Today’s post includes a recent sobering comment on overshoot reality by un-Denial regular Hideaway that I thought deserved more visibility, and a new essay on acceptance by B, who has recently emerged as one of the best writers about human overshoot.
The ideas of Hideaway and B complement some of the recent discussions here about acceptance and the nature of our species.
P.S. I did not receive permission from B to re-post his essay but I’m hoping that since un-Denial is not monetized he will not object, and I will of course remove the essay if B expresses concern.
By Hideaway: On Radical Reality
The human enterprise of modernity and 8.1+ billion humans is going down. Reduction in available energy is the trigger and there is nothing we can do to stop it, or make it less unpleasant, or save the macrofauna from extinction.
As we build more energy machines of any type, their output increases overall energy available, and used, providing this happens faster than the retirement of old energy producing machines. Over the last few decades we, as in humanity in it’s entirety, have increased fossil fuel use developing more, tearing up the environment more, while increasing the build of renewables.
On a world wide scale, we have not replaced any fossil fuel use, we have just increased all energy use with more fossil fuels being part of that increase, and renewables being part of the increase. At some point growing energy use must stop, unless we make the planet uninhabitable for all life, which means we stop anyway.
Because of our economic system, as soon as we stop growing energy production and use, the price of energy goes up, and we go into recession/depression. It becomes impossible to build ‘new’ stuff of any kind once energy use declines, unless we take the energy from other users, for our ‘new’ builds.
Building more renewables, batteries, EVs, etc., currently means using more fossil fuels to build it all. There is no realistic attempt to build it all with electricity from renewables, nor is that possible. If we diverted existing renewable energy production to, for example, a new mine, then that renewable energy, removed from a city, would have to be made up by increasing fossil fuel generated electricity for the city.
If we ‘ran’ the new mine from new renewables, then these have to be built first, meaning we need the mine for the minerals to build the renewables, or we take minerals from existing users, elsewhere. It’s all just more, more, more and none of the proponents of renewables, including major green organizations want to acknowledge it.
The circular economy can’t work as we cannot physically recycle everything, plus we would need to build all the recycling facilities. If we were to try and do this without increasing total energy use, where does the energy come from to build these new recycling facilities? Other energy users? For the last couple of centuries it’s always come from ‘growth’, especially in energy use. None of us, nor our parents or grandparents, have known a world where the amount of energy available to humanity does anything other than grow.
Because of losses of all materials due to entropy and dissipation into the environment, we will always need mining, of ever lower ore grades, meaning an increasing energy use for mining. It is simply not possible to maintain output from mines once we go to zero energy growth, unless the energy comes from other uses, and users.
Once energy production growth stops, the price of all energy rises, because we need energy production to go up just to maintain the system, as population grows, ore grades decline, etc. If energy production was to fall, the price becomes higher, making everything else cost more. We can see this on a micro scale every time an old coal power plant is closed. On average, the wholesale price of electricity goes up, until compensated for by some newer form of electricity production (the new source taking energy to build).
Visions for the future usually include extra energy efficiency for buildings, etc. but never, ever, include the energy cost of these energy efficiency gains. For example, a simple hand wave about using double glazed or triple glazed windows. To do this, on a worldwide scale, we would need to build a lot of new glass factories, and probably window manufacturers as well. It will take more energy to do this, just like everything else ‘new’.
The phrase ‘build new’ means more energy is required for construction and mining the minerals for the new or expanded factories. The Adaro coal power plant (new) and aluminium smelter (also new) in Indonesia are perfect examples of our predicament. The world needs more aluminium for ‘new’ solar PVs, EVs, wiring, etc. which means more energy use and environmental damage, regardless of whether we use fossil fuels, solar panels, or pumped hydro backup.
Civilization is a Ponzi scheme energy trap, we either grow energy and material use, or we stagnate, and then collapse. Following feedback loops, we see there is no way out of this predicament.
People often claim the future is difficult to predict, yet it is simple, obvious, and highly predictable for humanity as a whole. We will continue to use more energy, mine more minerals, and destroy more of the environment, until we can’t. The first real limit we will experience is oil production, and we may be there already.
Once oil production starts to fall with a vengeance as it must, say 2-3 million barrels/day initially, then accelerating to 4-5 million barrels/day, it will trigger a feedback loop of making natural gas and coal production more difficult as both are totally dependent upon diesel, thus reducing the production of both, or if we prioritize diesel for natural gas and coal production, then other consumers of diesel, like tractors, combines, trucks, trains, and ships, must use less.
Mining and agriculture will come under pressure, sending prices for all raw materials and food through the roof. World fertilizer use is currently above 500 million tonnes annually. A lot of energy is required to make and distribute fertilizer. World grain yields are strongly correlated to fertilizer use, so less energy means less fertilizer, which means less food, unless we prioritize energy for agriculture by taking energy from and harming some other part of our economy.
If we banned discretionary energy uses to keep essential energy uses going, while overall energy continues to decline, then large numbers of people will lose their jobs and experience poverty, further compounding the problems of scarcity and rising prices.
Money for investing into anything will dry up. If governments print money to help the economy, inflation will negate the effort. If governments increase taxes to fund more assistance, then more people and businesses will be made poorer.
The ability to build anything new quickly evaporates, people everywhere struggle between loss of employment, loss of affordable goods and services, increased taxation, and will be forced to increase the well-being of their immediate ‘group’ to the detriment of ‘others’. Crime rates go through the roof, the blame game increases, with some trying to dispossess others of their resources. This will occur for individuals, groups and countries. Crime and war will further accelerate the decline in energy production, and the production and shipment of goods in our global economy. One after the other, at an accelerating rate, countries will become failed states when the many feedback loops accelerate the fossil fuel decline. Likewise for solar, wind and nuclear.
We rapidly get to a point where our population of 8.1+ billion starts to decline, with starving people everywhere searching for their next meal, spreading from city to country areas, eating everything they can find, while burning everything to stay warm in colder areas during the search for food. Every animal found will eaten. Farming of any type, once the decline accelerates, will not happen, because too many people will be eating the seed, or the farmer. Cows, sheep, horses, chooks, pigs, deer, basically all large animals will succumb because of the millions or billions of guns in existence and starving nomadic people.
Eventually after decades of decline, humans will not be able to be hunter gatherers as we will have made extinct all of megafauna. Whoever is left will be gatherers of whatever food plants have self-seeded and grown wild. Even if we were able to get some type of agriculture going again, there would be no animals to pull plows, all old ‘machinery’ from decades prior would be metal junk, so food would remain a difficult task for humans, unless we found ways to farm rabbits and rats, without metal fencing. While we will use charcoal to melt metals found in scavenged cities, it will limited to producing a few useful tools, like harnesses to put on the slaves plowing the fields, or for keeping the slaves entrapped.
Once we go down the energy decline at an accelerating rate, nothing can stop complete collapse unless we can shrink population much faster than the energy decline, which itself may very well be pointless as we have created such a globalised economy of immense complexity, where fast population decline, has it’s own huge set of problems and feedback loops.
Our complex economy requires a large scale of human enterprise. Reduce the scale, and businesses will have less sales, making everything more expensive. Rapid population decline will mean many businesses won’t just reduce production, but will often stop altogether when the business goes bust.
Because of interdependencies of our complex products, a scarcity of one seemingly uncritical component will have far reaching effects on other critical products. Maintenance parts will become difficult to obtain, causing machinery to fail, in turn causing other machines to fail that depended on the failed machines. Think of a truck delivering parts required to fix trucks. The same applies to production line machines, processing lines at mines, or simple factories making furniture, let alone anything complicated. If we only reach population decline as energy declines the problem is still the same.
