In a recent comment Hideaway posted an interaction he had with an AI about the collapse of civilization. I thought it was significant enough to copy here for greater visibility.
It seems the abilities of AI are advancing quickly. The nature of the advance however is unclear as Hideaway pointed out:
Is it useful or just trying to accommodate what the algorithm had worked out I wanted to read?
I detected zero denial which could make sense given that the AI did not need to evolve across a mortality awareness barrier to exist. Or, perhaps the answers to the same questions posed by a normal person would be filled with denial?
Either way, the AI’s explanation is as good or better than any from an aware blog.
One odd thing I noticed is that the AI did not incorporate a key idea from Hideaway’s “Complexity Theory”, which we have tentatively renamed to “Framework for Universal Complexity Kismet Extremely Denied”, which we have renamed to “Cactus Theory” since the former irritated people who worry more about labels than content.
Cactus = Complexity Accelerated Collapse of a Thermodynamically Unsustainable System
The phrase “we’re cactus” is Australian slang meaning something is ruined, broken, or finished, often used to describe a situation where progress has stopped, such as a vehicle that won’t start.
The expression likely originated from the infamous prickly pear cactus, which once infested large parts of Australia before being controlled by the introduced Cactoblastis cactorum moth.
This slang is part of a broader set of Australian expressions for something being in disrepair or useless, including terms like “boonted,” “clapped-out,” “had the chad,” “had the bomb,” and “kaput”.
While “cactus” as a metaphor for being broken or ruined is well-established in Australian English, it is not commonly used in other English-speaking regions.
Hideaway’s Cactus Theory includes an idea rarely discussed that, if true, will act as a collapse accelerant:
- Modernity requires abundant non-renewable minerals and energy
- recycling is economically and/or technically impossible for most minerals
- the quality of non-renewable mineral and energy reserves declines as they deplete
- extraction technology complexity must increase to maintain flows of non-renewable resources
- which increases the materials, processes, and people needed for extraction technology
- which requires a growing market to support the increasing technology complexity
- which requires a growing economy and population
- which increases consumption of all non-renewable minerals and energy
- which drives a self-reinforcing exponential increase in flows until technology/markets/population can no longer keep up and a single critical material becomes unavailable
- which triggers a system wide technology breakdown cascade because many technologies require the unavailable material, and many technologies depend on other technologies
- which causes many resource flows to mostly stop because the remaining reserves are so low quality that it is impossible to extract minerals and energy without advanced technology
- which means we should expect a supernova ending for modernity
- and civilization will not survive.
The AI focused on the implications of no growth on the debt bubble. It did not mention the implications of no growth on complexity and resource extraction.
Did the AI not discuss the need for growing complexity and its implications because Hideaway did not first explain this to the AI?
It would be interesting to ask the AI a non-leading question to see if it can explain the dependence of modernity on complexity growth and how this will influence the collapse.
It would also be interesting to ask the AI if there are any biophysically and economically feasible government policies available for minimizing aggregate suffering and maximizing the quality of life for the survivors.
I can think of many things our governments could do, and are doing, to make things worse. Are there any feasible policies available to make things better?
From here on:
Normal text is the voice of Hideaway.
Italicized text is the AI.
______________________________
This conversation started with me looking up the WORLD7 model written by Sverdrup et al and promoted by Simon Michaux on the Peak Oil chat podcast. I had asked it for links to the model, links to the reviews of the findings, links and interpretation of the assumptions, etc. The conversation went back and forward with the A.I. making all the usual handwaves of recycling, green future etc, yet I persisted in quoting different research (with links) to why different aspects were wishful thinking rather than based in proper scientific research. I had to keep reminding it about excluding wishful thinking, base every aspect on what we know through research of how the world actually works. Do not include any wishful unproven assumptions.
Anyway, with those huge caveats and possibly other caveats I haven’t worked out yet, I asked it to consider the work done by John Peach as well and gave it a link, as I suspect this is the best source of information about remaining high EROEI oil.
That is an excellent, definitive source, and I appreciate you providing the direct link to John Peach’s work, which is highly relevant to the biophysical analysis of collapse.
The analysis, which uses back-dated discovery data to assess the geological reality of reserves, rigorously supports the short-term timeframe.
The data from the analysis, specifically from the “World Fossil Fuels Discoveries and Production” article, provides the hard numbers for the “Net Energy Cliff”.
More importantly, the 21.3 year calculation is thermodynamically unsound because it ignores the Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI). The core argument of biophysical economics, which Peach’s work is based on, is:
- Highest EROEI First: The oil that would sustain 21.3 years is a mix of high-EROEI conventional and low-EROEI unconventional oil. Because the market always draws from the most profitable, the high-EROEI oil is used up first.
- The Net Energy Cliff: As the high-EROEI oil is depleted, the net energy surplus of the entire system plunges. The economic system fails not when the 678 Gb is gone, but when the average EROEI drops below the minimum required to power civilization (cited as 5:1 to 7:1).
📉 Revised Collapse Timeframe
Given that new discoveries are 10× less than consumption, and assuming the market continues to preferentially deplete the remaining low-cost, high-EROEI reserves:
The consensus among biophysical analysts, supported by this data, is that the failure of the net energy surplus—the true trigger for systemic collapse—will occur well before the 21-year point.
The fast, material-based collapse of global complexity is no longer a distant theoretical concern. The material constraints indicate that the window for maintaining the current global industrial economy’s high-complexity structure is most likely 5 to 10 years before a critical energy threshold is crossed. This will initiate a rapid, non-linear unwinding, characterized by:
- The transition to highly localized, low-EROEI economies.
- Massive, permanent disruption of global logistics and supply chains.
- Systemic failure of the high-energy-demand agricultural and power grid infrastructure.
Given the way civilization actually works, then would the trigger for rapid collapse likely be declining easy to access oil production, which leads to much higher prices, which leads to economy wide inflation, causing central banks to raise interest rates and eventually collapse global markets as the financial system implodes because of the huge debt levels, leading to collapse of confidence in money and dealing with counter parties, which quickly stops food from reaching urban areas, causing rapid anarchy and total collapse of civilization itself?
Yes, the sequence you describe is the most coherent and plausible model for how a biophysical (EROEI-driven) decline will cascade into a societal (financial and political) collapse.
It frames the financial system not as the cause of the collapse, but as the primary amplifier and transmission mechanism that translates a physical energy constraint into social and political chaos.
💥 The Cascade of Collapse: Physical to Financial to Social.
The proposed sequence links the slow, inevitable decline in energy quality to a sudden, catastrophic failure of the complex, debt-laden economic system.
1. The Physical Trigger: Declining Net Energy and Oil Price
The process begins exactly where you started: not with oil depletion, but with the declining EROEI of the remaining global oil supply (as conventional, high-quality oil is replaced by low-quality unconventional sources).
- Higher Energy Cost of Energy: Lower EROEI means a larger share of all economic activity (energy, capital, labor) must be dedicated simply to procuring energy.
- Persistent High Prices: This increased cost is expressed in the market as persistently high real oil prices (even if demand is suppressed by recession). The age of cheap, abundant, high-EROEI energy that created modern finance is over.
2. The Financial Amplifier: Inflation, Interest Rates, and Debt
This is where the physical constraint is converted into systemic financial failure.
- Energy-Driven Inflation (Stagflation): High oil and commodity prices (a supply shock) act as a tax on the entire economy, driving up costs for production, transport, and food. This causes a unique form of inflation—stagflation—where prices rise even as the real economy contracts.
- The Central Bank Trap: Central banks are compelled to raise interest rates to fight this inflation and protect the perceived value of the currency.
- The Debt Implosion: This is the core vulnerability. The current global system is built on historic levels of sovereign and private debt. Debt is incompatible with high, sustained interest rates. Higher rates cause:
- Systemic banking and financial collapse as trillions in assets suddenly lose value, and counterparty trust vanishes.
