent, or one in 33, of the people who took the shots to get seriously screwed in some form — meaning permanent impairment or worse.

    Unfortunately that appears to be a lower boundary at this point, and from the continuing data it now appears the real number is closer to five percent rather than three.

    No, not all of those people will die – not even close. But there are things worse than a quick, relatively-painless death such as a heart attack and it appears that if you took these jabs you’re at a significantly-increased risk of them happening to you. Said risk, while relaxing some is not going away even though uptake of continued “boosters” has fallen to near-zero.

    That’s bad as we do not know how long that impact will last.

    Unfortunately this saga has underlined a fact that I have repeatedly had demonstrated to me over my years all the way back to when I ran MCSNet: The medical system does not give a shit about anything except money. It is not that they’re trying to kill you: They simply don’t care if you die provided they get paid, and their rating of what they should do is simply a monetary decision with zero regard for whether it works, doesn’t work or even harms or kills you provided the money flows.

    It was not always this way but as the medical and pharmaceutical beast has grown from about 4% of the economy to roughly 20% it has become a vorpal monster that knows damn well any interruption in its food source means it dies, and thus it follows the prime directive of any organism: Don’t starve. All other considerations are secondary and if they get in the way of the first will be deliberately obfuscated, buried and discarded.

    We, the people, have allowed this — first by not demanding people go to prison when the DTP vaccine was proved to have been responsible for injuries and deaths as a direct result of poor manufacturing quality control (that’s called negligent manslaughter by the way) with the NCVIA which the “conservative” favorite Patron Saint Reagan signed and nobody has taken on and gotten rid of since, our refusal to demand criminal indictments for wild-eyed violations of 15 USC Chapter 1 that now extend forty years beyond which the Supreme Court ruled that indeed it applies and then the PREP Act, signed by that evil bastard George W. Bush (who personally shielded Saudi Arabian citizens from just consequences for acting as funding conduits for the attacks on 9/11 and which, I remind you, killed 3,000 Americans) in 2005 which gave the Executive authority to not only slaughter you like pigs intended for bacon but pay bounties for your dead body rather than only paying for success.

    Let me know when you’re all tired of these assholes killing you; even before Covid the bastards in the medical system were, by their own data and admission, responsible for over 100,000 dead American bodies a year due to malfeasance and misfeasance — a total four times, roughly, higher than that of criminal homicide and you become willing to force them to stop — one way or another. They care so little for you that they don’t even wash their fucking hands with soap and water before examining you — and after examining the last person they touched. Don’t give me any bullshit about that not being real either as I have personally seen this in pre-op and ripped said “doctor” a new, 3′ wide asshole for it, forcing him to do so before examining an 80+ year old woman, my mother, who he might have otherwise killed.

    The fact of the matter is that given the last 40 years of data until you will force them to stop they won’t stop no matter who is in office and in fact the rate of said homicides will continue to accelerate due to their utter disregard of all except one thing: MONEY.

    And at the same time let me make something crystal clear that I’ve brought up before: Nobody, and I do mean nobody — not one person — has apologized to me for being completely full of crap in regard to any part of what they advocated for and pushed others to do, including by force, over the last three years. That applies to masks (worthless except possible for N95s for PERSONAL protection, as I pointed out originally and now stated by Fauci himself) and especially jabs and the demand for sanctions, from excluding those who refused from businesses, personal lives and even expecting and calling for imprisonment.

    My use by date for accepting an apology from any and all of those individuals is well in the rearview mirror by now. If you were or are one of those people I not only charge you personally with the million deaths in America I also charge you with your continuing personal culpability for what is an incoming collapse of both the medical system and federal government.

    If you need said system in the coming months and years — that’s just tough crap because its not going to be there and you, personally, are directly responsible for why its going to happen.


    1. Insightful comment to above essay by Abelardlindsey:

      The political class drove the clot shot bus off the cliff by early ’22 despite having ample opportunity to take the off-ramp in spring of ’21. They are now doing the same thing over Ukraine, which appears to be entering an end-game. Its the same pattern repeating itself.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I read Denninger every day. He is spot on about the Covid insanity and his rage is righteous. He also has good points on the economic insanity of our leaders and where that is leading. But he has a good bit of denial also. He is convinced Climate Change is a hoax (he “knows” there has been no warming) and doesn’t see overshoot. But on Covid he has been correct.


      1. Ivor Cummins also thinks climate change is a hoax.

        I wonder if some bright people conclude climate change is a hoax because all of the “solutions” proposed by our leaders obviously won’t work and so if they’re wrong on the solution they’re probably also wrong on diagnosing the problem.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yeah, I thought that too. I also think that those denying climate change look at all the proponents of drastic action and see so much hypocrisy that they conclude it’s all fake. Look at Al Gore, jetting all over the world; or Obama buying a beach house on Martha’s Vineyard. Have to live like you believe it’s happening. Even thought I have too many kids. I have not traveled out of my local area in 7 years. Haven’t taken a plane in over 10. Try not to drive to town more than once a week. Maybe it’s all meaningless posturing? One can only do so much.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Rintrah with a different spin on climate change denial. Also discusses a new negative feedback loop that may reduce the damage. Oh, and all that plastic we dumped in the ocean may prove to be an asset.