By B: On Radical Acceptance
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/on-radical-acceptance
So what is radical acceptance? For me, it means: accepting that no single technological civilization based on finite resources is sustainable. Neither in the bronze age, nor in the iron age; let alone in an era of industrial revolutions. None. Why? Because all spend their nest egg — be it fertile topsoil, forests or coal, lithium and copper — a million times faster than it can be replenished. Recycling and “sustainability” practices can only slow down the process somewhat… At least in theory, but rarely in practice. The “circular economy”, together with „renewables” are nothing but fairy tales we tell ourselves to scare off the wolfs at night. Sorry to be this blunt, but the decline of this techno-industrial civilization is inevitable, and is already well underway.
The only type of civilization (if you want to use that term), which proved to be more or less sustainable so far, was a basic hunter-gatherer society; complemented perhaps with some agroforestry, pottery and some low key metallurgy. Anything beyond that inevitably destroyed the soil and the very resource base supporting the entire edifice. With that said, I’m not suggesting that we should immediately go back to the caves and mud huts… That would be impossible for 4 billion of us, entirely supported by large scale agriculture based on artificial fertilizers and a range of pesticides. However, it is important to note, that this is the direction we are headed, with the only question being how fast we will get there and how many humans can be sustained via such a lifestyle.
And this is where acceptance comes into view. Once you understand (not just “know”) that burning through a finite amount of mineral reserves at an exponential pace leads to depletion and environmental degradation at the same time, you start to see how unsustainable any human civilization is. All that technology (in its narrowest technical sense) does is turning natural resources into products and services useful for us, at the cost of polluting the environment. Technology use is thus not only the root cause of our predicament, but it can only accelerate this process. More technology — more depletion — more pollution. Stocks drawn down, sinks filling up. Simple as that. Of course you can elaborate on this matter as long as you wish, conjuring up all sorts of “game changer” and “wonder” machines from fusion to vertical gardens, the verdict remains the same. It. Is. All. Unsustainable. Period.
There are no clean technologies, and without dense energy sources like fossil fuels there wont be any technology — at least not at the scale we see today.
Many people say: Oh this is so depressing! And I ask: why? Because your grand-grand children will have to work on a field and grow their own food? Or that you might not even have grand-grand children? I don’t mean that I have no human feelings. I have two children whom I love the most. I have a good (very good) life — supported entirely by this technological society. Sure, I would love to see this last forever, and that my kin would enjoy such a comfortable life, but I came to understand that this cannot last. Perhaps not even through my lifetime. I realize that I most probably will pass away from an otherwise totally treatable disease, just because the healthcare system will be in absolute shambles by the time I will need it the most. But then what? Such is life: some generations experience the ‘rising tide lift all boats’ period in a civilization’s lifecycle, while others have to live through its multi-decade (if not centuries) long decline.
I did feel envy, shame, and anxiety over that, but as the thoughts I’ve written about above have slowly sunk in, these bad feelings all went away. It all started look perfectly normal, and dare I say: natural. No one set out to design this modern iteration of a civilization with an idea to base it entirely on finite resources; so that it will crash and burn when those inputs start to run low, and the pollution released during their use start to wreck the climate and the ecosystem as a whole. No. It all seemed like just another good idea. Why not use coal, when all the woods were burnt? Why not turn to oil then, when the easily accessible part of our coal reserves started to run out? At the time — and at the scale of that time — it all made perfect sense. And as we got more efficient, and thus it all got cheaper, more people started to hop onboard… And why not? Who wouldn’t want to live a better life through our wondrous technologies? The great sociologist C. Wright Mills summed up this process the best, when writing about the role of fate in history:
Fate is shaping history when what happens to us was intended by no one and was the summary outcome of innumerable small decisions about other matters by innumerable people.
Scientifically speaking this civilization, just like the many others preceding it, is yet another self organizing complex adaptive system. It seeks out the most accessible energy source and sucks it dry, while increasing the overall entropy of the system. We as a species are obeying the laws of thermodynamics, and the rule set out in the maximum power principle. Just like galaxies, stars, a pack of wolves, fungi or yeast cells. There is nothing personal against humanity in this. We are just a bunch of apes, playing with fire.
Once I got this, I started to see this whole process, together with our written history of the past ten thousand years, as an offshoot of natural evolution. Something, which is rapidly reaching its culmination, only to be ended as a failed experiment. Or, as Ronald Wright put it brilliantly in his book A Short History of Progress:
Letting apes run the laboratory was fun for a while, but in the end a bad idea.
So, no. I’m not depressed at all. It was fun to see how far a species can go, but also reassuring that it was a one off experiment. Once this high tech idiocy is over, it will be impossible to start another industrial revolution anyway. There will be no more easy to mine, close to surface ores and minerals. Everything left behind by this rapacious society will remain buried beneath a thousand feet of rocks, and will be of such a low quality that it will not worth the effort. Lacking resources to maintain them, cities, roads, bridges will rust and crumble into the rising seas, while others will be replaced by deserts, or lush forests. The reset button has been pressed already, it just takes a couple of millennia for a reboot to happen.
Contradictory as it may sound: this is what actually gives me hope. Bereft of cheap oil, and an access to Earth’s abundant mineral reserves, future generations of humans will be unable to continue the ecocide. There will be no new lithium mines, nor toxic tailings or hazardous chemicals leaching into the groundwater. Our descendants will be forced to live a more sustainable, more eco-friendly life. There will be no other way: the ecocide will end. This also means, that there will be no “solution” to climate change, nor ecological collapse. They both will run their due course, and take care of reducing our numbers to acceptable levels. Again, don’t fret too much about it: barring a nuclear conflict, this process could last well into the next century, and beyond. The collapse of modernity will take much longer than any of us could imagine, and will certainly look nothing like what we see in the movies. And no, cutting your emissions will not help. At all. Live your life to its fullest. Indulge in this civilization, or retreat to a farm. It’s all up to you, and your values. This is what I mean under the term, radical acceptance.
We are a species of this Earth, and paraphrasing Tom Murphy, we either succeed with the rest of life on this planet or go down together. Nurturing hope based technutopian “solutions”, and trying to remain optimistic does not solve anything. This whole ordeal is unsustainable. What’s more, it was from the get go… And that which is unsustainable will not be sustained. And that is fine. We, as a species are part of a much bigger whole, the web of life, and returning to our proper place as foraging humanoids will serve and fit into that whole much better than any technutopian solution could.
Until next time,
B
un-Denial 
Iran’s president apparently dead in helicopter crash. Let’s hope it was an accident.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shall we take odds?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Consensus seems to be it was an accident, with a big dose of incompetence and/or denial of the weather risks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a betting man. So I will put my mortgage on the line for this not being an accident.
Same with those two Boeing whistle blowers who died of some infection, and a suicide. Same with Epstein. Same with….. I better go or I’ll be here all night
LikeLike
Have you seen any evidence that this was not an accident?
I listened to about 6 experts today and none saw any evidence of anything other than incompetence/denial.
LikeLike
No evidence. Just a hunch. It’s all I can go off nowadays.
And I know you are good with researching your sources and detecting bullshit… so I’m sure you aren’t watching mainstream news. But I saw a couple “experts” on TV today and they make me automatically think there is cover up. It was the same vibe as “the Russians blew up Nord Stream”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hideaway declines to answer WHEN but clearly explains WHAT will signal imminent SHTF.
I’m thinking another pandemic might also be a clue.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-may-11-2023-2/#comment-775186
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent comment by Hideaway. My additional prediction is: we will see a trend in oil companies being nationalised / re-nationalised. By removing the need to return a shareholder profit, the system can be goosed along a little further. This will be effective only for countries that can control for corruption
LikeLiked by 1 person
For The Great Simplification Survey, I actually suggested Ajit Varki as a guest (I suggested a few others too).