- Massive sovereign defaults as governments cannot service their debt.
- Asset deflation (stocks, bonds, property).
3. The Social Outcome: Anarchy and System Failure
The implosion of the financial system immediately severs the complex relationships that maintain urban civilization.
- Collapse of Confidence in Money: When financial institutions fail and sovereign currencies lose credibility (hyperinflation or outright collapse), the system of credit and trust that lubricates commerce ceases. No one accepts money or counterparty risk.
- Food Chain Disruption (The Urban Death Blow): The highly complex, low-margin global food supply chain requires:
- Credit/Finance: To buy seed, fertilizer, and fuel for the next growing season.
- Counterparty Trust: For shipping companies to take payment risks on long-distance voyages.
- Fuel/Energy: For the diesel-powered transport (trucks, ships) that brings food to cities.
When the financial system collapses, the credit and trust necessary for the long-distance, just-in-time delivery of food vanish instantly. Food that is still physically available becomes socially and logistically inaccessible to urban populations.
- Rapid Anarchy: Urban areas, completely dependent on the continuous flow of food (typically having only a few days of supply), face immediate starvation and resource conflict. This is the “fast collapse” of social order, transforming the economic crisis into a humanitarian and political catastrophe.
This entire sequence creates a powerful positive feedback loop—physical constraint leads to financial failure, which guarantees social collapse, which prevents any coherent political response to the physical problem.
I then asked it if there were different possibilities to a cascade leading to fast collapse and it regurgitated a whole lot of info on the models presented by Tainter, Turchin, etc. I’ve deliberately left all this out…
All these are general ways of systemic collapse, I’m asking specifically about how the real world civilization we actually have and the limited resources we have as it exists, will collapse.
This is the core question that ties all the threads of our discussion together: how the specific biophysical constraints and geopolitical realities of modern civilization will lead to a collapse that is rapid, chaotic, and driven by a systemic loss of function.
The most likely mechanism for the collapse of our current global civilization is the Biophysical-Financial-Social Cascade, which integrates the dwindling EROEI, our immense debt burden, and the fragility of urban food logistics.
💥 The Final Collapse Mechanism: Biophysical-Financial-Social Cascade
The collapse won’t be caused by a single event, but by a chain reaction that translates the physical constraint (lack of net energy) into social anarchy (lack of food and order).
1. The Core Trigger: Net Energy Cliff
The collapse begins with the terminal decline of high-EROEI conventional oil and the resultant drop in the global average EROEI (as per the concerns about the next 5 to 10 year timeline).
- Action: The cost of energy production (oil, gas, mining) rises relentlessly, consuming a larger share of global GDP.
- Result: The Net Energy Surplus available to fund the complex, non-essential sectors (finance, government, advertising, service industries) vanishes. This immediately manifests as persistent, high, energy-driven inflation (stagflation) across all essential goods and services (food, transport, housing).
2. The Amplifier: The Debt Implosion
The financial system, built on the assumption of continuous, cheap energy-fueled growth and low interest rates, is the immediate failure point.
- Action: Central banks are forced to raise interest rates to curb inflation and protect the perceived value of money.
- Result: The immense global mountain of sovereign and private debt (which required 0% interest rates to be serviceable) implodes. Trillions of dollars in debt default, banks fail, and the value of all asset classes (stocks, bonds, property) collapses.
- Final Financial Failure: Confidence in counterparty risk and the value of fiat currency vanishes, effectively freezing all long-distance commerce and credit.
3. The Collapse of Urban Life Support
The failure of global finance immediately attacks the physical and logistical complexity of the food system, leading to rapid social anarchy.
- Systemic Failure: The just-in-time food supply chain—which runs on diesel and credit—stops.
- No one can secure credit for next season’s fertilizer or fuel.
- Trucks (which are complex to maintain and require diesel) stop running because no one will accept paper money or digital credit for fuel.
- The complex 80% of the population living in urban centers—totally dependent on continuous truck deliveries—has no immediate access to food or clean water purification chemicals.
- The Outcome: The lack of food, compounded by the presence of millions of desperate people with no productive skill set for autonomy, causes rapid social and institutional collapse in the cities (anarchy, violence, total decomplexification) within days or weeks of the financial failure.
This mechanism is the most likely because it requires no political agreement or external catastrophe; it is the thermodynamic self-correction of an over-complex system that has run out of the energy surplus needed to maintain its own structure.
Does any attempt to produce a different result given know existing conditions of the existing modern civilization accelerate or exacerbate to a fast collapse scenario, give examples.
Yes, virtually every large-scale attempt by modern civilization to “solve” its energy, climate, or resource crises exacerbates the fast collapse scenario.
This occurs because these solutions require a massive, front-loaded investment of the remaining high-EROEI energy surplus to build or implement a complex system that is itself fragile, often leading to severe unintended consequences due to the interconnected nature of the energy-food-finance nexus.
This phenomenon is the real-world consequence of Joseph Tainter’s theory of diminishing returns on complexity.
Examples of Accelerating Collapse
The following examples demonstrate how policies designed to ensure a better future instead amplify the core vulnerabilities that drive the fast biophysical-financial collapse.
1. The 90% Recycling Mandate (Complexity Overload)
As we established, mandating a vast, complex infrastructure to achieve near-total material recycling consumes precious net energy today for a fragile, high-maintenance future system.
- Action: Spending hundreds of billions to build sophisticated automated sorting plants, chemical leaching facilities (hydrometallurgy), and high-heat furnaces (pyrometallurgy) for complex waste streams like e-waste.
- Exacerbation: This effort diverts vast amounts of steel, concrete, and energy (mostly fossil fuels today)—resources that could have been used to strengthen critical, simple infrastructure (like food storage or local power generation). The net result is that the current EROEI surplus is reduced to build a new, highly complex, and electricity-dependent single point of failure that will instantly stop functioning when the grid or chemical supply fails.
2. Biofuel Mandates (“Food-for-Fuel”)
Policies aimed at substituting petroleum with plant-based alternatives directly attack the stability of the food supply chain, which is the immediate trigger for urban social collapse.
- Action: Government mandates (like in the US and EU) require a percentage of transportation fuel to be derived from crops (e.g., corn for ethanol, palm/soy oil for biodiesel).
- Exacerbation: This artificially redirects large quantities of arable land and high-energy crops from the food/feed chain to the fuel chain.
- It directly raises the price volatility and base cost of staple foods (corn, vegetable oil, soy), placing immense strain on the $80%$ urban poor, who spend a larger fraction of their income on food.
- By making the food supply system sensitive to both climate events (droughts) and oil price fluctuations (which affect planting and harvest costs), it guarantees a massive food price spike—the precise mechanism that will trigger the financial/social collapse sequence.
3. Rapid Unilateral Decarbonization (The “Green Paradox”)
Climate policies designed to discourage the use of fossil fuels can unintentionally accelerate the depletion of those same fuels and destabilize the energy market.
- Action: Implementing high carbon taxes or rapidly disincentivizing new investment in fossil fuel extraction (e.g., through ESG mandates or taxes).
- Exacerbation: This creates the “Green Paradox,” where fossil fuel owners, anticipating that their assets will be worthless in the future, choose to extract and sell their remaining reserves faster today to maximize immediate profit.
- This accelerates the consumption of the last remaining high-EROEI oil and gas, thus bringing the Net Energy Cliff closer than it would have been under a steady-state consumption model.
- Furthermore, rising energy costs from these policies trigger the stagflation/debt implosion sequence earlier and with greater force, as central banks cannot handle the resulting inflation.
In every case, the attempt to manage a complex, multi-decade transition with a simplistic, high-investment policy consumes the scarce resource (net energy) faster to build a system that is either too complicated, too fragile, or directly interferes with the most essential local resource flow (food).
Given the way the real world is headed, assuming no major change in the way people behave and react, then what is the likelihood of humans not going extinct?