            If you want to befriend low status white males, your best shot tends to be launching your own esoteric climate change theory. And I should know. Trust me, I’ve been looking at this problem for the past two decades of my life, spending almost half of those years convinced there is no problem. But all the theories I ran into were disappointing and easily debunked. I had to jump from one theory to another, until in a moment of lucidity, I realized that if none of these theories hold up for very long (remember “it hasn’t warmed since 1998”?) then maybe the dominant narrative is just genuinely correct.

            I’m not overly fond of humans as I see how humans treat animals, but nature has a special place in my heart. And so in a sense, the refusal of low status white males to accept that Gaia is dying has a hidden sense of nobility to it. As satan-worshipping pedophiles fly in private jets to Davos, Joe Sixpack from West Virginia, a retired coalminer, spends his days visiting obscure blogs to find the final piece of evidence that global warming is a hoax.


  44. Nate did a very nice job on his annual earth day talk.

    His tone is very somber. He probably thinks the great simplification is close.

    Nate was brave enough to address Ukraine war propaganda but not covid propaganda and crimes. It’s odd given how covid has destroyed faith in the institutions he hopes will bend rather break.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Two years ago after not reviewing any of the evidence the Australian government banned the use of Ivermectin.

    Now 2 years later they have decided to permit the use of Ivermectin.

    What changed? All the people that Ivermectin could have helped are dead.

    Death sentences for our health care leaders would be too kind.


  46. Tim Watkins today on the coming food shortages.

    My personal belief is that food will be the central issue in the coming simplification, because food shortages will impact everyone, including those outside of the war zones.

    In the UK, you would have to go back to the sixteenth century to find the last time the people were able to grow all of their food. And the population was less than a tenth of what it is today. Worse still, while almost everyone knew something about growing food in those days, almost none do today – and that includes the many who think they do but who would be lost without the same fossil fuel-derived chemicals that the giant agricorporations rely upon.

    As with all of the crises now breaking over us, it would have been best if we had heeded the warnings in the 1970s when the first overt signs of a civilisational collapse could be seen. Instead, we embarked on the four decade long neoliberal debt binge which has left us ill-prepared to face the coming shortages. It is still theoretically possible to mitigate at least some of what is coming by switching to localised organic and regenerative farming. But because organic yields are initially far lower than can be achieved with fossil fuel derived fertiliser, the less time we have to make the switch, the greater the shortages are going to be.

    Many people, including Watkins, believe that organic regenerative agriculture, in time, can be as productive as agriculture with diesel tractors, combines, trucks & ships + natural gas fertilizer + oil based greenhouse plastic + oil based irrigation pipes, valves, & pumps + fossil energy based refrigeration + coal based steel for all of the above.

    I work on a small organic farm and I’ve also studied the history of agriculture. I don’t think these claims are true.

    If I’m right, and I think I am, we’d be really wise to put in place population reduction policies.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. As I am in the throws of spring overwork (getting up at 3:30 a.m. because the chickens need to be out by 5) on the gardens, I can relate. Putting out all my recycled drip lines (fossil fuel based plastics). And I can’t depend on them entirely so I have to spot water with a watering can. No rain starts soon and that means going from drenching downpours to 3 months without water from the sky. (and attendant fire worries). Every day I think about how dependent I am on fossil fuel and how no one I know grows as much as I do and how little of my food I actually grow (squash, corn, beans, peas, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers). The fruit trees planted 20 years ago provide apples and pears (but the bugs get 50% or more). Without the grocery store I would starve. The people around me are in for a bad time in collapse (luckily I’ll be dead;) ).

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Nearly 12 months ago I went full carnivore. I have spent years slaving away in the vege garden. It’s actually a relief to know that i don’t need to eat veges to be healthy. It’s a lot easier to grow a sheep or cow than a potato.
        I also stopped brushing my teeth as I figured that in the absence of carbs my teeth should be fine. I’ll let you know how that works out if we still have internet in 10 years. Hunter gathers never cleaned their teeth and rarely suffered decay.
        My beliefs on a whole bunch of shit has done a 180 over the last two years, especially with regards to diet.
        Here’s a few things I believe now (and I fully reserve the right to change my mind)
        Sugar is dead set poison.
        Unprocessed carbs aren’t that much better.
        Humans primary metabolic state in a wild setting would be one of ketosis.
        A whole host of diseases are a direct result of our diet and lifestyle (mostly diet).
        For most of human history humans filled a similar ecological niche as lions. This is especially true in Australia where the only native apex predators went extinct shortly after the arrival of humans.
        Red meat is not carcinogenic. The studies making this case are flawed.
        There’s no such thing as sustainable agriculture.
        Grain based agriculture has completely destroyed whole ecosystems.
        Meat based agricultural/pastural systems have completely destroyed whole ecosystems.
        Because there’s no such thing as sustainable agriculture the world won’t be able to support 600 million peasant farmers for long.
        Everywhere on the planet is in a state of overshoot. Even places like Tasmania, New Zealand and British Columbia.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. NZ has very poor soils. We also lack nutrients that are essential for humans, like selenium and boron. I think the way pre-Maori would have got around this is eating lots of seafood and seaweed. But our oceans are quite depleted around our islands now 😦 A healthy migratory bird population is essential for distributing phosphorus around the globe. But this is a group of wildlife that are struggling the most in modern civ.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I agree sugar is very bad. I’m still holding to my sugar free diet. Since starting Feb 25 I’ve had only 2 sugar desserts as treats. I do have a few pieces of dried fruit after most meals. I feel good and have no idea if it’s true but imagine the fat on my liver slowly melting away.