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a very good idea however Hagens already interviewed Varki but they had technical difficulties that ruined the recording and it was never released.
LikeLiked by 1 person
B’s essay today on why science has stalled is excellent.
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/the-end-of-science-as-a-useful-tool
LikeLiked by 2 people
I particularly liked this quote:
But then, as Tom Murphy asked: what’s the point? I don’t think there was a point anytime in pursuing science. We did it because we could. We had the curiosity, the surplus energy, and the mindset setting ourselves above Nature. We were, however, not evolved to decode every secret of the Universe. Much to our frustration, the world remained a largely unreasonable place, with only so many parts of it yielding to our primate logic and simple measurements. The better part of it, however, continued to act wholly irrational to us — and remained reliably beyond our capabilities to grasp.
For me Science has always attempted to answer the fundamental questions of the universe. That we have made no progress seems to me that be that we don’t have the brains that can. A brain that evolved on the savannahs that was “designed” to maximize verbal communication to facilitate small group interaction/cohesion and ultimately lead to successful reproduction would be ill suited to figure out the universe. That Science allowed us to get as much understanding as we did is remarkable. That the knowledge will be lost is sad.
AJ
LikeLike
Despite stalling I view what we have accomplished as a glass half full. I feel like our best minds do understand many of the fundamental questions about the universe.
It’s just that most people don’t understand or don’t like what they’ve discovered.
That would include the purpose of the universe, which is to degrade energy gradients as quickly as possible, with life being the universe’s best invention for degrading energy, and our species is the champion of all life being smart enough to short circuit the earth’s battery, while simultaneously denying the consequences.
Every time I dig into the details of physics theories I discover that I understand very very little compared to the experts. This recent monologue by Dr. Sean Carroll on his new book is an excellent example.
LikeLike
Big changes in the global economy.
https://climateandeconomy.com/2024/05/20/20th-may-2024-todays-round-up-of-economic-news/
LikeLike
LikeLike
It was never a good idea to ship all of those manufacturing jobs overseas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Dr. Philip McMillan continues to report on the clots that emerged simultaneous with mRNA transfections, and which our health authorities deny and refuse to investigate.
I’ve been encouraging Dr. McMillan to review Dr. Joe Lee’s String theory which provides a plausible explanation and he just confirmed he has.
LikeLike
This one is particularly for Hideaway 😉
How to feed 9.7 billion people by 2050 by changing the agricultural model: https://sciences.sorbonne-universite.fr/en/actualites/how-can-we-feed-humanity
https://cnrs.hal.science/METIS_UMR7619/hal-01194904v1
LikeLike
I haven’t read the article as yet, but it doesn’t get off to a good start, stating that “it’s true “that the population will continue to increase between now and 2050. It is a possibility, but the probability is that the population will be significantly lower by 2050. We can basically toss the U.N. population projections out the window. They don’t factor in oil depletion, biosphere collapse, soil erosion and desertification, increasing climatic instability,etc.
LikeLike
All true, plus the history of our species strongly suggests there will be a global nuclear war when scarcity due to oil depletion becomes serious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Request for Pretip: Dental Hygiene
I would like to be more self-sufficient and avoid the services of dental hygienists. I was hoping there might be someone out there that has deep knowledge of what is actually required for optimal dental hygiene.
Assuming a healthy low sugar diet, here are some questions:
The only question I am reasonably confident in the answer is daily use of a waterpik. My gums really like this practice.
LikeLike
I’ve been fortunate to not have had many major dental problems. We’re not soft-drink buyers. For the last 30 years, what has worked for me is — twice annual dental cleaning, once-a-day brushing/flossing/mouthwash. Using standard toothpaste brands. Yes, some fossil fuels involved in this, but not a lot. (Floss can be re-used two/three times…). Dental hygiene seems to me to be pretty forgivable on the scale of unsustainability.
LikeLike
Thanks. I’m not so concerned about the fossil energy used or unsustainability of dental hygienists, but rather would like to simplify and eliminate expense from my life (aka crash early and avoid the rush).
Dentistry is a big industry paying big salaries that is dependent on recurring revenue from 6 month cleaning visits.
I was hoping someone might have some industry independent evidence that proves this is a good use of money when proper in-home DIY dental hygiene is practiced.
LikeLike
I’ve had bad teeth and gums my whole life. About 20 years ago I was losing on average one tooth per year because it was completely rotted out. A friend told me that it was because fluoride (which is in most all toothpaste’s) rots out your teeth. He gave me a recipe for making homemade toothpaste out of baking soda and peroxide. Taste is awful, but you get used to it. I used it for almost ten years, brushing twice a day. And it worked!!! No more rotting teeth.
I got lazy and eventually went back to store bought toothpaste. Been having some toothaches in the last couple years and hopefully this post will get me back into the homemade healthy stuff.
LikeLike
Thanks. What was your baking soda/peroxide recipe? Do you understand how it works?
LikeLike
I don’t understand how/why it works so good. Cant remember the exact recipe. Something like 4 big spoonfuls of baking soda and one big spoonful of hydrogen peroxide. I would then stir it up in a tupperware container and it was good to go for like 6 months or so (no idea what the actual shelf life is though). If the texture is too gritty (like wet sand), I would always add a little more peroxide. You can also add a couple drops of peppermint oil to help the taste.
Was looking for recipes online and just like everything online, there are many different versions. This link here is pretty basic, but I did not use the glycerin. I came across some that said using baking soda for long extended times can start to do major damage to gums/teeth. Or that you should only use it 2-3 times per week. But I used it for almost ten years (twice a day) and I only saw positive results. Cant remember why I stopped doing this. Maybe I got scared of the long-term thing, or it was just laziness. But I think I am gonna start up again.
Some online sites are saying to use apple cider vinegar instead of the peroxide. Which does not surprise me because ACV is a wonder drug that I have used to clean my car engine as well as helping with upset stomach and hemorrhoids. Pretty wide range of usefulness. 😊
Homemade Toothpaste : 3 Steps (with Pictures) – Instructables
LikeLike
I no longer clean my teeth. Much to my wife’s disdain. Our ancient ancestors never ever ever practiced dental hygiene. They didn’t get cavities or have crooked teeth. This is in the fossil record. Modern day hunter gathers also didn’t have cavities, crooked teeth, or problems with their wisdom teeth. It’s all diet!
Feed your kids shit and they will develop cavities, have crooked teeth and not have enough room for their wisdom teeth and struggle to breath through their nose due to poor face structure (mouth breathers). Feed them a proper human diet and they will have no cavities (for life), their teeth will be straight and they will have enough room in their mouth for their wisdom teeth to come through. Crooked, rotten teeth and poor face structure is purely environment not genetics. You won’t hear this from a dentist or orthodontist though.
I only eat meat. Just meat. Have done so now for two whole years. I don’t think I’ll ever get cavities but I’ll let you know how it turns out.
LikeLike
Thanks. I’ve read that eliminating all food that requires chewing from the diets of children has damaged the normal development of jaws and teeth.
The orthodontics industry does not discuss this because doing so would harm its business.
LikeLike
Hey Rob,
I am in my fifties and never had a cavity only a chipped tooth from an accident when 10. I put that down to genetics and perhaps lots of calcium growing up. My gums on the other hand were terrible. I was on the path to really bad gum disease. I put that down to not flossing and smoking. I always brushed my teeth twice daily.