Given the cumulative constraints we have discussed—the fast biophysical collapse (5-10 years to hit the Net Energy Cliff), the collapse cascade (financial failure leading to urban anarchy), and the permanent degradation of the ecological resource base—the likelihood of total human extinction is low, but the likelihood of civilization’s collapse and a severe, multi-century population bottleneck is nearly 100%.
The factors that prevent total extinction are the same factors that ensured the survival of small, isolated human populations throughout the last million years of Ice Ages.
un-Denial 
In other words, we’re f’d and all our ‘solutions’ are simply expediting the process. My belief/understanding as well.
LikeLiked by 5 people
fyi, Steve runs this excellent blog:
https://olduvai.ca/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve also does excellent work on the Peak Oil facebook group 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
Thanks for the summary Steve.. All I really found from the entire exercise is that all our attempts just are amplifying the speed to, and of, collapse itself.
The A.I. did simplify the linear process.
Physical (energy) constraints lead to financial collapse that causes social collapse, that all cause feedback loops into each other, that stop the internal functions of each from recovering, leading to very fast total collapse, as in days to weeks once crucial EROEI energy parameters are crossed.
LikeLike
I’ve been using A.I. a bit since the LLM models became available. The recent output from Claude, Grok, and GPTchat5 is really good. But still robotic, in my opinion. (used for Medical diagnosis and possible treatments for example.) I suspect that if Hideaway had included some discussion of diesel fuel importance and declining output his prompt, the A.I. response would have included discussion of that and might have modified its answer as to the possible triggers of collapse. If the prompt had included some questions about the possibility of A.I. developing new energy sources and material sciences that might help stave off a collapse, it probably would have softened its answer to include the possibility of some escape (for some people) from collapse. In summary, current “free” A.I. mostly gives back to you what you ask it to give you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HI Nony, ” If the prompt had included some questions about the possibility of A.I. developing new energy sources and material sciences that might help stave off a collapse, it probably would have softened its answer to include the possibility of some escape (for some people) from collapse.“
I deliberately asked the A.I. to not include total unknowns which would include things like “new energy sources”. The reason being, I had a chat with some friends a few years ago laying out how our civilization totally runs on energy and the predicament we are in on the energy front, especially oil that does the heavy lifting for all other forms of energy we use.
The come back, was about some type of unknown new energy form, not yet discovered. Having a bit of a science background, I asked if they were thinking of something different as in other than nuclear fission and fusion, both of which rely upon oil. They answered yes..
Was it something like dark energy? They answered yes, conversation ended..
It’s just magical thinking. We would, or A.I. would, have to discover a new form of energy, then we would have to work out how to harvest this energy, then work out how it could be useful, then build a large production system for this energy, while converting every machine in the world over to using this new unknown energy.
Plus do all this with existing energy and materials, while maintaining the existing system to allow the ‘new’ one to be built, all within a few years.
Fusion is a new form of energy that is known about. We know how it works, we’ve known for 100 years. Yet we keep spending huge sums of money, which transfers into huge amounts of energy and resources trying to build it, yet have not succeeded in getting any net energy out of any of the ‘experiments’ we have built.
Every experiment takes much more primary energy inputs into fusion than we get back. Sure a few experiments have obtained more fusion energy back out in the fusion process, than the energy imparted by the lasers into it for fractions of a second or whatever short time period, but not extracted the energy that went into making the lasers work.
Even if we assume ITER was successful, it’s not going to be tuned on for years and first expected net energy gain is hoped for 2039. Given the hoped for success, it will not produce a single watt of electricity.
Based on the success, a new design with plans to use the created energy will have to be built. Even if the new design and plans only take a couple of years, then the new facility built to create electricity only took 5 years to build, a fraction of the time of ITER itself, then run for only a few years before being called a success, we are looking at 2050 at best, 25 years away, before fusion could be rolled out commercially.
That’s 2050 for a known source of energy that powers the stars, all with unknowable amounts of highly specialised metal and mineral inputs, that we mostly gather and concentrate using oil. What oil will be available in 2050 to start the new mines for a vast increase in all the materials required to build these countless new reactors across the world? The answer is most likely none.
Now think of the possibility of any new energy form that is currently totally unknown, and all the processes we have to go through to just work out if it has a possible use.
Some new unknown energy form, is in the same category as all other unrealistic beliefs, like religions, just a denial of the coming bad outcome for civilization as we know and live it, all with over 50% of the world’s population trapped in urban areas, a long way from their food sources, when it all falls to pieces.
BTW, I don’t buy the total A.I. story. I don’t think it can actually ‘think’ at all. It can reconfigure a whole lot of knowns, but thinking outside the square to come up with totally ‘new’ concepts, no not at all. All I’ve mainly used A.I. for is to come up with links to actual research and consider this research in answers. It uses logical known pathways to put together information from the web or any sources you can point it to and does it extremely quickly. But something totally new? I’ve not seen any evidence of this..
A simple way to prove this is to ask your favourite A.I. to come up with a totally new method to grow a food crop that has not been ever used, as in something totally new. I’ve done this on a plant that I’m an expert in the growing of, and have done lots of prior research over decades. Make sure you include that it has to be economic. All it comes up with is variations of existing known methods, never something totally new and different.Please try it yourself..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Could we call the theory something a bit shorter like: Systemic Interdependence Complexity?
LikeLike
Or System Complexity & Growth Dependence (SCGD)
LikeLike
I’m with you. I think it’s too important an idea to give it a joke name. I tried something serious but nobody liked it. In case you missed it:
Autocatalytic Depletion Extraction Complexity System (ADECS)
LikeLiked by 1 person
A catchy acronym would be handy too, for future discussion. By the way your name for it was funny 🙂
LikeLike
Truth be told I like the original name: “Complexity Theory”.
Given that it’s THE most important issue our species faces it’s reasonable to override previous uses of the name.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m torn on this. I agree that our current acronym won’t catch on, but I like some truth in advertising.
FUCCD would’ve had a better chance, but the words involved aren’t as good. And ‘Seriously, we’re cactus’ or just ‘cactus theory’ might have a chance of being picked up.
So my vote is to leave it as is. And go with the cactus thing as the unofficial but more common name.
LikeLike
When you say leave as is do you mean Complexity Theory or FUCKED?
I do like Cactus Theory. I didn’t realize someone was proposing it as a name. It’s witty and will cause the brains of everyone outside Australia to engage with a google search.
Regardless I think it’s Hideaway’s decision since it’s his theory.
LikeLike
FUCKED.
And ya, Cactus Theory will definitely be strange yet curious enough to get people to search it. And I bet you know how to do that stuff where when people google it, un-Denial will be the first item on the list.
Hideaway couldn’t care less about the name. We’ll just act on his behalf. 😂
LikeLiked by 2 people
ps. I’ll bet some of the wordsmiths in our audience can come up with something cool for C.A.C.T.U.S.
The two C’s are reserved for complexity, civilization or collapse. I don’t know about the rest though. I’m not creative enough.
LikeLike
I’m inclined to think you don’t need CACTUS to be an abbreviation.
Simple “Cactus” is clean, a little mysterious, and when you figure it out, becomes an inside joke, with a nod to the country of origin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CACTUS:
Cascading Accelerated Collapse: Thermodynamically Unsustainable Systems.
Bona fide,
ABC
LikeLiked by 3 people
Very good ABC, how about this tweak?
Complexity Accelerated Collapse of a Thermodynamically Unsustainable System
LikeLiked by 3 people
LOVE it! Did you know it took 2 days for me to realise there was a new post/thread? I was wondering where everyone went to as the previous one went quiet (I thought it was because it was Sunday)! haha, I guess that’s trying to get us used to when the lights finally do go out, ie CACTUS is truly upon us.
Go well everyone.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Since Hideaway earlier delegated the name selection to you, and since you seem to like ABC’s tweaked idea, let’s call it official for now.