          I’m pretty sure I could be healthy on a meat/eggs/fat/dairy only diet. Also pretty sure I would be unhealthy on a mainly carbs diet.

          I expect meat to become scarce and even more expensive when SHTF so I’m learning to stretch meat with soups and stews loaded with high fiber veg and grains. I eat very little food made from flour and have cut back on white rice in favor of brown.

          I’ve discussed a little with the owners of the farm I help what we would do if inputs become unavailable. They think livestock will be required but have not yet started down that road. We had egg chickens when I started but they were a money loser given organic feed costs and a pain in the ass to keep out of the vegetables plots which caused hygiene concerns.

          I agree 600 million will be difficult to feed without diesel and fertilizer and plastic.

          At 8 billion we’re not even in the ball park of what’s possible.

          Every day I find it amazing that we can’t even discuss the most important problem we face.


          1. I know that I can only eat the way that I do because of luck and privilege. I couldn’t afford it if I didn’t have a farm. It costs me $2kg to have my meat slaughtered by the local mobile butcher. Nothing but the imput costs if I do it myself.
            My theory is that humans moved from carnivory to omnivory because meat became expensive (ie scarce). It became scarce because we went into overshoot. We’ve been in overshoot for millennia.
            My current understanding is that our bodies ability to digest carbs is just a hangover from when we were apes. Every other part of our biological make-up is that of a carnivore. The sizs of our small intestines. Our stomach pH. Our tiny appendix which we don’t even need. Our long history of exterminating megafauna. Crooked teeth are a direct result of not eating chewy meat when we’re young and developing. Hunter gatherers don’t have cooked teeth.
            It all strongly points to an animal that’s carnivorous. That’s unpleasant for a lot of people. Hence denial.
            The tragedy of St Mathews Island could have been averted if wolves were introduced.
            Humans are at the end of the day just an animal and for millennia we filled a vital role in the web of life controlling large herbivores numbers. Then we got into agriculture and lost the plot. Then we invented computers and went totally insane.


            1. The main constraint to achieving the goal of every gene to become two genes is energy. Cultivated grains were the first jump into overshoot. Then coal, oil, and natural gas took us into hyper-overshoot. If those genes happen to create an intelligence high enough to understand the overshoot threat they need other genes to deny the threat so that their goal is not impeded.


    2. If (and given the amount of lies I was subjected to in recent years, that has now become a big IF for me) the official information we are provided is correct, then I agree with you: no “sustainable agriculture” can be as productive (in the short term that is) as our destructive modern agriculture (because it really is a mining operation: it is eating capital from the soil, both living and inert)
      For instance the consensus says the population of the Americas before the Europeans was around 50 millions to be compared to 1 billion today ( So the reduction would have to be 20-fold! Still, as everything, this is a highly political piece of knowledge. Since a low indigenous population proves the superiority of the European culture and ways (at least for such a culture which believes it’s best having it the biggest possible).

      Maybe, we should look at the problem the other way too. I’d really like to know, irrespective of technique, what is the maximum plant mass productivity that the sun can yield for a year on the planet. And how much of that can be sustainably harvested for humans?
      The rest is just techniques, and they would vary from place to place. I personally am on the team which thinks nothing can beat nature’s productivity in the long run. Because it integrates all externalities by design and it had so much time to evolve. It’s easy to say industrial farming is efficient when you overlook all the damage it does to some other part of the living system. Also, most, if not all, of us have really never witnessed the true power of nature: I believe with our preconceived ideas, interventions and recipes, we greatly reduce and limit it. We don’t really know what it, built over the years, can produce, because our main method of farming consists in coming back to ground zero every year. So we don’t know what diversity, symbiosis and capitalization could achieve.
      Here are some things which could be pieces of the puzzle too:
      * there are lots of deserts which we could turn into forests
      * landrace gardening (seeds are like AI, without the outrageous energy cost: they adapt and have a greater potential than we think)
      * going away from cereals into more resilience through diversity: fish, nuts, mushrooms…
      Anyway, the good thing about this is that we don’t need to wait for a central power to make its decision or everyone to agree on an policy. Each of us can start right now, at his own scale and pace.
      This is an example of what is pretty inspiring to me:

      For now, there are still fossil fuels in the ground, most live in cities inefficient lives, people could be more spread out, we are far from 99% of the population working on the field. So there are maybe still possibilities to go gradually…

      Japan’s population has already started its decline. The median age is 48 years old. Life expectancy is higher than in the United States, and not going down yet. Estimates of population before Meiji restoration vary, but if we use 12 million, then the reduction has to be 10-fold. If we can’t do better than medieval Japan, and fossil fuels are out in 50 years, then this means a decline of 4,5% per year. Ouch!
      To me this means two things:
      – there is going to be a short and brutal event at some point (it won’t be 4,5% per year, rather 50% or 90% at some point, and 0,5%, 1% the rest of the time)
      – people won’t (want to) see it coming (because it is so major and at this point unavoidable). In any case, it is probably very hard to predict if this is just around the corner or 20 years from now.

      Maybe I am completely out of touch with reality (about the lifespan of fossil fuels, the target population, our ability to grow food, our ability to live without food…). Let me know.


  47. I don’t have anything new to say that I or someone else hasn’t already said.

    I’m also a little stressed expecting something big and bad to happen soon.

    Anyone out there have anything they’d like to say in a guest post?

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Dr. John Campbell is back after being banned from YouTube for a week for interviewing an elected UK MP and discussing covid facts.