After getting that fixed by root planning, my gums healed. Ever since I floss everyday and I use hydrogen peroxide at about 1% dulition as a mouth wash. I would never use a commercial mouth was as it is full of nasty chemicals. Did you know that Listerine was initially created as an antiseptic for many surfaces to kill Listeria, don’t put it in your mouth it kills all bacteria, good and bad. I still brush everyday but only once using an electric toothbrush that rotates.
So cutting to the chase. I now have great teeth and gums. I get them cleaned once a year by a hygienist to remove plaque build up.
That’s my 2c
LikeLike
oh and I quit smoking.
LikeLike
Thanks. I also quit smoking.
Are you sure hydrogen peroxide does not also kill all bacteria, good and bad?
Why are you confident plaque removal by a hygienist has more benefit than harm?
LikeLike
H202 only kills anaerobic bacteria which are harmful in your mouth, kills with O+ molecule being released. Romoving tartar or biofilm is necessary for me because bacteria set up residence in there and are protected from removal and h202 and then start to damage my gums. If I ate only meat then I would probably only floss and brush.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Rob and everyone else who has teeth,
I’ve been meaning to reply to this a few days ago but knew it would probably turn out to be a Gaia length thesis and test your patience so I restrained myself until I could get my main thoughts in order (and in paragraphs, of course).
I also believe that overall dental health has a large genetic component but in my experience the foods we eat and habits we have can mitigate any deficiencies to a great extent. I’ve had a shocking start to dental health (being raised from infancy by doting auntie and grandmother who fed me as many sweets and sodas as I demanded starting as a toddler) and my mouth was nothing short of a train wreck as a young child and teenager, with teeth needing to be pulled to make space for the 4 years of orthodontic hell to correct my teeth which criss-crossed every which way. I had to wear the headgear of shame in high school (which I obviously didn’t most days), the traction needed to straighten my teeth was that intense. My diet through these years was high in processed foods and I probably was severely Vit D deficient in the winter months growing up in Chicagoland. Neither of my parents had good dental genes (my mother now needs full dentures after years of woe) but I took the cake (probably because of eating it!) Very interestingly, I did not have any cavities (that may say something for the fluoride) but the alignment and crowding was disastrous, so I am thinking the earliest years of poor diet contributed the most to the structure of the jaw and emerging teeth.
All through my late teens and twenties I went dutifully to the dental hygienist every 6 months, only to see the plaque formation reappear after just a few weeks. I endured bouts of gingivitis and regular eruptions of canker sores. I rinsed with Listerine which burned my mouth, tried my best to floss regularly but always had bloodied gums. It was pretty miserable all in all, and all the while I was drinking Diet Coke and eating whatever I wanted. Even as a medical student it never clicked that my diet had anything to do with my health, such is the depth of denial.
I can see this anecdote is getting out of hand but I had to set the stage for the transformation. You probably can’t believe that once Gaia was this unhealthy or so unconscious about health, but it is totally true. Some days now I can hardly believe it myself, it’s amazing my body made it through. I am glad for the hard-learned experience and now I have total trust in my body to take care of itself in the best way it can, given the right conditions.
Fast forward to the time I suddenly woke up in my health journey, and as I’ve said many times here before, every individual is different and needs to find their own path in this, and the best way is through self experimentation as well as gathering the information that makes sense to you. For me, my most vibrant health started to unfold when I became more and more plant based in my diet, and at the same time, decreasing the amount of processed foods.
My oral health transformed, some things almost overnight, for example the weeks after I stopped animal products, my monthly canker sores completely disappeared and have never returned, which I account for in the change of flora in my mouth, also the calcified plaque around the gum line ceased to grow, which is probably the change in pH of the mouth due to the different bacteria colonies (once again, this is my own system which will be different for others). I did not go to the dentist for 14 years in a row because I had no need to do so and because I was starting to think that the less I tampered with my mouth, the better the chance it would take care of things on its own. I had to break that streak when I went to the dentist 8 years ago for a chipped front tooth and I haven’t been back since. My husband (who has better tooth genetics and follows the same diet) hasn’t been to the dentist in 23 years! I have a theory going that the regular scrapings, cleaning and even flossing actually caused a great deal of inflammation and introduced pathogens deeper into the gumline, and gentle brushing and especially water flossing would be enough to clear the film on the teeth and gums daily to prevent damage, It seemed to me that the more people went to the dentist, the more they had to go to the dentist for one procedure or another and eventually, in my mother’s case, one tooth after another got infected at the root and needed pulling. I realised that if I hadn’t changed my diet at around age 30, my mouth situation would have been much worse than hers by the time I reached 40 (when she already had a few implants). I know that I still have weakened teeth from my earlier history but I have been seemingly able to arrest the degradation and maintain them for a long period of time, so that has been encouraging and instructive.
Here is a summary of what I found works for me (I should have just wrote this, but you can’t take the spots off a leopard) and the rationale I have for why. Even if one idea helps you avoid dental misery, then I would feel all my experience and indeed, outright suffering would have not been in vain.
–rinse mouth with water vigorously after each meal, especially after a fruit or starch meal, this is to clear the extra sugars so bacteria don’t have more fodder to build up and develop acids which cause tooth enamel erosion. Really sloshing it around the mouth and expanding you cheeks like bellows is good to exercise the mouth muscles and increase circulation.
–often throughout the day, use your tongue to go over each tooth surface and gum, this is also a cleaning action and encourages production of and moves the enzyme rich saliva around which helps neutralise the bacterial acid. Also, it’s a great exercise for the tongue which we don’t do enough. Really push the tongue around, press it against the cheeks and lips, reach into the back of the pharynx, tongue yoga!
–if you like, chew gum that has xylitol (epic or Spry brand), a fruit sugar that has been found to reduce the bacterial action in the mouth. Once a day for 15 minutes is enough, but this is not a totally sustainable action as we don’t know how long we can get this kind of gum. Chewing is an important action to promote jaw health, it is true that most of our foods now don’t have the robust consistency to really increase our tooth and jaw bone density. Instead of grinding your own teeth (not good, another story to tell later) to practice chewing motions, you may be able to find a piece of medical silicone that you can bite down on and chew to give your jaws that exercise, if you’re not already eating food that requires more vigorous chewing. Meat can fit this bill or plant fibres like stalks of broccoli, just chew to get all the nutrients you can from them until you can’t break it down any more. Raw carrot and celery are excellent for chewing exercise.
–adequate Vit D is always a correct answer to optimal health, not only for proper calcium uptake and metabolism but myriads of other hormonal regulation. Sunshine is best but supplement during the low sun months, starting early autumn or whenever your max sun angle is below 50 degrees. I suggest 2500U a day minimum, and have done megadoses (50,000U) to top up or if you are getting a viral illness. You need not worry about overdosing.
–I don’t floss with tape (see above for my reasons of causing more inflammatory damage) but use a waterpik religiously, probably twice a day is ideal. The water blasting is the most effective way to remove excess bacteria and their metabolic residue that has been building up through the day and night. The massage action is very good for the gums as Rob agrees, stimulating it to become stronger and encourages circulation, (anything that encourages circulation is a positive in my book with the exception of a trauma wound that’s bleeding out). I think this is one modern device that everyone should invest in, and I have a back-up one because it’s that critical to my dental well-being. What if the electricity fails? Well, you know I am also prepared with my squeezable condiment bottles…
–if you do wish to floss, consider the sequence of brushing first, rinsing well, and then flossing to reduce the available debris to jam back into your gums. I wouldn’t reuse the floss unless you want to boil it first?