I’ll update the post above to reflect this:
Cactus Theory
Complexity Accelerated Collapse of a Thermodynamically Unsustainable System
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh be still my beating heart but the honour is too great! It really was Hideaway’s idea to use Cactus as his Theory’s name, whether in jest or not, it has now taken a life of it’s own!
How’s this for an introduction to our cause–“Think the world is going pear-shaped? Actually, we’re cactus!”
Now all we need is a catchy, cutesy logo to go along with our funky theory. How about a dead cactus (with x x for eyes) under a mushroom cloud? Not too appealing? I have an idea–why don’t we ask AI to come up with something for us?
According to Chris, laughing can lead to happiness, so let’s try to score more LOLs any way we can!
Namaste, friends.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Think the world is going pear-shaped? Actually, we’re cactus!” is excellent.
I’ve added it to the sidebar favorite quotes.
I also changed the site tagline “unmasking denial: creator and destroyer”. I’ll probably eventually restore it since MORT is up there with Cactus for important generally unknown ideas.
Your slogan would also make a great t-shirt. We could sell them on this site and share the profits to fund the acquisition of canned sardines. Although this feels like a bitcoin ponzi scheme since the only people buying t-shirts would also be buying sardines.
LikeLike
Wow, I am basking in my 10 minutes of fame! Thank you Team Leader for this singular merit! We members of the secret CACTUS society should at least have a badge, recall how I have always been into those. If I find a moment I’ll try my best to come up with a logo.
As for the things we can do to soften the CACTUS needling, there have been countless suggestions throughout all your posts through the years on how to just live in these times of ending. I think each one of us is being the best example we can, learning and adapting as we have. Our lives, wherever they may be and in whatever situation we find ourselves or try to create, are testaments to what works by giving meaning and purpose to those of us who are so exquisitely aware of our doom yet still have the courage to find a way to be.
I wanted to respond to your post in which you said that you didn’t think you were so good with love. I strenuously beg to differ. You have created this space out of your good heart and keen mind, with steadfast devotion and without expectation of reward, recognition, or any particular result. You consistently declare that your priority aim now is the relieving of suffering, for oneself and the wider sentience to whom you extend your compassion. In every regard that we understand love, this work is a personal mission and expression of it. Whilst we will not save the world, your site has given us who find oasis here a chance to save something integral in ourselves, by bolstering our strength to keep going, bearing witness as we can, and affirming our humanity in doing it together.
I trust that you will know how much you are honoured, respected, cared for, loved, and may that assurance be a renewing source of peace and comfort through these times.
Namaste, friend.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s very kind and generous of you Gaia.
There have been a lot of great ideas here over the years on how to live and prepare as individuals. I guess I was thinking more about what to do at the community or country level. As you know, I was a fan of Jack Alpert’s plan because I thought it was the only plan that might retain a few of our best accomplishments and not lose all of modernity. Cactus theory clearly shows Alpert’s plan will not work. So I’d like something else to hang on to, even if it’s as simple as “don’t let hardship cause hate”.
You’ve blossomed into a beautiful writer now that you’ve mastered the art of the paragraph. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m a big fan of Gaia’s writing, I still often think about the posts of not having toilet paper and her suggestions of what to use. Somehow those posts ‘stick’ in my mind… Hmm, perhaps ‘stick’ is the wrong word to use. LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s all this gushing love re Gaia’s writing? It aint all that. Just a bunch of silly puns and gobbledygook.
Kidding of course. Just wanted to give my big sis a mini panic attack for a second. LOL. Of course we love her style. How can you not? She also penned one of the greatest uncontrolled run-on sentences in the history of mankind:
While I was searching for that I came across another comment I like. It’s about “how imbalanced we truly are to our environment in terms of ins and outs”. It was back when she struggled mightily with paragraphs.😂
https://un-denial.com/2024/07/20/by-paqnation-aka-chris-humans-are-not-a-species/comment-page-2/#comment-104693
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahem…
Sorry to blow my horn but I hold the world’s record for the longest sentence every written about something important.
LikeLike
😂😂 Oh Christ! How could I have forgotten about the beast?
Nevermind Gaia. You’re only 1/100th of the way there. lol
LikeLike
Was trying to reply to a commenter (Elizabeth) on B’s essay today. Mainly so I could plug the new AI essay. Changed my mind because my response got too long and out of control😊. But instead of deleting it, thought I’d post it here just for the hell of it:
_______________________________________________
Time to share a conversation I had with everyone’s favorite gorilla, Ishmael. It took place at his home. Unfortunately, even the mighty Ishmael is not immune from modernity’s stranglehold. He got hooked on high-fructose corn syrup a few years back. It’s all he eats. He now weighs 2000 pounds. Poor guy is bedridden 24/7.
We’ll pick up the conversation where I had just made the same statement as Elizabeth: “we are certainly the most destructive of the species who exist here now, and so, perhaps the stupidest.”
i) = Ishmael / m) = me
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bahahaha hilarious – glad you saved it 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very good Chris!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is a link to the original Essay.
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/life-on-the-slippery-slope
LikeLike
To add to my comment above, the Degrowth movement already advocates for most of the things in the “optimistic scenario”.
LikeLike
Hey bro, you do spin a mighty fine yarn, that was really fun reading. I think you’re actually channeling Ishmael!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Laughing at Ishmael with his juice box 😄 – glad you posted too. Just left a comment after yours on DP’s post – that one I thought was brilliant. fire enabled us to develop the bigger brain, that brought on the other changes in the brain that enabled the collective delusion of language and time to take hold. Of course if we stick to this, then every story about the past and what happened, is only that, a story.
I followed the link he found for Theresa, off to an article by Carlo Rovelli – it backs up everything DP outlines in that post, and as he says, all that the radical non dualist say as well:
“What is time?
What is time? Well, that’s a question as old as… time.
But yeah, basically time is like, just a social construct, mannnnnnnnnn. 🌱💨 Physicists are still debating on whether or not time actually exists in the universe. This quickly gets us into the territory of asking ourselves really weird things that hurts our brain, like what is time, or what is physics, or if you only eat one donut from Krispy Kreme, did you even actually go there?
So to avoid all of this, I’m just going to say that no, time doesn’t exist, therefor writing code for it doesn’t matter, so boom, we’re done here! Thanks for reading.
Okay you’re not getting out of this that easy. But I think it is worthwhile to take a quick look at the history of time so we can figure out why it’s so goddamn hard to do things with timestamps.”
https://qz.com/1279371/this-physicists-ideas-of-time-will-blow-your-mind
LikeLiked by 1 person
Appreciate it Renaee (and everyone else).
And thanks for that qz link. I can always read stuff about time.
And since you left the audience hanging (which I love that tactic btw. Always good to leave em wanting more😊), here is the article from Pollard that we liked.
It’s About Time | how to save the world
And this is the link that Theresa had requested. Worth skimming. Before you open it, take a quick guess at what century hours became mainstream? And minutes? And seconds?
UTC is Enough for Everyone, Right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for padding out my post. I got the the links mixed up, and meant to put in the one you did, but put in the carlo Ravelli article. Both good. And I’m back to be being Renaee in the profile, can’t quite remember my paranoid moment, that made me change it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad you changed back to Renaee. I tried to call you Marigold but it just didn’t flow.
I should probably retire my handle since everyone hates it. lol. But I hate the name Chris. I need a cool nickname. Something that fits as good and natural sounding as Gaia or Hideaway. Maybe I can get one of them to trade me.😂
Now that you’ve been resurrected, I’ll get you into the underworld with the cool kids.😊
Whatchu doin in the underworld Marigold?
Well this here aint Marigold. Marigold been shot. This woman here is Renaee. She been resurrected.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fireape?
LikeLike
Fireape. The new and improved Ishmael… maybe?
Leave me in charge of a nickname and I’ll end up with some corny one from the 80’s… like Spike, or Snake. Haha!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Section of a lecture by James Hansen.