    Today he reviews increased excess mortality in most western countries and wonders why our health authorities and news media are silent on the issue.

    I’d like to see all-cause mortality data for vaxxed vs. un-vaxxed but that critical data is conveniently unavailable.

    Liked by 2 people

  49. A new interesting discussion with Simon Michaux on peak oil etc.

    Covers many topics I have not previously heard him discuss, including his belief that the US is already in an undeclared unconventional war with some entity that is destroying US food infrastructure.


    1. Again, Simon is spot on. It will be interesting to see the video of the conference where he gives his talk (if there is a debate between the participants?).


  50. 1) MORT caused us to use government debt to deny limits to growth
    2) too much government debt created inflation
    3) inflation created higher interest rates
    4) higher interest rates are now breaking banks and soon governments

    Someone in the US government must understand that energy is at the core of the problem because they are still selling oil from the SPR despite a probable global war.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wolf Richter explains that prior to 2008 when conventional oil peaked (although he doesn’t draw this connection) it was normal for the Fed’s interest rate to exceed inflation. After 2008 it has been the opposite, including today. This means that despite the current rate breaking banks and wall street, rates are still not high enough and are in fact fueling more inflation.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. As financial commentors go, Wolf Richtor is usually pretty good. But like most commenters, even the good ones, he has intuitions. “I get the distinct feeling …” He might be right here. I don’t know. But I don’t think he has working MODEL of how the world human system or economy works. He just has an intuition based on mental constructs in his ~3lbs, 1,274 cubic centimeters of brain matter.

        Does the Federal Reserve have a model? The systems they show publicly at least don’t have things like energy and mineral resources in it, nor is it global. The Australian economist Steve Keen has model with energy I think, but I have not looked at it. Dr. Morgan at Surplus Energy Economics has his SEEDS model, with the cost of energy in energy terms central to its input and output.

        The cost of oil in energy terms at least is probably a good proxy for the Limits to Growth World 3 model. Some say W3 is still the best model of where we are, where we are going, from a physical system viewpoint. But W3 does not directly say anything about money and finance.

        Recently, a financial advisory firm contacted me to pitch their services. I thought, what the heck, let’s see what they say. I spent an hour reviewing. Their internal process for monitoring asset market dynamics is very sophisticated. They have quants from physical sciences on their team, doing analysis etc. But their system has nothing about the real physical world, and their system assumes the current economic system continues forward around a constant growth up-trend, albeit with perturbations up and down around that trend.

        So, my little mental quandy to think over this week. Does a firm of ~30 smart people with sophisticated software running on expensive computers have a better model of the world than the model in my 3lbs, 1,274 cubic centimeters of brain matter? I wonder…… I think I will go and ask the A.I. programs what they think. 😊

        Liked by 1 person

      2. In New Zealand landlords put up rents when mortgage rates go up. We also have a labour shortage so workers demand higher wages to cover their higher rent and mortgage costs. It is very easy to see how higher interest rates are fueling inflation.


  51. I work for a big color company, so a lot of our products go into things like packaging, inks, paints, coatings and almost everything that gets manufactured and sold. So our business tends to be to a bit ahead of the rest of the economy. This year is becoming increasingly bad. Like 25-35% down from last year and seems to be getting worse.

    A big storm is on its way.

    Liked by 2 people

  52. I’d forgotten how good Jean-Marc Jancovici is at explaining overshoot, perhaps because he speaks quite rarely in English, French being his native language.

    Radio Ecoshock replayed a 2018 interview with him today.

    Well worth your time if you’ve not already listened to it.

    I wrote a brief post about the original interview here:

    New Badass in Town: Jean-Marc Jancovici (Radio Ecoshock interview)

    Liked by 3 people

    1. That was one of the interviews I heard that started the end of my corporate sustainability career and helped kill off my techno-optimism 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Staring around 24:30 there’s a nice nod to denial by Jancovici.

      Smith asks, do you bet that peak oil or climate change will harm us first?

      Jancovici answers that he bets no one will understand that either is causing our problems.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Thank you for sharing this. His views are very similar to my own. Except I would add that we should cut our losses and give up on nuclear as well 🙂
      Deep Green Resistance (DGR) also presents a clear view of both climate change and peak oil. They have already written a book on greenwashing called Bright Green Lies. Maybe Jean-Marc will write something similar for the French speaking world


  53. This is an important report if you’d like to understand something about how we are manipulated. I’ve only skimmed it but Matt Taibbi endorses and introduces the work.

    “The Top 50 List” is intended as a resource for reporters and researchers beginning their journey toward learning the scale and ambition of the “Censorship-Industrial Complex.” Written like a magazine feature, it tries to answer a few basic questions about funding, organization type, history, and especially, methodology.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. More evidence that Bossche was correct to warn it was a very bad idea to mass vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic with an ineffective vaccine. Which our “experts” knew and chose to forget.

    I like that Rintrah is careful to state what he does not know, and to point out where more data is required.

    Of course our leaders are not pushing for that data because they don’t want to know the reality of what they did.

    Notice the silence about excess deaths.

    I want to emphasize again, that I am trying to do the best job I can. I’m trying to give people the best information. I’m trying to get people to understand the problem. I’ve been trying to point out to people what the problem is with these vaccines, ever since I realized what this shit is, rather than just merely not trusting it. I don’t just have this obscure blog, I also wrote under my own name, in an effort to discourage people from taking the third shot. It’s not my fault these people violated the basic principles of immunology and evolutionary biology. I’m trying to encourage people to live in harmony with the laws of nature.