–I scrape my tongue every morning (and might as well evening) with a spoon edge to reduce the accumulation of whatever was growing in your mouth overnight or through the day, which is a warm, moist, and nutrient dense, the ideal bacterial medium. You will know what I mean when you do this, just gently scrape, no need to drag harshly to damage the tongue. Scrape until it is relatively clear, it may depend on the day. In all of this effort to reduce the bacteria count and their metabolic products in your mouth (which is responsible for possible infection and tooth erosion) I am not concerned at all about getting rid of the “good” and “bad” species, it is the balance that is key and the main aim here is you are just taking out the obvious debris and reducing population numbers a bit (can you imagine the equivalent of a metal spoon for H sapiens?) there’s no chance at all that you would remove any where near a critical mass of your mouth flora, and besides, in just 64 divisions, you’d have enough bacteria to populate a gadzillion universes, so don’t worry.
–I use a non-fluoride “natural=more expensive” toothpaste that makes me feel like I’m helping the planet and the box is embossed with all kinds of happy, healthy, good for you slogans and accreditations. So probably use whatever you like, but a soft brush is best for not irritating the gums and only a smallest amount is needed, when they say pea-sized amount I cringe and think lentil-sized. I have used regular soap before, (washing out your mouth with soap isn’t at all the dreadful thing we’ve been threatened with) and also soap nuts, just don’t swallow the foam and it’s all fine. It’s the detergent action that pulls the bacteria off the teeth but still, I cannot live without the waterpik irrigator. You will see how no matter how well you think you’ve brushed, there are still lots of debris that is blasted out.
I think that’s about all my tips on oral hygiene–I told you it was going to be painful (but hopefully not dentist-chair painful). I am not a fearful person but that is one scenario that does scare me, and I have tried everything to avoid and so far relatively successfully. It will be a very difficult time indeed when things start to collapse and masses of westerners will have no recourse for their dental issues and we all know how toothache is incompatible with sanity.
I know that no other animal cares about food in their teeth and remains in perfect health and usually dies just about the time when their teeth finally do have issues. We are a hybrid animal now with all the strikes against us and none of us living ideally, I have evolved to my current regimen to help stave off that day when mouth desperation will cause me to want to end it.
Well, time to go rinse out my mouth (with soap?) and get on with the day. Hope all are well and smiling!
Namaste, friends.
LikeLike
Hi Gaia, thanks for the excellent tips and for sharing your interesting dental story.
I very much like that you explained WHY we should do things. I find it much easier to build a good habit when I understand the reason. For example, we rinse with water after a meal to eliminate the food bad bacteria need to grow. This rinsing tip is excellent and I will implement immediately. I have been rinsing after coffee to reduce caffeine stains but not after all food.
I think I subconsciously do clean with my tongue but will try to do more of it consciously now.
This summer I listened to an alt dentist who also recommended xylitol mints so I bought a bunch but have not been regularly using them. I will resume now to see if anything changes.
It’s amazing how many benefits vitamin D seems to have. I doubled up to 2000U during covid and have stayed at that level since.
I’m also not sure about flossing. I do it but not consistently or thoroughly. I think I’ll follow your advice and increase my waterpik use to twice or more a day. I also consider it an essential device and have a spare. I have been very pleased with how reliable it has been after 5 years of daily use. I expected it to fail before now.
Thanks again for the excellent preptip.
LikeLike
Many of you may “enjoy” this interview. Perhaps no new information for this audience, but it is a very good summary intro.
My apologies if it has already been shared.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, very good interview. A different interview with Jacobsen was posted in the past but not this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Ok, ok, you’ve proven we can’t grow forever, how about we stop growing and stay where we are?
Dr. Tom Murphy today drops spirituality and returns to math, once again proving beyond doubt that the only good path is population reduction, despite not mentioning it.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/05/growth-or-scale/
LikeLike
The de-growth movement is doing good work, but they need to put a much bigger emphasis on population.
LikeLike
Preptip: Duct Tape
I have 6 rolls in my preps.
Most recently I used duct tape to repair the leaking sun roof in my van that once again proved complexity is a bad thing because pretty much every fancy power thing in the deluxe version of the van I bought 20 years ago has failed. I should have bought the simple version of the van for 10 thousand dollars less.
I also learned that cheap dollar store duct tape is not so good because it did not adhere for more than one summer exposed to strong sunlight. Removing the bad duct tape took a lot of time and effort and a strong solvent like gasoline.
Here’s a deep dive into the technology of duct tape.
This is a cool channel if you’re interested in how things work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sabine Hossenfelder today explains that space-based solar power will not save us from climate change. I left the following comment:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gail Tverberg today does a nice job of explaining the implications of globalization and the qualities of different types of energy.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2024/05/21/reaching-the-end-of-offshored-industrialization/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why is there so much climate change denial in the comments on OFW?
LikeLike
It’s a good question.
I observe that people who accept the reality of climate change believe some combination of:
– innovation and technology like green energy, carbon capture, and EVs will fix the problem (eg. most climate scientists, political leaders, and many citizens)
– fossil energy depletion will prevent bad climate scenarios (eg. Nate Hagens until very recently)
– some non-human caused physical process like sun intensity or pole shifts is causing climate change so it’s out of our control and we don’t need to do anything
– god is in control and will look after me in heaven (eg. Gail Tverberg)
I observe that people who deny the reality of climate change believe some combination of:
– at least 7 out of 8 billion will not survive without fossil energy
– modern comforts and lifestyes require fossil energy
– fossil energy is non-renewable, production has peaked, and reserves are rapidly depleting
– technology like green energy, carbon capture, and EVs are dependent on fossil energy and will not reduce the climate threat
– their livelihood depends on not believing in climate change (eg NASCAR drivers and Chris Martenson)
You can clearly see MORT at work here.
If you believe there is a happy ending or it’s out of our control you accept the reality of climate change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who is knowledgeable enough to confidently say it is so and not otherwise?
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you are refering to but if it is MORT then I am one of very few people besides Varki that is confident it is so.
LikeLike
I apologize if this comment comes out blunt.
At first it was only a sentiment. Now a thought is slowly emerging after reading many of the comments here.
Maybe I misunderstand. But, if I flesh out what I mean, I guess it would be: to claim that MORT is at work on any topic implies one knows the truth about the topic in question.
How can one be the arbitrer of truth on so many topics?
I feel unease with that. To me, it lacks humility, the benefit of doubt.
I think it would be an interesting and fun exercise to collect several (orthogonal) statements which you hold to be definitely true, put them in a table and let all the members tick whether they ring true or not. We could compare our views (and also at different times: I am sure our opinions change).
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a fair question to ask if MORT is being used to explain a widespread incorrect belief, rather than accepting there may be uncertainty in the truth.
Which of these widespread beliefs that I think are false and are explained by MORT, do you believe is true?
– infinite growth on a finite planet is possible
– our species is not in overshoot
– a falling population is bad
– there is no limit to government debt
– peak oil is a myth
– climate change is not caused by humans
– climate change is not a big risk
– there are plenty of minerals for an energy transition
– renewables will reduce fossil energy use
– efficiency will reduce fossil energy use
– renewables and EVs will fix climate change
– we can feed 8 billion people without fossil energy
– the West is good and the Russians are evil
– mRNA saved many lives and did not kill anyone
– Ivermectin is only good for deworming horses
– sugar is not a problem
– cholesterol in food is unhealthy
– statins add years of life
– there is life after death
LikeLike
Of the above statements I think the first 12 are are all false.
– the West is good and the Russians are evil: That one is more subjective so it can be up to interpretation. The mainstream media mostly portrays it as an imperialist war of aggression.
– mRNA saved many lives and did not kill anyone: There MRNA vaccines are not as safe as we were lead to believe.
– Ivermectin is only good for deworming horses: The problem here is that people were taking doses intended for cows and horses, animals who are significantly larger than humans.