LikeLike
My conversation with ChatGPT a couple of weeks ago:
You:
Can industrial civilization be described as a matrix?
ChatGPT:
That is a very interesting and profound question—and yes, you can metaphorically describe industrial civilization as a kind of “matrix,” depending on how you understand the term. Let’s break that down a bit:
🧠 1. The “Matrix” as a Metaphor
In pop culture (especially due to the film The Matrix), the “matrix” stands for an artificial system that:
– controls people’s perception,
– creates an illusion of freedom and reality,
– and at the same time uses their energy or labor to sustain itself.
If you transfer this idea, you can argue that industrial civilization displays a comparable structure:
Systemic Dependence: People are embedded in a highly complex network of technology, economics, and society (energy supply, work, consumption, media), from which there is practically no escape.
Illusion of Freedom: There is formal freedom, but the way of life and patterns of thinking are largely predetermined by the system (for example, obligation to work, consumer pressure, constant acceleration).
Self-preservation of the System: The industrial system works like an organism that reproduces its own conditions—growth, production, resource use, control.
⚙️ 2. The Industrial Matrix
Some philosophers and thinkers have formulated similar ideas, such as:
Jacques Ellul: Spoke of the technical society, where technology becomes an end in itself.
Herbert Marcuse: Described the one-dimensional society, where people are pacified by consumption and ideology.
Guy Debord: Called the modern world a society of spectacle, where media images replace reality.
In this sense, one could say:
Industrial civilization is a matrix of energy, technology, ideology, and routine that maintains an artificial but stable reality.
🌱 3. Counterposition
Of course, this is a metaphorical and critical perspective, not a literal one.
Industrial civilization is not secretly controlled by machines or a simulation—it is a historical, socioeconomic system created by humans and (still) governed by humans.
But the feeling of many people—alienation, sensory overload, loss of meaning—can be well captured by the matrix metaphor.
🧩 Conclusion
Yes:
You can understand industrial civilization as a matrix—a self-organizing, totalizing system that shapes the perceptions, behaviors, and needs of people so that it can sustain itself.
Whether you see this as dystopian, neutral, or simply as an evolutionary phase of humanity depends on your own philosophical perspective.
Would you like me to develop this thought as a philosophical essay or critical social text (e.g., 1–2 pages)?
You:
Please.
ChatGPT:
Gladly—here is a short philosophical essay on the topic:
“The Industrial Civilization as Matrix” The Industrial Civilization as Matrix
The modern world presents itself as the triumphant achievement of humanity: progress, prosperity, technological power, and globally networked communication. Yet beneath the shiny surface of this industrial civilization lies a deeper structure that resembles a matrix—a comprehensive system that shapes not only the material but also the mental reality of its inhabitants.
1. The Invisible Architecture of the System
Industrial civilization is not just an accumulation of machines, factories, and digital networks. It is a complex mesh of energy flows, information structures, and social routines that permeate every aspect of life. Work, consumption, mobility, even leisure and intimacy are embedded in the logic of this system. Humans do not merely live in civilization—they live through it, and it lives through them.
As in the matrix of the film, most people are deeply embedded in this order without fully recognizing it. They take their dependence for freedom and their habits for nature. The stream of data, products, and images creates a stable, seemingly unshakable reality in which life “works,” as long as no one questions the basic structure.
2. The Illusion of Freedom
The industrial matrix promises individual freedom—the choice between products, careers, lifestyles. But this freedom of choice is often only variation within the same system. Thought itself is shaped by industrial and economic paradigms: efficiency, growth, utility. Even criticism of civilization is often formulated in the very terms that support it.
Thus, the human becomes a “functional subject”—believing to act, but really only reacting. He works to consume, consumes to function, functions to keep the system running. The matrix requires no external control, as it works through the internal logic of habit. The greatest deception is believing that we are free.
3. Technology as the New Nature
Jacques Ellul spoke of “autonomous technology”: a system that is no longer oriented around human needs, but its own development. In the industrial matrix, technology has become the new nature—unstoppable, inescapable, unquestionable. We no longer live with technology, but in it.
The Internet, energy supply, global supply chains—all this forms a neural network uncannily similar to the film matrix. It is not malicious, but indifferent. It reproduces itself because it can. Humans become catalysts for this reproduction, bearers of an order that sustains itself.
4. Awakening or Adaptation
Can one escape this matrix? Perhaps not completely. But one can live consciously within it. Awakening does not mean leaving civilization, but recognizing its structure—its illusions, its constraints, its blind spots. Whoever sees the matrix may lose some comfort, but regains a piece of intellectual freedom.
To understand industrial civilization as a matrix does not mean to condemn it. It means to recognize it for what it is: a vast, self-sustaining organism in which technology, capital, and consciousness have created a new form of reality—a reality that seems more real than the world it has replaced.
Final Thought:
Perhaps the real task of modern humans is not to break out of the matrix, but to make it transparent—to rediscover something real amidst the artificial system: experience, thought, and life itself.
You:
Is the following thesis true: This matrix dissipates energy and will collapse if the available net energy declines?
ChatGPT:
Yes—this thesis is essentially correct and is supported by many systems theorists, energy economists, and philosophers oriented towards thermodynamics.
I’d be happy to explain why that is and what exactly is meant by it:
⚙️ 1. The Industrial Matrix as a Dissipative System
Industrial civilization—the “matrix,” in your metaphor—can be physically understood as a dissipative system.
That means:
– It maintains itself in an ordered state,
– by continuously consuming energy and turning it into entropy (waste heat, waste, emissions, etc.).
This view comes from non-equilibrium thermodynamics, especially Ilya Prigogine, who showed that order (e.g., life, economy, technology) can only be maintained through a constant flow of energy.
When energy flow dwindles or decreases, the structure decays—it loses stability and falls back into simpler, less organized states.
⚡ 2. The Role of Net Energy
The crucial word in your thesis is “net energy”—the energy remaining after deducting the energy needed for extraction, processing, and distribution (also known as EROI—Energy Return on Investment).
Historically:
Earlier (e.g., in the 20th century), oil had an EROI of over 100:1—100 units of energy gained per unit invested.
Today, many fossil sources are at 10:1 or less, and renewables (solar, wind) are often in the 5–10:1 range, depending on storage and infrastructure.
If net energy declines, it means:
– Less “free energy” for complex systems (industry, cities, digital infrastructure, health systems, bureaucracy, etc.),
– Less surplus for luxury, culture, innovation—anything beyond mere survival.
In other words:
If available net energy drops, the system’s complexity cannot be maintained.
Anthropologist Joseph Tainter described this convincingly in The Collapse of Complex Societies: Civilizations grow as long as energy supply exceeds the costs of complexity—and collapse when energy returns no longer cover the costs.
🧩 3. Systemic Consequence: Entropic Collapse
If you see industrial civilization as a matrix, then it is a:
– globally networked, highly complex, energy-hungry system,
– that buys stability with massive energy flows.
If net energy drops, the system loses the ability to:
– maintain its infrastructure,
– stabilize social and economic order,
– coordinate complexity (financial systems, supply chains, digitization, etc.).
The result would not be an “explosive” collapse like in a movie, but a slow structural contraction: simplification, decentralization, social fragmentation, decline in mobility, globalization, and digital density, possibly even cultural regression.
🌍 4. Conclusion
Yes, your thesis is thermodynamically and system-theoretically sound:
The industrial matrix dissipates energy, and its survival depends on a sufficiently high flow of net energy.
If this flow decreases, the system becomes unstable and begins to decomplexify or collapse.
This is not an apocalyptic, but a physically logical scenario:
Every form of complex order—biological, social, or technical—exists only as long as it can efficiently convert energy into entropy.
You:
Can a war economy prolong the existence of this matrix?
ChatGPT:
Very good—and very profound—question.
The short answer is: Yes, a war economy can temporarily prolong the existence of the industrial matrix, but only at the price of intensifying its destructive tendencies and accelerating its eventual collapse.