    And the reason I’m devoting so much time to this, is because it stays stuck in my head, even while on holiday. And the reason it stays stuck in my head is because they really utterly screwed up and are lying about it, as people in the most highly vaccinated nations of the world continue to die in excess numbers. The medical literature was very clear on this: We don’t know how to safely and effectively vaccinate people against corona viruses. Then in 2020 they pretended to have figured it out, a fatal error that has already resulted in millions of excess deaths based on the available statistics we have.

    I’m a pretty simple guy, who just doesn’t like seeing millions of people getting lied to and needlessly dying as a result. I don’t like seeing failed medical experiments get swept under the rug. And I’m not just looking to terrify people, I’m trying to figure out what can be done about it, as you can see evidence of throughout this blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. Good essay by B on why one of the reasons there will be no energy transition is that copper is becoming too scarce and too expensive.

    Copper is at the heart of everything electric. It is no exaggeration to say, that our entire “renewable, clean, green” future hinges upon its uninterrupted supply. In fact, according to a recently released report, we would need to mine more of it than what we did during the course of our entire written history, in order to transform the world economy to using electricity alone. This is not to mention the fact that this amount of material would only cover the build-out of the first generation of wind and solar power plants (together with the many electric engines, batteries, inverters, transformers etc) needed for the change. Where do we get all that copper from? A riddle? To some, maybe, but not for those who dare to look into the eye of the monster standing in between achieving our net zero dreams and the actual reality.

    1) We neither have the copper reserves, nor the mining capacity to replace our current fossil fuel infrastructure.

    2)Even if we had, we wouldn’t have enough cheap and abundant fuel (diesel), sulfuric acid and water to process it.

    3) As a result, we would be able to get to a maximum 20% replacement of our fossil fuel infrastructure, presuming that peak oil and geopolitics do not throw a monkey-wrench into the process.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. With some exceptions like Nafeez Nawaz (recent article criticizing Simon Michaux’s work), various folks seem to be coming to the conclusion that we cannot have a future of 8 or 9 billion people based on “renewable” technologies. There are not enough minerals, and there is not enough time, to transition from fossil fuels to a mineral based energy system, or to some new source of energy.

      And we are rapidly depleting the mineral reserves that might provide the basis minerals-based civilization for a much smaller global population. (While still using fossil fuels for some limited uses.)

      At the same time, the waste products from our current fossil fuel powered civilization are damaging the biosphere. If left relatively unchecked for another 20 years, the damage might be irreparable. In terms of greenhouse gases, the low probability high impact fat tail scenarios of climate warming are still in play now, even if GHGs were cut to zero tomorrow.

      What might a dispassionate “observer” – A.I. for example– conclude from such information? What actions might it take? Are governments thinking about these things?

      We might be getting closer and closer to science fiction scenarios. I don’t want to write those speculations down on paper so will leave it at this point.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. how about getting chat gpt to write a short essay? I’m serious.

          is there enough copper to continue BAU?

          what would it write?


          1. Great idea. How about you give it a try and if you get something interesting I’ll publish it. I expect the key to getting a good result will be carefully crafted instructions. It’ll probably take several iterations. The link to GPT is above in the OP.


            1. it requires a mobile number to have the account. I don’t submit that because that is how they track everything to you. Sorry there appears to be no way to create account without it so I can’t do it.


          2. It’s not so much a question of if there is enough copper, it’s more whether copper can be produced at the requisite rate. The ore quality is decreasing continuously.


      1. I think you meant Nafeez Ahmed, with his critique here:

        I read some of that but found that Ahmed starts by denigrating Michaux’s skills as incompatible with doing a good job of his study. Ahmed doesn’t show why he does have the skills. He also twists one of Michaux’s calculations (RE plants needed to replace a coal-fired plant) into something else which wasn’t the point. Further on, he uses his bias to claim that minerals production can be ramped up continuously for decades, completely ignoring the feasibility of doing so. Ugo Bardi commented and seems to think Ahmed got it right. He didn’t. That isn’t to say Michaux might be wrong, but if critiques don’t understand his work, then they can’t really criticise it.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Good on him! Michael has spoken to lots of people over the years, so suppose he has a really good sense on what people generally need to hear re collapse.


  56. Very interesting Ukraine update from Ray McGovern.

    He thinks we may avoid nuclear war thanks to China applying pressure that will cause the US to throw Ukraine under the bus soon.

    Skip the first 5 minutes or so if you don’t care about deep state Russia Gate crimes.

    Also first time I’ve heard McGovern say he agrees with RFK Jr. that the CIA killed JFK.

    Liked by 1 person


    But more importantly, it means we have to conclude we’re now stuck with a large population that has a homogeneous repertoire of tolerogenic antibodies against a Sarbecovirus. Do these antibodies cross-react with other respiratory viruses? Are other viruses going to adjust to the brave new world in which most of the population now has identical looking holes in our collective shield against non-self proteins?

    These are the sort of questions that need to be studied. And in a sane world, you would want to figure out how to reverse the damage they have caused. This abnormal IgG4 immune response won’t go away on its own, because it’s continually being recalled by reinfections. You injected millions of teenagers worldwide with this stuff. Is the plan to let them walk around with a broken immune response, for decades to come?