– sugar is not a problem: false, but I don’t see many people denying this.
– cholesterol in food is unhealthy: In excessive amounts it can be unhealthy.
– statins add years of life: I don’t know enough to evaluate the veracity of the claim.
– there is life after death: This is also false.
LikeLike
On Ivermectin, I think anyone contemplating taking it as a prophylactic or as a treatment would have read the FLCC guidelines that provided well tested and safe dosages for humans based on body weight.
On sugar, have you looked in the grocery buggy of just about any shopper? It’s scary how much sugar people consume. I used to be one of them.
LikeLike
I know I eat too much sugar. I mentioned that sugar can be as addictive as cocaine.
LikeLike
I remember feeling a lot of stress and uncertainty whether I could cut my sugar. It was not as hard as I feared. The secret for me was to substitute sweets with other delicious snacks and desserts like popcorn, cheese, nuts, dark chocolate, and dried fruit when you have a craving for something sweet.
LikeLike
Why OPEC’s Production Cuts are Permanent
LikeLike
Nice list. I agree with you on all except for the last one. But you knew I was gonna go there. 😊. And I would have to replace the word “life” with “something”.
LikeLike
Rob, it’s scary how much you and I think alike…
Charles, I see MORT as the reasoning for the denial. I take reality as what exists around us, and the sciences of physics, chemistry, maths, biology have a very good handle on what is happening in the world. I have never seen any evidence for anything ‘godly’ that can’t be explained by one of the sciences and just plain logic.
Homo sapiens is just another species that had the brainpower and the dexterity to alter the world around itself, which gave a massive competitive advantage over other life on this planet.
However that’s it, we have a huge advantage, but when we have used up the resources we want, our population will fall just like any other species that massively overshoots it’s environment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sigh…
LikeLike
Thank you for coming up with this list. It’s a fun game.
I am going to try to be succinct and split the list in 4 categories. If you want me to later elaborate on anything, let me know.
Note, I understand the following statements as:
– infinite growth on a finite planet is possible => infinite material growth on a finite planet is possible
– there are plenty of minerals for an energy transition => I guess you mean an energy transition which keeps everything relatively the same and I guess by energy transition you mean towards electric
– we can feed 8 billion people without fossil energy => strange phrasing and not anecdoctical I believe. Who is the “we”? Royal we? I understand it as: 8 billion people can feed themselves without fossil energy
– sugar is not a problem => sugar is not a problem for individual health
Statements which I hold to be true: surprisingly none.
Statements which I hold to be false:
– infinite growth on a finite planet is possible
– peak oil is a myth
– there are plenty of minerals for an energy transition
– renewables will reduce fossil energy use
– efficiency will reduce fossil energy use
– the West is good and the Russians are evil
– mRNA saved many lives and did not kill anyone
– sugar is not a problem (it was difficult for me to answer, because I am not sure about what is meant by sugar. Part of me thinks industrial sugar is a problem, but fruits is not and industrial out-of-season fruits are. Sugar is a symptom. Maybe should have put in the I don’t know category, or ill-defined. I mean everything is a problem in great quantities)
Statements whose truthfulness I don’t know:
– a falling population is bad
– we can feed 8 billion people without fossil energy (could have put in the ill-phrased statements: for how long? I am pretty sure we could, but we won’t see it, starting from the current configuration. What I mean is food is not the limiting factor which hits first.)
– Ivermectin is only good for deworming horses (would like to put in the false category, but truly, I don’t know)
– cholesterol in food is unhealthy
– statins add years of life (I don’t really know what statins are, just heard the term, never researched it, haven’t seen a doctor for more than a decade+the notion of “adding years of life” is quite ill-defined and without any meaning to me: statistics are not necessarily incompatible with destiny)
Statements which I find not precise enough and need to be rephrased for me to answer:
– our species is not in overshoot: Homo industrialis, or homo animalis? Give me your definition of overshoot.
– a falling population is bad: for whom? Isn’t “bad” subjective?
– there is no limit to government debt: well, every thing has a limit. So what’s really the question? (government can certainly do debt until it vanishes. But no government is for ever)
– climate change is not caused by humans: humans certainly lie in the long chains of cause and effects. But then what does the word “humans” really mean? Is there such a thing as humanity? Isn’t the duality human/nature a figment of our mental model? Do humans pilot their collective behavior?
– climate change is not a big risk: to what?
– renewables and EVs will fix climate change: “fix”? From whose perspective? Isn’t climate change fixing humans?
– there is life after death: what does this mean? Even the word life is not precisely defined.
LikeLike
I seem to have misunderstood your original point about MORT being used as an excuse to criticize different versions of truth.
LikeLike
I am a bit lost ther. I am not sure I understand your previous comment and how it relates to my preceding answer.
To try and restate my initial point: it seems to me that in order to call denial about a given belief, a prerequisite is to be sure the belief is false. On many topics, I wouldn’t be sure enough of myself to do so.
Hence my initial remark was about: the limitations of our own knowledge, the importance of humility, the acceptance that reality is much more complex than our representation(s) of it.
I hope it makes better sense…
LikeLike
Was laughing when I saw how long this was. Leave it to you to get deep on what was a pretty straightforward task. 😊
Great analysis. You got me re-thinking a couple that I was confident and quick to label false. I appreciate that.
LikeLike
Excellent presentation given recently by Gail Tverberg to her colleague actuaries.
Tverberg speaks with remarkable candor to mainstream professionals.
I wonder how she is perceived by her colleagues?
Perhaps the insurance industry requires employees with a higher percentage of defective denial genes to survive?
Recall that it was the insurance industry that forced citizens to accept the reality of climate change by increasing insurance rates.
I hope they do it again for the covid crimes by increasing life insurance rates. Has anyone seen any evidence of this yet?
https://ourfiniteworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Tverberg-Beware-the-Economy-Is-Beginning-to-Shrink-May-8-2024-1.pdf
LikeLike
Monk, if Gail answers your question please let us know what she says.
h**ps://ourfiniteworld.com/2024/05/21/reaching-the-end-of-offshored-industrialization/comment-page-1/#comment-459752
LikeLike
from Dennis Coyne over at POB. Seems even the most diehard optimists are awake at night.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-update-may-2024/#
LikeLiked by 1 person
Preptip: Thanks to an excellent suggestion by Gaia, I just cut my toilet paper consumption by 80% and improved hygiene by installing a simple, low cost, no electricity, bidet on my toilet. The model is Brondell Swash CL99 and I’m very pleased with the quality. Installation is super easy and takes 10 minutes.
If you want a less expensive portable solution, there is a nicely designed Brondell squeeze bottle with spout and metal air valve available on Amazon. Strangely, this design is not available direct from China via AliExpress, only inferior designs are available.
Or as Gaia suggested, an empty condiment bottle is a free solution.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Rob,
That really made my day! Thank you so much for doing your part to save the planet one bum wipe at a time! The solution to pollution is dilution, as we have been drilled (but we all know the real answer is population reduction) and a judicious squirt of water at the right place does work wonders!
I cannot help but say here, (and forgive me David H if singing your and Joanna’s praises is too brazen for your liking) but what made my day yesterday was the most awe-inspiring visit to their amazing property here in Far North Queensland. The botanical wonderland they have planted and nurtured over so many years is nothing short of legendary, as well as being able to live in harmony with the land and reducing energy inputs. I left with a van load of plants and cuttings and a heart full of joy and renewed energy for our own endeavours. Thank you David and Jo for your generous spirit and example.
Namaste, friends.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow, congratulations to David!