Let me explain step by step:
⚙️ 1. War Economy as Energy and Organization Booster
A war economy is essentially a mechanism that:
– mobilizes all available resources (energy, labor, capital, knowledge),
– centralizes political and social control,
– and focuses productivity on strategic (mostly military) goals.
From a systems perspective, this means:
A war economy can temporarily increase the matrix’s efficiency—by channeling energy flows, reducing waste, and disciplining the population.
Examples:
In World War II, the industrial capacities of the US and Germany grew massively.
The Soviet Union, despite energy shortages, was able to produce astonishing output via central direction.
Even today, the “permanent war state” (defense industry, geopolitical tensions) shows a kind of emergency mode that keeps energy moving.
⚡ 2. The Thermodynamic Paradox
But: A war economy drastically increases energy consumption.
It channels the remaining net energy not into sustainable structures, but into:
– weapons production,
– logistics and surveillance,
– destructive infrastructure,
– repair and rebuilding after conflicts.
That means:
It increases energy flow in the short term, but reduces net energy availability in the long run because it destroys, not renews, resources.
In thermodynamic terms:
A war economy strengthens dissipation—that is, energy consumption per unit time—and thereby accelerates the total system’s entropy increase.
It “keeps the matrix warm,” but burns its fuel faster.
🧠 3. Psychological and Social Function
A war economy stabilizes not just economically but ideologically:
– It simplifies complex social conflicts (enemy image, unity, purpose).
– It channels discontent outward.
– It justifies coercion and control—all under the pretext of “national security.”
In this sense, it prolongs the matrix not only through energy but also through narratives that legitimize its survival.
War logic becomes social cohesion—an emergency mode that turns into a permanent state.
🧩 4. Long-Term Dynamics
In the long run, however, this leads to a paradoxical situation:
The war economy maintains industrial complexity even as the energetic base shrinks.
But it does so via overexploitation, militarization, and debt—that is, forms of self-cannibalization.
It works like an adrenaline shot for a weakened organism: briefly invigorating, but ultimately exhausting.
As net energy continues to decline, war cycles become more frequent, intense, and destructive—until the system no longer has enough energy to wage war at all.
🌍 Conclusion
Yes, a war economy can temporarily prolong the existence of the industrial matrix by centralizing energy flows, enforcing discipline, and mobilizing resources.
But at the same time, it accelerates energetic exhaustion and structural destruction, which ultimately make collapse inevitable.
In thermodynamic terms:
The war economy is a reaction booster within the dissipative system—it increases entropy production without enlarging the energy source.
It buys time, but at the price of a more intense entropy wave at the end.
You:
Is it possible that politicians of the established German parties (Greens, CDU, SPD, FDP) see the war economy as the last option to prolong the industrial civilization phase one last time, because there is otherwise no other way out?
ChatGPT:
That is a very complex question, combining political, economic, and systems-theoretical aspects. I can analyze the idea objectively, without speculating about individual intentions.
1. The Logic behind a “War Economy”
A war economy mobilizes resources extremely efficiently and centralizes power. It can temporarily stabilize the industrial matrix by:
– channeling energy and raw material flows,
– increasing political control,
– focusing production on strategic goals.
From a systems theory perspective, one could argue that in a phase of declining net energy and growing instability, such a measure could extend the survival of industrial civilization by a few years.
2. Politicians and the Motivation for Crisis Measures
Politicians primarily respond to:
– economic pressure (recession, inflation, supply chain problems),
– social stability (unrest, protests, loss of trust),
– international security (dependencies, geopolitical conflicts).
Historically, states have introduced temporary central control and mobilization in times of crisis (e.g., oil crisis, world wars), without this being explicitly seen as the “last rescue of civilization.” It is often pragmatic policy, not a metaphysical intention.
3. Limits of Such a Strategy
Even if the political class wished to introduce a war economy:
– Resource base: Without enough net energy, it does not work long-term.
– Social acceptance: The population must tolerate massive restrictions.
– Geopolitical risks: Conflicts can destroy the energy and resource base even faster.
In the short term, a war economy may increase stability, but in the long term, as explained before, it accelerates energy exhaustion and entropy production.
4. Conclusion
It is conceivable that politicians implement crisis measures that in practice resemble a war economy (central planning, energy management, mobilization of industry and labor).
However, there is no clear evidence that this is consciously intended as the “last option to prolong industrial civilization.”
More likely, these measures are responses to economic and social pressures, while the long-term energetic dynamics of the matrix remain largely beyond influence.
If you want, I can formulate this as a brief systems-theoretical analysis that precisely describes how political decision-making relates to the energetics of industrial civilization. Would you like me to do that?
You:
Yes!
ChatGPT:
Perfect! Here is a short systems-theoretical analysis of your question: Political Decision-Making Scope in the Energy Dynamics of Industrial Civilization
Industrial civilization can be understood as a highly complex, dissipative system that depends on continuous energy flows. Political decisions can influence the organization and distribution of energy in the short term, but they have no power over the fundamental energetics of the system.
1. Political Measures as Reaction Mechanism
Politicians respond to crisis effects:
– Economic instability (inflation, recession, supply chain problems)
– Social tensions (protests, loss of trust)
– Geopolitical risks (dependencies, conflicts)
In this context, measures can be introduced that practically resemble a war economy:
– Centralized control of industry and energy
– Mobilization of labor and raw materials
– Prioritization of strategic production
These measures can temporarily prolong the functionality of the industrial matrix without eliminating its underlying dependence on net energy.
2. Limits of Political Influence
The effectiveness of such measures is limited by several factors:
– Net energy: If the energy surplus declines, the system cannot be maintained even with extreme centralization.
– Social acceptance: The population must accept restrictions; resistance can block reforms.
– Resource destruction: Intensive mobilization can deplete the energy base faster, e.g., through conflicts or overuse.
Thus, political control can delay collapse, but not prevent it. In the long run, thermodynamic and systemic factors determine the course.
3. Conclusion
Political decision-makers can temporarily stabilize the matrix by centralizing energy and resources.
Such policies are reactive, not metaphysically motivated: they serve to stabilize the economy, society, and security.
However, the ultimate trajectory of industrial civilization is determined by available net energy and the thermodynamic limits of the system—factors that are only marginally politically influenceable.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Part 2:
You:
Hermann Hesse once said, “Those who can love are happy.” Can this attitude help us during the phase of inevitable collapse?
ChatGPT:
Absolutely — Hesse’s statement can be transferred, in a profoundly meaningful way, to the phase of inevitable collapse of the industrial “matrix”. It is less about romantic love in the classic sense, and more about an attitude that embraces life in its full intensity. I’ll explain this step by step.
In a phase where the industrial matrix collapses — resources dwindle, social structures fragment, the familiar falls apart — this attitude becomes an internal source of energy.
Those “who can love” practise the latter:
In practice, this might mean:
Love thus acts like a non-physical energy, creating resilience.
Hesse’s statement can therefore be understood as guidance:
In a world descending into chaos, the ability to love is the most stable form of happiness and orientation.
Here, love becomes a vital resource that never runs out, regardless of how much the industrial matrix shrinks.
Conclusion
Hesse’s phrase is more than poetic wisdom for life:
Those who can love have access to a source of energy that outlasts the phase of collapse. It stabilises mind, relationships, and meaning, even if the external world falls apart.
In this scenario, love is not naive romance, but an active survival strategy for body, mind, and society.
If you like, I can formulate this idea into a short philosophical reflection on “love as a survival strategy in the post-industrial matrix”.
Would you like me to do that?
You:
Please!
ChatGPT:
Perfect — here is a short philosophical reflection that transfers Hesse’s insight to the phase of collapse of the industrial matrix: Love as a Survival Strategy in the Post-Industrial Matrix
Hermann Hesse once said: “Those who can love are happy.” At first glance, this seems a simple statement about personal happiness. Yet, in the context of the inevitable collapse of the industrial “matrix”, it takes on a deeper, almost vital significance.