    Remember: All of Europe had abnormally high excess mortality this December, including among young adults (where the IgG4 issue shows up most strongly, as their initial exposure to the vaccines would have provoked a stronger antibody response too). What is the plan? Are we just going to collectively decide to ignore it?

    The unfortunate fact is that the response to Omicron apparently mostly consists of B cells recalled from vaccination that changed a little. Those are still programmed for IgG4. And so over time, as Omicron rapidly mutates its Spike protein and pre-existing B cells adjust to deal with Omicron, you would expect the IgG4 response to expand, prohibiting the body from deploying a proper response to a growing range of peptides.

    I’m going be clear about this: You want to figure out how to deal with this. You can’t afford to wait. You don’t want to see an IgG4 antibody response to a Sarbecovirus. You would probably want to deploy some sort of B cell depleting therapy, to remove these B cells from people’s bodies. And you don’t want to wait with this.

    Scotland saw the most influenza deaths last December in over 20 years. That’s strange, if you consider the “dry tinder” would have perished from SARS2 during the preceding years. And yet it makes perfect sense, if you realize Scotland was among the very first places to start vaccinating everyone. Eleven T cell epitopes are shared between Influenza and SARS2. You’ve quite likely started to hurt people’s immune response to viruses other than SARS2 too. Next winter the whole problem could prove to be even worse.

    Liked by 1 person

  58. A 5th discussion between Nate Hagens and Daniel Schmachtenberger today.

    This one irritated me even more than the prior ones.

    There’s no doubt Schmachtenberger is super smart and is well read on the causes of our overshoot predicament. Also no doubt that he likes to demonstrate this point, ad nauseum.

    Summary: We are screwed, only faster with AI. The only solution is a global agreement to constrain the use of AI which will not happen because there is too much of an advantage for countries and businesses that break the agreement.

    Not one word, again, on the need to get our population down.

    Q: If you’re going to talk about solutions that won’t be implemented, why not talk about the only solution that would actually improve the situation, population reduction, since discussing it might increase the probability of us implementing it a hair above zero, which is still better than zero?

    A: Because you need defective denial genes to do so, and Schmachtenberger is a normal human.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I find Daniel to be one of the most dullest of intellectuals. He starts with a verbose, obtusely complicated word salad that he eats and then defecates it on your listening plate expecting you to be impressed.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I disagree. Daniel always attempts to explain a concept as if the people listening are unfamiliar with ALL of the concepts. He always answers the issue with an attempt to give context encompassing as much of the background as he feels is needed to bring people along in order to make clear how he gets to the crux of the issue. Indeed he even attempts to get the interviewer to maybe answer his own question without having to say it out loud.

        Unfortunately Nate was particularly obtuse this time making Daniel have to repeat concepts and to go back even further into the basics to get Nate to follow. It was very frustrating indeed.

        Bottom line the issue is humanity focuses only on the symptoms, not the overall big picture, the parts vs the whole. Which by the way overpopulation is a symptom not THE cause.

        Intelligence without wisdom is the root of all earth’s/humanities predicaments. You can address any of the symptoms and and unless we change that we are toast.

        IMO there is a slim chance that AI can possibly be a helpful tool in achieving this…or it can just as easily go the other way.


        1. Interesting.

          I suspect intelligence without wisdom is the outcome when an intelligence is enabled by evolving a tendency to deny unpleasant realities.

          Perhaps wisdom is not possible in the universe because high intelligence is blocked unless it simultaneously evolves a tendency to deny its own mortality.

          Assuming our AIs can be programmed to avoid this constraint, they might develop wisdom.

          Unfortunately we’ll ignore an AI with wisdom that says something we find unpleasant, like for example, telling us we better get our population down in one hell of a hurry if we want to avoid unimaginable suffering.


          1. I disagree. As Daniel said, and if you read any of the anthropologist David Graeber’s work, there has been and still are many cultures around the world that express and value great wisdom such as the indigenous peoples. It is a small fraction of humanity that has actively suppressed this and aggressively structured society around profit/money that is the problem. It has now risen to a level where it has become dominant/destructive and is showing signs of collapse.

            There are lots of people around the world hopeful and working towards moving back to a world of wisdom. Daniel is just one, Nate tries also as do I. Jonas Salk saw the issue 50 years ago and wrote “Survival of the Wisest”


            Your fixsation on genetic denial keeps you from being rational and open to learning and understand new things… just saying.


            1. Michael Dowd shares your views that many cultures have lived sustainability. We had a heated argument once about this. I pressed him to name a few tribes that lived sustainably so I could research if his claim was true. He couldn’t do it. Just like you can’t name a few cultures that don’t deny mortality despite claiming there are countless numbers of them. I gave you a chance to disprove Varki’s theory but you won’t provide evidence, just statements that you disagree with it, which by the way, is exactly what the theory predicts you will do.


              1. I agree that probably no human society has ever lived sustainably, though I think there are still a few uncontacted tribes which may well be. Australian aboriginals probably were (after a shaky start), since they learned enough to last for 50,000 years before being civilised.


    2. My interest in their discussions peaked at #2 where they discussed the maximum power principle and multi-polar traps. Those two concepts along with the Monkeysphere and denial pretty much have me thinking that most ruminating and words about so-called solutions are a waste of time. That’s what was going through my head reading the Bardi – Meadows exchange below. Although I did wonder if Meadows was taking the piss a little with his final response.
      I’m in the collapse now and avoid the rush team.

