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:
- Technological advancements: As technology advances, the efficiency of renewable energy systems increases, making them cheaper and more competitive with fossil fuels.
- Scale and production efficiency: As the production of renewable energy technologies increases, economies of scale are achieved, leading to lower production costs.
- 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.
- 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:
- Reduce population growth: Encouraging family planning and providing access to reproductive healthcare can help slow population growth.
- Reduce consumption: Encouraging more sustainable consumption patterns and reducing waste can help reduce the strain on resources and ecosystems.
- 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.
- Conserve resources: Protecting natural resources, such as forests, water, and wildlife, can help preserve biodiversity and ecosystem health.
- Promote sustainable agriculture: Encouraging sustainable farming practices can help reduce the environmental impact of agriculture while also promoting food security.
- Address social inequalities: Reducing poverty and inequality can help promote more sustainable consumption patterns and reduce population growth.
- 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.
HHH @ POB:
https://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-update-may-2023/#comment-757523
Never forget.
Everything they told us was scientifically wrong. Their policies killed millions and saved few. The pandemic is over and people are still dying due to an unsafe and ineffective vaccine. Nothing has been done to prevent another lab leak. No one has been punished.
Amazing, not one word this morning in mainstream news about Bakhmut falling. Just like no mention of rising excess deaths in vaccinated countries. As MORT predicts, if we don’t like reality, we ignore it.
“Russia tightens grip on Bakhmut in face of Ukraine counterattacks”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/22/russia-tightens-grip-on-bakhmut-in-face-of-ukraine-counterattacks
The biggest battle since WWII is over and the most powerful army in NATO supported with money and weapons from the US and other NATO countries lost.
It’s mind boggling that the US outspends all other militaries by 10X and hasn’t won a war since WWII.
That’s because the military industrial complex in the US builds Lamborghinis that don’t run much of the time, while Russians build “Trucks” that go for years and do every job they’re supposed to. The US has a military industrial complex that is the best money can buy, makes sense;).
AJ
Can you confirm it’s over, Rob? Russians have claimed victory there before, only for it to drag on months longer.
Bakhmut being taken by the Russians has been confirmed by multiple sources including Russian commander, Russian government, and Joe Biden. Only source denying it is the Ukraine government.
Do you trust those sources, Rob? I couldn’t find a confirmation by Biden but found a quote from him at the G7, “Bakhmut. There’s a discussion about whether or not it’s been lost or whatever.”
Yes, also confirmed by a half dozen independent journalists I have followed every day for over a year. Ukraine may counterattack. Russia probably hopes they do so the remaining Nazi’s and NATO weapons can be destroyed.
you seem sad about that Mike?
People are going to be really sad when Russia takes all of Ukraine.
My guess is Russia won’t take all of Ukraine. Too much hassle to govern and too expensive to rebuild. Russia’s goals were clear. Demilitarize Ukraine so their boarder is secure. Kill all the Nazis. And protect the Russian speaking people in east Ukraine.
I kind of consider that taking Ukraine. Ostensibly it won’t be the same country.
I have no personal feelings about it either way, niko. I just note that Russians have claimed victory before and the only sources named by Rob were sources I certainly wouldn’t trust but he did mention that there are other unnamed sources he trusts so it’s probably true. But it is one battle in many. Ukraine re-took Kherson, so we’ll see what happens with the much smaller “prize” of a destroyed Bakhmut.
Russia has already increased its Nato bordering countries, due to its aggression. If it takes Ukraine, as a whole, that number will increase by 4, rendering one of the Russian complaints pointless.
The outcome will have no bearing on the collapse of industrial civilisation, so it’s a rather pointless waste of resources, people and, no doubt, other life forms.
The question will be whether NATO will be functional in a few years. Russia is more likely to be since it has far more resources. But it could be………?
The future will be more local. As energy depletes the trend will be for centralized organizations like NATO, EU, and USA to fall apart.
I don’t know how many years but I don’t think Russia has more resources (for waging wars) than the combined Nato countries. However, countries, as they are delineated now, will start to disintegrate at some point.
A very nice example of our genetic tendency to deny unpleasant realities.
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 😉
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.
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’.
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.
Yes totally! Imagine if we said that on LinkedIn haha! The metaphorical pin drop would be very loud
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.
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.
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.
Did you get any response. I gave up on LinkedIn in for mental health reasons 🙂
Yes I did actually, she liked it 🙂 that doesn’t normally happen
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I agree. I’m waiting to see how fast / slow this collapse is. I’d favour a slow decline like the Roman Empire.
Ugo is so in denial about green tech
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?!?
My guess, genetic denial of unpleasant realities.
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.
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.
I agree. In addition he discusses everything except the most important points.
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.
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.
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”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20298083
Your fixsation on genetic denial keeps you from being rational and open to learning and understand new things… just saying.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.rintrah.nl/hybrid-immunity-also-becomes-sars2-tolerance/
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.
In case you haven’t encountered Michael Dowd, he offers a constructive approach to dealing with collapse awareness in a recent presentation he made to CACOR.
I spoke with and wrote about Michael’s work 5 years ago here:
https://un-denial.com/2017/12/19/the-great-story-a-reality-based-religion-led-by-michael-dowd/
His message does not resonate with me (yet), but I can see it would be helpful for many people trying to cope with overshoot awareness.
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.
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.
https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/the-copper-conundrum-3b98704602c8
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.
That sounds like an excellent topic for a guest post if you are interested in writing one.
how about getting chat gpt to write a short essay? I’m serious.
is there enough copper to continue BAU?
what would it write?
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.
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.
I understand.
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.
I think you meant Nafeez Ahmed, with his critique here: https://ageoftransformation.org/energy-transformation-wont-be-derailed-by-lack-of-raw-materials/
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.