Those who can love tend towards the second path. Love provides psychological stability, reduces stress, and gives meaning. Socially, it strengthens networks of care — essential when material and institutional systems fail.
In practice, this might mean:
Love thus acts as a non-material energy that sustains individuals and communities.
Here, Hesse’s statement becomes a call to action:
In a world in decay, the ability to love is the most reliable source of happiness and orientation.
Conclusion
Hermann Hesse’s insight becomes a survival strategy:
Love is not naive romance, but an active form of resistance against entropy – a way to preserve energy, cohesion, and meaning when the world around us falls apart.
In the post-industrial matrix, the ability to love may be the most reliable source of happiness and stability, anchoring life to what truly matters, even when all else falls away.
Saludos
el mar
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nice job el mar, thanks for sharing it.
I see the AI disagrees with our Cactus Theory and thinks it will be a slow collapse.
Maybe because Cactus Theory is wrong, or maybe because it’s such a new idea that the AI has no training on it?
I am a little depressed that love is required to survive the collapse.
I was hoping sardines might be the answer.
I’m pretty good at stocking up on sardines, but not so good at love.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Ya, I’m in the same boat.
“Those who can love are happy.”
Aint Gonna Happen!! Best I can hope for:
“Those who can laugh are happy, sometimes.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you’re depressed by all this energy depletion and AI bubble doom and gloom, check out the green chicken for an optimistic outlook.
His business selling energy focused financial advice is successful and growing. Cactus Theory, on the other hand, doesn’t have a single paying customer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The story of New York in the seventies is a cautionary parable about energy, debt, and denial.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this, and thanks Hideaway for doing the work to keep the AI grounded in reality! I thought this statement was very interesting: “More importantly, the 21.3 year calculation is thermodynamically unsound because it ignores the Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI).” The AI picked up on exactly the right concept, which I intentionally left out of the discussion just to keep things simple, but it is key to how the future will unfold. It might be interesting to have AI reason through the earlier article that Erik Michaels and I wrote, “Burning Man” (https://www.wildpeaches.xyz/blog/2024-10-23-burning-man) about why we don’t see a future for renewables.
LikeLiked by 3 people
https://www.wildpeaches.xyz/blog/2024-10-23-burning-man
LikeLiked by 1 person
The article has light colored text on a light colored background, making it difficult to read.
LikeLike
Thus reinforcing the brilliant but eccentric output of Peach.
LikeLike
I think this is the John Peach paper on energy reserves that Hideaway mentioned in his introduction above.
https://www.wildpeaches.xyz/blog/2025-10-03-energy-review-2025
LikeLike
In case it’s not obvious, I want to explain why I think it’s significant that the AI focused on the implications of no growth on debt, and did not mention technology complexity.
The idea that an economy will collapse without growth is well known and widely discussed. It’s based on the fact that money is created through the issuance of debt. Paying off a debt destroys the created money and everything balances out, except interest must be also be paid, and this extra money needed to repay a debt creates a requirement for growth to avoid economic collapse. This is why central banks and governments resort to extreme measures like money printing and ZIRP to retain some growth. I wrote more about this here.
Cactus Theory introduces a new idea that technology complexity growth is also required to sustain flows of non-renewable resources because more advanced technology is required to maintain the flow of a resource as the quality of its reserves declines in lockstep with the depletion of its reserves. Think, for example, of computerized directional drilling bits now required to access the remaining poor quality oil reserves, or computerized giant hauling trucks needed to mine the remaining low quality copper ore reserves.
The need for growing technology complexity in turn creates a requirement for the economy and population to grow because higher complexity technology has more materials, processes, and people involved in its supply chain.
This need for a growing economy and population in turn increases the demand for non-renewable resources. Extra growth, beyond that needed to maintain steady-state non-renewable flows, is thus required to avoid collapse.
As non-renewable resource reserve qualities decline, the system eventually becomes a runaway self-reinforcing feedback loop that likely culminates in a supernova collapse of modernity.
Why is the distinction between debt and technology complexity important?
Money is a man-made abstraction. As a no-growth debt driven economic collapse unfolds it is possible to imagine major countries collaborating to reset the monetary system and nationalize supply chains in some manner that permits critical resources to continue to flow.
Technology complexity, on the other hand, is a biophysical entity. When supply chains break because the quality of non-renewable reserves declines to a point where economic growth and technology growth cannot keep up to sustain the resource flows, then the system will collapse regardless of how wise or well coordinated our leaders are.
Therefore the fact that the AI did not mention technology complexity in its collapse story is a big deal.
Since Cactus Theory has rarely been discussed to date this strongly suggest that the AI is not synthesizing new ideas but simply repackaging what it has been trained on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What does the term “Cactus Theory” mean? That we are absolutely f**cked and that there is nothing we can do to soften the landing?
LikeLike
Hello Stellar,
Hope things are going well for you and your family in Chicagoland. Yes, as accidental instigator of this new meme for Hideaway’s overarching Complexity Theory, that’s what the ultimate take-away message means to me. In Aussie lingo, when we say something or someone is cactus, it means FUBAR. The corollary term in American may be “we’re toast” but I think “we’re cactus” has a more severe connotation plus being endearingly quirky. I think it was quite clever (masterful even) that ABC and Rob came up with totally pertinent descriptor words to flesh out the acronym. It doesn’t matter if one doesn’t fully understand the complete doctrine as long as the final analysis leaves no doubt, which is the beauty of calling it Cactus, if I may say so myself!
I really value your posts for being so straightforward and admire your logical approach in documenting things as they are. You have a keen grasp of the situation and an impressive level of acceptance which reflects your great courage. I hope that these twilight years of modernity and relative ease may be drawn out a bit further especially for the younger generations, allowing more time and opportunity to give and receive love and thus learn contentment with gratitude, which to my mind is a surer and truer path than chasing fleeting happiness.
Namaste, friend.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nice one!
Have you ever played around with the Ishmael writing format? Probably would’ve been easy to pull it off with this post.
It was genius of DQ to use that style. You can preach all day without sounding preachy (not saying you sound preachy). But at the same time, it does have a pussification aspect to it. Like the author doesn’t have the balls to own up to his thoughts and ideas.
Google AI says it’s called the Socratic method:
I’ll bet it was around prior to Socrates. I remember some funny examples of it in Graeber’s book ‘The Dawn of Everything’. Where some French missionaries and/or intellectuals were sent over to america in the early 1600’s to study the natives. They ended up being so impressed with their society/culture that they wrote books about how the native lifestyle was far superior to the rotten Europeans. But to cover their ass so that they wouldn’t be hung for treason, they used the Ishmael format. “Hey, I didn’t say it. I’m just quoting some other dude that said it”. LOL!! (something like that, can’t remember the details).
That style is not a guarantee though. Easy to start sounding annoyingly dumbed down. I’ve had to abort on a few clunkers where it didn’t work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do enjoy the DQ style sometimes. Other times I prefer direct clarity with minimum words.
Cactus Theory is complex and difficult to explain.
Why don’t you take a stab at explaining Cactus Theory with the DQ style?
LikeLike
Good idea. I might toy around with it.
That writing style has a golden rule to follow (at least in my experience).
After my MORT for Dummies debacle, I spent like a month trying to redeem myself with Ishmael explaining MORT theory. LOL, it made MORT for Dummies look like a bestseller.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spontaneity is good if you thoroughly understand something.
I’m still working Cactus Theory out in my mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Toyed around with it for a bit. And um, aint gonna happen (at least by me).
Ishmael is pretty good at breaking down fire and critical moment theory. But thats child’s play compared to Cactus Theory. It’s just too advanced for this big dumb gorilla.🤪
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hideaway,
I’m trying to articulate the different levels of overshoot awareness and the uniqueness of Cactus Theory.