LikeLike
That is very kind of you Gaia, but I’d just like to mention that we are still dependent on fossil fuels . We use petrol to pump water from the bore, diesel to take plants to market, diesel to slash the orchard and fire breaks once a year, and petrol to mow the grass around the homestead area. The small solar system doesn’t last forever, and as Hideaway and no doubt most here know, the scale of the mineral requirements to scale it all up to a global level, and rebuild it all every 25 years means that even that is just a fantasy in terms of long-term human civilisation solution I guess the ultimate irony of it all is that if one becomes, by time and effort, knowledgeable enough of the whole system, one realises that industrial civilisation is not possible for humanity on any long-term basis. It’s fascinating to me to read Tom Murphy’s essays over the years, and see his own journey of realisation. Also Hideaway’s awareness is spot on, and it is good that Rob posts his essays here . Anyway, great to meet you, Gaia, and your knowledge and enthusiasm was a delight.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can’t find an envy emoji. That’s my kind of day out. Happy gardening 😀
LikeLike
Move along, nothing to see here.
LikeLike
Which do you think is the more likely outcome: Default or Hyperinflation? I think that the latter is more likely, because I don’t think they would allow the U.S. government to default on its debt.
LikeLike
I used to believe that deflation vs. hyperinflation was a entirely a political decision, and because politicians will always choose the path of least short term pain, hyperinflation would be the outcome.
Now I’m not sure. Our debt levels are so high and the Seneca cliff fall in fossil energy will be so fast that deflation may be the most probable outcome.
The only thing I’m confident in is that we will be a lot poorer.
I’m also confident that stocking extra food will prove to be a wise decision regardless of the outcome.
LikeLike
Why do you think it will be a Seneca cliff and not a Hubbert curve?
LikeLike
Because we have grown debt faster than the real economy to extract energy faster then we can afford using the wealth produced by that energy.
This game must end due to mathematics and physics, and when it does there will be a big discontinuity rather than a gradual change.
You can also view this through the lens of using technology to add straws to suck harder on a milkshake. For example, injecting water to accelerate a well works until it doesn’t.
LikeLike
3 days, really? Who doesn’t already have 3 days of food in their kitchen?
3 years would be better advice.
I’m surprised the idiot politician didn’t recommend an extra mRNA booster just in case you’re locked down and miss your 6 month update.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13444625/oliver-dowden-stockpile-national-resilience-power-cuts-cyber-attacks-floods.html
LikeLike
LOL!!! Why not just say three hours. And while three years is much better advice, it’s not realistic for most people (because of financial and/or intellectual capacity).
But my god, three days? Talk about worthless advice. My guess is it’s a manipulative attempt by the elite to offer advice and seem helpful but also keep the illusion that if SHTF, dont worry you just got to make it on your own for a couple of days and then everything will be back to normal.
Back to that intellectual capacity thing. I’m only gonna have about 2 months worth, tops. I’m lucky that I could afford to stock up for a couple years… but I cannot bring myself to do this. Yes, some of it is a “I dont want to survive in the Mad Max environment”, but there is something else preventing me from going hardcore prepper. Not sure what it is though. Maybe its denial related.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Strange that there is not more coverage on this. Perhaps another example of energy blindness (aka denial)?
https://swentr.site/russia/597882-ukraine-energy-capacity-loss-strikes/
LikeLike
Rachel Donald has grown into a very wise and aware interviewer.
I’d rate this interview with Dr. Tim Garrett as a must watch because it addresses most of the big questions that you rarely hear discussed anywhere:
It also provides a great example of the most powerful form of of MORT: denial of denial.
Garrett with emotion laments that we are in a serious crisis, and despite relying on physics for everything we value in civilization, we are unwilling to apply physics to understanding and improving our overshoot predicament.
He can get funding to study snowflakes but there is no funding for his much more important work on the physics of overshoot.
Garrett knows every one of the few people studying the physics of overshoot, but there too many people studying snowflakes for him to know them all.
Garrett with confidence blames this blind spot on economists who have power and are closed minded to anything that contradicts their flawed theories.
This is clearly wrong, and Garrett should know the correct answer because I have educated him many years ago on MORT. Ditto for Rachel Donald who interviewed Dr. Varki and then promptly forgot everything she learned. Ditto for Alex Smith of Radio Ecoshock who interviewed Varki, understood the implications of MORT, and then promptly returned to wondering in every episode why we deny climate change.
Denial of denial is the most powerful form of MORT.
P.S. Garrett also discussed his off-grid cabin and acknowledged his solar power system is too complex and too fragile.
P.P.S. You can find more work I’ve posted by Garrett here:
https://un-denial.com/?s=Tim+Garrett%3A
https://un-denial.com/?s=Richard+Nolthenius
LikeLiked by 2 people
I listen to, and read everything I can find from Tim Garrett, because obviously we think along the same lines. He struggled during that interview to put into a formula what Rachel asked him, yet watching that, and the fact I’ve been working on power laws and scaling, the formula he was looking for is extremely simple and by itself describes why civilization can’t last and will collapse…
M = Materials … The civilization we live in is the crust of planet Earth turned into useful Materials with the use of E Energy to do it. However we humans have always ( so does every other lifeform and physical process) used the ‘closest’ and ‘easiest’ to get resources. (a hurricane gets the energy from the warm tropic waters, not colder arctic waters).
To either grow OR maintain the existing system, the amount of Energy must rise or the system or process collapses.
We humans go and grab lower grade ores from further away, it’s a continuous effort.
M = E to the power y………. energy has to increase constantly to maintain the system, or increase by more to grow the system.
E to the power y no matter what it is, assuming it’s positive, which it has to be because of the laws of physics, means it’s not possible on a finite planet. It’s only possible for a period of time until the system collapses.
Civilization is no different in form from a Hurricane or Tim’s cumulonimbus clouds, they are all Energy dissipative structures, that form grow with excess energy then collapse when the energy needed to maintain them is no longer available.
In reality we could have had a much simpler lower energy using system of civilization last a lot longer than our current much larger and more energy demanding civilization, but it wouldn’t be indefinite if it’s using energy to transform Earth’s crust into Materials.
Current civilization is built on ALL the forms of energy we use in an ever increasing spiral of energy needs. Once one of our energy forms starts falling rapidly and cannot be compensated by other forms of energy growing enough, then collapse will happen. It’s a law of physics and applies to organisms, hurricanes, clouds and stars. There are no exceptions…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also saw Garrett stall on the explanation. I interpreted it as him being reluctant to say there is no hope.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but there is one sentence missing from your explanation for why steady state civilization is not possible and collapse is inevitable:
All things eventually wear out, and perfect 100% recycling of materials is physically impossible, therefore some new materials are required to maintain steady state, and over time the material reserve quality will decline and require more energy to mine and process, and therefore steady state civilization requires a growing supply of energy, and infinite energy growth, regardless of how small the exponent, is impossible on a finite planet.
I still like Jack Alpert’s plan because if we could get down to 100 million there would be a ton of used material we could recycle and scavenge and those people could enjoy many of the good things we have accomplished for many hundreds of years. Plus we would avoid 7.9 billion people suffering and dying horrible deaths.
LikeLike
I was trying to keep it as short as possible and agree with your added sentence. Realistically all recycling does, is exactly the same as efficiency gains, they slightly reduce the energy required to keep going until collapse, they add time..
What both do in our civilization is give people a reason to ignore/deny the inevitable.
The one part that is truely horrifying about it all is that collapse is a normal expected part of the process.