Dr. Bill Rees explains that overshoot is the fundamental issue and most of our brains are not capable of thinking about it.
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.
https://www.rintrah.nl/the-poor-antibody-response-against-xbb-reveals-the-now-unfolding-long-term-problems-caused-by-vaccinating-against-covid/
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.
https://www.racket.news/p/report-on-the-censorship-industrial-74b
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.
https://www.ecoshock.org/2023/05/jean-marc-jancovici-whistling-past-the-graveyard-replay.html
I wrote a brief post about the original interview here:
https://un-denial.com/2018/10/31/new-badass-in-town-jean-marc-jancovici-radio-ecoshock-interview/
That was one of the interviews I heard that started the end of my corporate sustainability career and helped kill off my techno-optimism 🙂
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.
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
Very interesting history of steam turbines. You can blame engineers for overshoot.
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.
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.
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.
https://wolfstreet.com/2023/05/11/the-feds-interest-rates-are-still-fueling-inflation-rather-than-dousing-it-and-people-getting-used-to-this-inflation/
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. 😊
I think I understand what and why. Unfortunately, when is more important for getting rich. I’m not so good on when.
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.
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.
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?).
AJ
Yes, it will be interesting.
I’ll bet that regardless of Simon’s data & logic, we’ll see another display of denial as predicted by MORT.
Chris Martenson is back displaying his core competency with a reprise of his superb Crash Course which changed my life back around 2008.
Something’s burning in Moscow.
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.
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?
Let’s hope brilliant satire helps to bring justice to the covid criminals.
https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1655104796519694336
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.
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/05/07/a-new-version-of-an-old-story/
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.
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;) ).
AJ
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas). 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.
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.
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.
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.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=248694
Insightful comment to above essay by Abelardlindsey:
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.
AJ
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.
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.
AJ
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.
https://www.rintrah.nl/sargassum-when-life-finds-a-way/
nature works in mysterious ways 😉
Maybe LSWM could be our new nickname for FE
LOL 🙂
Gail Tverberg today with refined predictions.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/05/04/the-bumpy-road-ahead-for-the-world-economy/
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:
Fair warning Rob, you may want to skip some of the bits from the economist 😉
LOL, I remember my early days of trying to figure out how the world works around 2005 when I subscribed to and listened to every Economist podcast episode. Now I wouldn’t consider touching it.
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.
Ha! noone touched on that
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.
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.
https://un-denial.com/2016/01/30/why-we-want-growth-why-we-cant-have-it-and-what-this-means/
NATO tried to assassinate Putin in the Kremlin yesterday.
Probably nothing to worry about because if Russia tried to assassinate Biden in the White House nothing bad would happen.
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.
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.
hmm this made me get some ideas about a link between pre-menstrual sugar cravings, PMS, and estrogen and the function of the amygdala. googled it and what do you know… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6870478/#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20the%20larger%20the%20increase,phase%20of%20the%20menstrual%20cycle.
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.
I hope he wears a bullet proof vest.
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.
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.
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.
I meant to say “…not just our gov…”
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.
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.
All good points.
http://benjaminthedonkey-limericksofdoom.blogspot.com/2023/05/apex-predator-irony.html
https://www.rintrah.nl/everyone-has-aids/
I read almost all of the un-denial.com 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 rintrah.nl/everyone-has-aids/ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Was this a reply to my comment, Rob? It doesn’t appear to address any of the points I made. My comment had nothing to do with covid policies.
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.
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.)
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.
“a certain idiot on Gail Zverberg’s blog” hahaha funny
That “certain idiot” has single handedly ruined OFW and damaged Tverberg’s credibility.
I personally find it tragic.
There are so few people like Gail doing original research on overshoot.
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.
I agree with you both! He’s also an embarrassment to NZ
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.
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.
Nice short excerpt from the full interview posted above.
Superb interview of Dr. Aseem Malhotra by Joe Rogan on the deplorable unethical behavior of health care professionals.
On mRNA:
Covid is the worst example but their unethical behavior goes far beyond covid.
I’ve listened to quite few interviews of Dr Aseem. I admire his courage. It would not be easy to stand against the tide of prevailing opinion.
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.
Amazing, an intelligent evidence based discussion of covid policies by an elected member of Parliament is considered misinformation by YouTube.
Yesterday the weather changed from cold to hot with no in-between.
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).
AJ
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
h/t JHK
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.
AJ
A war is coming. Govts need to be confident that the media will do propaganda and not that disgusting journalism
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.
https://enkiops.org/2023/04/28/blog-restarting/
A new presentation today by Simon Michaux. Lots of data content in this one.
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).
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
The effects of climate change on plants is a bit more nuanced than that.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/
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.
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.
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.”
https://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
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 🙂
Namaste
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.
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.
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.
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!
Good one. Yeah, definitely exceptional in terms of the damage it can do but still just a species doing what species do.
Mandrake’s last comment was August 9, 2022. I hope he’s ok.
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?
Namaste.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😉
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.
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.
Yes, even in Jack’s most optimistic scenario there are no personal cars nor air travel. Both are far too wasteful of energy to be viable in any future.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…”
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.
Exactly, I think that’s why some billionaires like Elon Musk promote having babies. A growing population is good for business!
I usually don’t care for Charles Hugh Smith’s essays but today he spoke well to my view of the financial system.
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2023/04/what-if-whole-shebang-unravels.html
Mac10 has a funny denial theme today.
https://zensecondlife.blogspot.com/2023/04/denial-is-deflationary.html
Have they ever not just raised the debt ceiling?
It is all show.
True but I think his point is that they’re all so incompetent now that a mistake might be made.