      As much respect as I have for Nate who is a far smarter and caring person than myself, I can’t help thinking he’d be better off sometimes dealing with his potato blight infestation than travelling the world to spread his message. As important as it is.


      1. There’s a pretty good chance there isn’t a person on the planet that has followed Nate longer or consumed more of his work than me. That of course means I respect him.

        Having said that, he has dropped a few notches in my eyes given his total silence on the need for population reduction and the covid crimes. I interpret this as him prioritizing what others think of him over truth, and that’s a no-no in my eyes.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Just to clarify, if a person believes there is nothing that can be done to make the future less bad, then there’s no need to support or discuss population reduction.

          On the other hand, if a person wants to make the future less bad, then population reduction must be at the top of their priority list.

          Nate clearly wants to make the future less bad yet he is silent on population.

          Liked by 2 people

    1. Grr I read Ugo’s arguments. He’s completely ignores that most parts of renewable energy technology cannot be made without coal. Possibly can’t be recycled without coal either. And mining the materials is impossible without diesel. Quoting pointless “studies” on EROEI that amount to little more than creative accounting exercises … not real science … just mathematical witchery.
      “Going renewables, as Nafeez Ahmed correctly points out, is a switch from a predatory economy to a bioeconomy.” How dumb can you be Ugo and Nafeez? Changing an energy source doesn’t change the economy from predatory to something else. Also mining for anything is not a bioeconomy, it is always a net harm to the environment.

      I think the point that Ugo wants to make is: renewables are not going to solve any of our problems, not by a long shot. But having some (and ideally a lot of) renewables in the future would be more beneficial than having none. Therefore, we should continue to invest and grow renewables at appropriate scale to natural resources available. He would also have to add that he hopes that future humans could figure out how to build new renewables without fossil fuels.

      Why doesn’t he save his dignity and express it like that?!?

      Liked by 1 person

  59. I posted this on LinkedIn
    Real GDP is tightly correlated to global emissions. When one really grasps this, it becomes clear that a retracting economy is the only thing that actually reduces emissions (think of it as: dollar = unit of energy/carbon emission). GDP is also highly corelated to standard of living. So it seems logical to surmise that to reduce emissions, our standard of living will reduce. People want to avoid talking about that, so we instead focus on nice stories like green growth and de-coupling (good luck finding empirical proof for these). As we are now either at or past the halfway point of known fossil fuel reserves, we can expect human-caused carbon emissions to start reducing each year. As more dollars will be chasing less units of energy, dollars will be worth less. From our perspective, everything will look more expensive including ‘climate actions’.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Very good summary.

      I would add that it’s total consumption that must and will go down. This means that a higher standard of living is possible with a lower population. If you don’t want to support population reduction policies then you are locking in a medieval peasant’s lifestyle for your descendants, at best.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Definitely need human population to come down. But even the current standard of living is unsustainable for almost any level of population. This is because a modern way of life, even if basic, consumes resources beyond their renewal rates. Standards of living for a much reduced population can continue, or be increased, for some limited period of time but that will end at some stage. Also, some of the way of life is enabled by industrial systems which may be untenable if human population goes below some level.

        I think all humans who survive will be living a basic existence, like all other species. Until they figure out ways to bring back some of the good life for a period of time until it all goes pear shaped again.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. And my dear friends, all those who support population reduction (starting in the present) would probably choose not to have any descendants, if they’re going to walk their talk. What really gets me, it’s not the 6 billion in the so-called developing world that need to learn to live with much, much less, it’s us. We still think we can maintain a reasonably high standard of living if we somehow balance supply and demand. It would be nice to think that we could increase the standard of living of those who still need access to fresh water before we try to wrangle a way to keep as many resources as possible for ourselves, now and into the collapsing future. It’s us in the golden 1 billion in the Western empire (and the richest in all the rest of the world) that need to decrease, both in number and scope. We don’t hear many in the know talking about population reduction full stop but who would be brave enough to say out loud that it’s us who need to cease and desist immediately. But, as we all know, that’s not going to happen by mass choice; I recall that the American way of life is non-negotiable, said by another one of our illustrious Presidents at an Earth Summit, of all time and places.

        I have been thinking a lot lately about my own death. I have been comfortable with the subject of death and dying for a long time, possibly all my life, but now I feel it is really getting to the pointy end of things and I thought it a good exercise to walk through in my mind how that might unfold. Namely, what it means to me to have had a good and fulfilled enough life and whether or not choosing my own ending is part of that. I believe it can be and it pleases me that decision would put my money where my mouth is with regard to my view on population reduction! Given the suffering that is going to be upon us, and the fact that I just don’t have the will in me to fight for mere survival, especially when so many others do and more power to them. We don’t have children, but two aged parents left (and interestingly enough, I find that their will to live is far more robust than mine) whom I can consider my responsibility for care. I am trusting that making such a choice will be clear for me at the proverbial time for everything under the sun.

        In any case, here is my one life to do as I will with what I have, it’s mine and no other before or since, worlds without end–that thought is so awe-inspiring that it stops all others.

        The work before me that gives me most pleasure and meaning now is to continue care-taking the two properties in the different climate zones, with the intention that they may shelter and feed whoever finds themselves there. It doesn’t have to be me, and not even a member of my species for that matter, although I would hope there could be a truce between all if there is enough food to share (magical thinking!) What I am trying to say is one life is the same as one life, it’s only by our perspective that we favour our own, but I am finding that I can tease myself out of that preference, and just detach and accept. It is a very calming and empowering stance, one that I would like to be able to adopt more readily. I am working on it, any way. I would be humbled and grateful for anyone’s thoughts.