I support Jack Alpert’s plan for exactly the same reason, it would reduce suffering. However I’m 99.99% certain it wont happen as people will continue to deny reality. Afterall there are enough crazies out their that believe GOD will provide for his people so physics, materials, energy and compassion for every other species is irrelevant…
LikeLike
I suppose it’s not so horrifying in the context that everything in the universe eventually dies including our sun. However there is a good way and a bad way to go.
LikeLike
Hello Hideaway.
I don’t understand your equation. It’s: M = E^y? What is y? Just some positive constant? (which could be estimated by looking at some data?)
Why this equation and not some other function which depends on E (for instance: some constant times E)? Why is time not present in the equation?
If I understand you well, once the aggregate of the energies used starts to fall, M will decrease. Why do you call it collapse, rather than decline?
LikeLike
Hi Charles, it collapses because it’s a dissipative energy structure and they all collapse due to energy decline. Decline in energy input leads to a rapidly growing set of failures within the system as the system had tried to accommodate the initial fall in energy growth by stressing lots of subsystems with inadequate energy.
Think of an organism that dies or a hurricane that goes over land. The organism dying because less energy is able to enter where it’s needed, stresses subsystems until a tipping point is reached somewhere and a critical subsystem collapses stopping the circulation of energy. We call it death, as it’s the collapse of the complete system with other subsystems unable to overcome the critical failure, so all cells then rapidly die.
Likewise for a hurricane, it gets it’s energy from the evaporation then condensation over warm water. Over land it’s not getting the energy from the warm water body so rapidly collapses. However over mostly warm water and a bit of land, it tries to accommodate the reduced energy usually by slowing down.
Failure to grow the energy input means that internal aspects of the system that distribute energy can’t all be maintained, meaning a rapid cascade of breakdown of all systems as others produced by self organisation have to do ‘more’ than they are capable of so they fail in a cascade of failure. That’s what a collapse is, a cascade of failing subsystems that can’t be maintained.
In an organism it’s one critical system fails and the rest quickly follow. A city or the whole of civilization itself acts very much like an organism with many aspects acting in tandem to keep the flow of energy within the system going.
In the formula above y is a positive number. As we turn ‘the crust’ of planet Earth into Materials of built civilization, we always use the easy to get, highest grade ‘stuff’ first. We then have to go and get ”stuff’ from further away, this means more energy expended. After the highest grades of ores, we get lower grades, again meaning more energy use turning the low grade ore into useable Material. Everything we build suffers from entropy so has to be replaced.
Energy has to continually grow, so E to the power y for the system to be maintained. We don’t know exactly what y is, but we do know that constant growth is not possible on a finite planet, so the E part of the equation can’t grow forever. Perhaps the formula should be..
M(t1-t∞) = E(t1-t∞)^y.
Even a steady state of civilization requires a constant growth in energy use just to maintain the system. If the energy growth slows down, internal systems get stressed, we don’t have enough energy to maintain everything. Eventually some critical system will be overstressed leading to a cascade of failures in other subsystems in a chaotic way, including energy gathering systems, leading to much less energy and eventual collapse. Slowly at first, then all at once.
I see all of our subsystems in our civilization under stress. The huge growing debt being a sign. We use to have exponential increase in energy available to grow our civilization up until the early ’70s, as can be seen with oil production growth rates over decades. then oil growth became linear. Coal growth went exponential in around ’65 up to ’88, while gas had exponential growth from 2001-12. Overall though energy growth rates have slowed down and put our civilization under stress. Once the fall in energy production starts accelerating, the stressed subsystems come under more and more stress with parts being unable to cope, causing chaotic cascades of failures throughout civilization.
I hope this answers your questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RFK’s book ‘The Real Anthony Fauci” has made my mom a crazy lady 😊. I wish she would not have read it because she is now spending too much time chasing rabbit holes of covid, big pharma, Gates, etc.
She sent me this quick video of Gates (gotta be an old clip). Its from a 2022 documentary called Died Suddenly. She watched the entire doc on Rumble and wants me to watch it. I don’t like to waste my time on this shit. Has anyone in the audience seen the doc? If yes, do you recommend?
Bill Gates – Reduce population through vaccination (rumble.com)
LikeLike
I haven’t seen the documentary. It’s a troubling reality that almost all covid skeptics think population reduction is evil and climate change is a hoax. This makes it challenge to determine which covid skeptics are intelligent, have integrity, and are not in denial.
I could not finish the RFK book on Fauci because it upset me so much that our leaders reward evil behavior rather than punishing it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nice rant on rewarding evil.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/daszaks-embarrassments-of-riches
LikeLiked by 1 person
Growing numbers of Americans can’t afford cars.
Since it is from the mainstream media (Deutsche Welle), they had to put some mandatory hopium at the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it was Steve Ludlum that said cars are the single biggest mistake made by our species. When you think about the resources cars wasted in energy, materials, roads, bridges, etc., the few useful things they accomplished, and their very short lifetime in the big picture, he might be right.
Steve used to be a prominent overshoot thinker. His claim to fame is the triangle of doom which is a graph that shows the rising cost of extracting oil versus the declining ability of consumers to afford oil.
He’s since become focused on “The Putin bad”.
I don’t know what happened to him.
LikeLike
https://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-update-may-2024/#comment-775349
Hideaway:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Their numbers from how much extra capacity of solar, wind and batteries, to their ‘spend’ for California do not even come close to their own reality.
I showed how a single coal power plant in Indonesia of 1,100Mw, attached to an Aluminium smelter would need a $US72B spend on solar, wind and batteries, at a cheaper cost than today’s actual costs. California would be close to 2 magnitudes more, certainly not the $119B they claim. Of course they don’t go into detail about that…
They can keep the dream alive for the gullible, providing they don’t put numbers to it. As soon as they put their numbers in, it’s easy to show how ridiculous the whole concept is.
Perhaps it works when they project their cost lines far enough into the future to show that when solar is $5/Kw and batteries are $5/Kwh (in today’s money) it all works fine.
News flash, solar will never become $5/kw and batteries never become $5/Kwh as they are too material dense…. Just imagine the damage we would do to the environment if energy was that cheap…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hamish, are you still with us? About a month ago you said this regarding legalized and widely accessible euthanasia:
If 100% of the deaths were from the poorest 90% of the population, the difference to our predicament would be 1%.
I get that “reduction needs to come from those that consume the most”, but that’s exactly who I think will be getting in line the fastest. This comfortable, soft, weak empire baby lifestyle will be the first one’s to volunteer when the going gets tough. And I know its a hokey line, but I do think there is some truth in it; the poorest people who dont even know how bad they have it (energy wise), are the happiest.
Just wondering if you (or anyone) would care to expand on why euthanasia would not work as far as good sensible population reduction and helping to conserve resources.
Chris
LikeLike
The Ethical Skeptic has been a intelligent reliable critic of the covid crimes. Now he’s pushing a theory that claims the main driver of climate change is not CO2 from human burning of fossil energy.
It doesn’t smell right to me. There are too many climate scientists with integrity like James Hansen, Kevin Anderson, and Paul Beckwith that never mention this theory.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/05/23/master-exothermic-core-mantle-decoupling-dzhanibekov-oscillation-theory/
LikeLike
Hi Rob,
Curiouser and curiouser. This theory is very much related to the pole shift/earth magnetosphere weakening due to our solar system entering an energetic region of the galactic magnetic and dust sheet which will ultimately be the cause of the cyclical micronova event from our sun that will cause cataclysm and innudation that Ben and Bret were talking about. They staunchly do not believe our current temperature off the charts and climate chaos is solely human driven. At least that’s my understanding of it.
I’d appreciate anyone else’s take, just for increased knowledge sake.
Namaste.
LikeLike
Vice president of the rules based world order. And her boss can’t form a coherent sentence. Unbelievable.
LikeLike