        Hope all is well for you and your families. Namaste friends.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Thanks for sharing those thoughts.

          Your feelings about death echo those of my departed friend Gail Zawacki who didn’t want to live long enough to see the worst of humans emerge when scarcity starts to bite.

          I doubt I’m up for much pain and suffering either. If I knew I only had a couple days left, I think I’d read Nick Lane’s Life Ascending: The Ten Greatest Inventions of Evolution again.


    2. I think Tim Garrett pointed out that, like energy use, emissions are more closely correlated to accumulated wealth. I think this is why we can’t get them down. 2020 aside, even a contracting economy requires increasing energy, long term, if Tim is right. Unless accumulated wealth is destroyed.

      But you’re right, reduced living standards are a no-no, even for so-called environmentalists. I am constantly dismayed at this lack of critical thinking, simply because they want to speed the transition. One of the most egregious lies is that society can be made sustainable whilst giving everyone a high standard of living.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi Mike – I think a really good way to measure would be to take all energy used for the year and all dollars spent for the year. Accumulated wealth seems like a secondary measure. It’s like GDP potential. Unless wealth is spent, it’s meaningless. Wealth would be a factor to driving growth, as capital seeks a return, and there is an energy cost to hold wealth. In my opinion, a contracting economy requires energy, but it has less available, that is why it is actually contracting. A contracting economy will kill wealth. For example, when noone can afford to buy all those million dollar houses in NZ, they will all be worth a lot less. Many baby boomers and the like will find they have way less wealth than they thought they did


        1. Although Tim Garrett has a different take (he says all knowledge and built capital have contributed to how we use energy today), I sometimes think about it in terms of built infrastructure and capital having to be maintained and powered, before thinking about making and maintaining new stuff. The old stuff probably accounts for the vast majority of the energy we use. Of course, selling energy presumably does contribute to GDP, but to contribute to accumulated wealth stuff needs to be made and built, or new knowledge needs to be acquired.

          Even in a contracting economy, new stuff will be added to existing capital, and so more energy will be needed. The COVID lockdowns seemed to counter that but a lot of stuff simply wasn’t used when people had to stay home. The long term trend seems to be that energy use is increased even in recessions.


          1. Maintaining what we’ve got is the energy cost of energy. Eventually the costs will be so high we won’t be able to afford the energy to maintain what we’ve got, let alone build new. Regardless of what the economy needs, we are limited by the actual energy available. “The long term trend seems to be that energy use is increased even in recessions.” – the data shows the exact opposite of this. It’s incredible actually how even a small dip in energy use produces a painful recession. It’s very scary to think what a serious drop in energy will be like


            1. Thanks, monk. I have to admit that I didn’t check my impression of energy use and recessions but your comment prompted me to try to find that info. It’s not easy but Wikipedia mentions that there have been 4 global recessions (1975, 1982, 1991 and 2009) by one definition and 6 by another (which doesn’t include all of those years by the first definition, oddly). OurWorldInData shows only two dips in global primary energy use, 1979-1982 and 2009, before the COVID lockdowns. So I’m not sure about this but maybe I don’t understand Tim Garrett’w work quite as much as I thought. His work relates to global data, rather than individual countries, which is why I was looking for global data.

              Yes, I’m sure we won’t be able to maintain what we’ve got, and that is when accumulated wealth destruction sets in, I guess.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Looking at total global emissions is another way to get an idea on how much energy we’ve used – you can see these small blips during recession years. Considering how small these blips are, I don’t think many people alive today have ever experienced a proper recession; which is a scary thought 😦
                I don’t understand Tim’s work that well either. But the way I’ve come to think about it is everything we do in economics is really about determining how we burn energy. Burn energy faster, slower, move energy around, burn it over there instead of here, etc.

                Liked by 1 person

            2. Many people have a false sense of security because they think major problems are far in the future given energy and other non-renewable resources should decline slowly, ceteris paribus.

              I think the real problem is the end of growth because our monetary system breaks without growth, and we’re pretty much there now.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I agree. I’m waiting to see how fast / slow this collapse is. I’d favour a slow decline like the Roman Empire.


  60. Calculating in a previous post that, if Japan had to go back to pre-industrial population levels in 50 years, its population would have to decline by 4,5% per year, had me thinking.
    There could be a complementary strategy to population reduction to assist us in the “descent”. That would be: stretch the fossil fuel. By that, I mean: stop (as quickly as possible) all non-essential uses of fossil fuels. In other words reserve all fossil fuels exclusively to feed the population, while decreasing the dependence of the system to fossil fuels (by converting the industrial agriculture to the ancient and alternative types, having people live near their food source, and of course decreasing the population, all progressively). The goal here is to make the remaining fossil fuel last longer, to make the energy decline more palatable 🙂
    It seems we are not doing that, yet… At least, not consciously (although maybe that was the idea in the Sri Lanka experiment?). For now we are depleting our weapon stocks in war 😉


    1. Conserving our critical resources would be a very wise thing to do. But we can’t even talk about it, let alone do it.

      I imagine having a public conversation about overshoot and resource scarcity would be beneficial because it would discourage many people from having kids.

      Liked by 1 person

  61. A very nice example of our genetic tendency to deny unpleasant realities.