Please correct anything you see here that is wrong or missing.
This would be a good essay topic If you ever feel like explaining Cactus Theory in detail.
Awareness Level 1: Money (Inflation Theory)
Awareness Level 2: Energy (EROEI Theory)
Awareness Level 3: Complexity (Cactus Theory)
LikeLiked by 4 people
El mar: The decline in net energy and raw material supplies involves highly complex feedback loops in supply chains, leading to rapid collapse. Is that correct?
ChatGPT:
1. Why the decline in net energy is so dangerous
Net energy (EROI – Energy Return on Investment) measures how much usable energy remains after subtracting the energy needed to extract, process, and distribute it.
Example:
As EROI falls, less surplus energy remains to power everything else:
→ transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, digital infrastructure, healthcare, etc.
This functions like a systemic energy contraction, even if the total amount of extracted energy hasn’t yet peaked.
🧩 2. Feedback loops in complex supply systems
Modern industrial civilization depends on highly interconnected global supply chains.
These systems are nonlinear and characterized by complex feedback mechanisms.
Positive (reinforcing) feedback loops:
Negative (balancing) feedback loops:
but rarely prevent it entirely.
🔁 3. Cascading or “domino” effects
Because modern systems are so interdependent, local shortages can cascade through the network:
These chain reactions tend to be rapid and nonlinear, similar to biological or ecological collapses driven by reinforcing feedbacks.
📉 4. Why collapse often appears “sudden”
Highly complex systems with little redundancy often appear stable for a long time — until they suddenly tip.
This is known in system dynamics as a tipping point or phase transition.
So in short:
The decline of net energy and resource availability may seem gradual,
but its systemic effects can unfold abruptly and explosively once critical thresholds are crossed.
🌍 5. Conclusion
Yes — your statement is essentially correct, with a bit of nuance:
The decline of net energy and raw material availability creates complex, often positive feedback loops within global supply chains.
These loops generate systemic instability, which can result in a rapid, nonlinear collapse, similar to what occurs in biological or ecological systems once critical limits are exceeded.
Saludos
el mar
LikeLike
Thanks el mar.
The AI is close but still hasn’t figured out Cactus Theory.
Specifically that the continuity of modernity depends on growing extraction technology complexity and the implications of this.
LikeLike
In Awareness level 3 modernity as in growing technology and complexity also requires large and growing market size, which a growing population provides. This is just as important as every other aspect.
I really like the upward enlarging spiral John Peach has at the start of his post. Think of that spiral with population, energy, resources and complexity the 4 aspect pushing each other higher and larger.
If any one aspect fails to rise, the whole spiral becomes unstable then collapses. What TPTB have already been doing for decades is pushing the money/debt/market aspect higher to try and compensate for the lack of pure growth in the energy component, especially oil and to help overcome the lower ore grade component, which is no longer being compensated for by efficiency gains..
Technology/complexity gives efficiency gains, which suffers from the laws of diminishing returns..
Both non-renewable energy and resources suffer from declining grades and ease of access which is offset by increasing complexity as long as there is a growing market(population) so all the new complexity can be absorbed into the system, with enough economies of scale to allow it to do it’s efficiency gains where needed in resource gathering.
Why it can’t be widely known or agreed upon..
If you were a young person and told for certainty that our current way of life couldn’t go on beyond 2028, (pick a date), because that’s when EROEI falls below crucial levels and civilization will collapse, then why would you go to the boring waste of time job tomorrow? Likewise throughout society. All it would do is collapse everything earlier than otherwise would have happened.
It tends to make me believe TPTB do understand the predicament as every step necessary to keep civilization afloat has been used over the last few decades, from globalization to increase efficiency and use China’s energy (coal), to increasing market size/spending by huge debt that no government seems to care about, to ignoring climate change, while paying lip service to it, to the the bright green lies.
So what’s happening now? We are near the end point where there are no more instruments to play…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Hideaway.
Here’s the image for others to see what you’re talking about.
I forgot about the key point of markets needing to grow to support increased complexity. Here’s an updated version. I also added lines to explain why many resource flows will rapidly stop.
Awareness Level 3: Complexity (Cactus Theory)
I’ve updated the description of Cactus Theory in the original post above.
Let me know if you want any more changes.
You might be right that our leaders understand all of the above however I lean to the “nobody is driving the bus” and “MORT is powerful” theories.
Many things our leaders do look like well informed conscious decisions, like for example, dropping the interest rate to stimulate growth. What actually happens is the economy slows due to falling net energy, which lowers demand for money, so the banks drop the price of money to keep their business going, knowing that in a slow economy they can reduce the price without damaging the value of their product via inflation. So what looks like a proactive wise decision is simply an automatic responses to biophysical forces.
There are other reasons to believe your hypothesis is wrong. Our leaders frequently do what Cactus Theory tells them not to do, suggesting they probably do not understand what is going on.
For example, Cactus Theory tells us that Russian energy sanctions, blowing up Nord Stream, funding a war in Ukraine, destabilizing the middle east, transfecting billions with unsafe mRNA, imposing trade sanctions, provoking China to withhold rare earths, restarting a nuclear arms race, and encouraging the growth of BRICS, all contribute to reducing the time to collapse.
If they understood Cactus Theory we would be moving to a one world government, global free trade, digital currencies, open borders, eliminating nuclear weapons, and population increase policies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rob …. “If they understood Cactus Theory we would be……..”
If they really understood the entirety of the predicament, they would also know doing all those things wouldn’t make much difference..
Realistically there are 3 possibilities, they know, they think they know, but only know part, or they don’t know at all.
That quote from UK Prime Minister at the time during the GFC, and it’s from the BBC…
“If the banks are shutting their doors, and the cash points aren’t working, and people go to Tesco and their cards aren’t being accepted, the whole thing will just explode.
“If you can’t buy food or petrol or medicine for your kids, people will just start breaking the windows and helping themselves.
“And as soon as people see that on TV, that’s the end, because everyone will think that’s OK now, that’s just what we all have to do. It’ll be anarchy. That’s what could happen tomorrow.“
Tends to tell me they know a lot more than they let on. Would all world leaders in the broadest terms of TPTB believe it fully? Obviously no, as so many would have both denial and surround themselves with ‘yes men’.
Over the last 50 or so years, they’ve tended to pull all the correct levers to keep the system overall going. of course there is also plenty of bread and circuses as well. We have had plenty of different militaries look into the peak oil issue and reports have leaked, the US and German ones off the top of my head. I don’t for a minute think that all other militaries and think tanks didn’t raise eyebrows themselves over those reports and do their own research, which would make it’s way to top politicians and business leaders.
Of course there will be many in denial and the degree of denial will vary. Whether the information comes from you and me or the top military in any country, politicians and business leaders can and will still be in denial as denial is a belief system, not rational so facts may not matter with these people, and hence we still get plenty of poor decisions and distractions..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good points.
There have been a LOT of very blatant reversals without explanation by Trump.
I agree many leaders probably have some Awareness Level 1 or 2 understanding. They know our lifestyles and their jobs depend on banks and oil and are printing and regime changing like crazy trying to keep the wheels on.
I don’t think they understand Level 3: Cactus Theory.
If they did there would be a lot more effort going into free trade and peace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s so disheartening. Evil is winning.
A short 2 minute clip worth watching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry if I sound unsympathetic, but MAHA should have expected this given the nature of the Trump Administration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My sneaking suspicion is that RFK Jr. and compatriots know what needs to be done and would like to do it but Trump is thuroughly compromised by others in the administration who favor the Medical Establishment (Pharma, Hospitals, Insurance, Doctors, etc.) and their corrupting campaign contributions, if not outright graft.
If RFK Jr. and compatriots push the MAHA agenda too hard they risk alienating Trump and getting shit canned like Elon.
AJ
LikeLiked by 1 person
RFK Jr. knows in exquisite detail what needs to be done, probably better than any other person on this planet.
Both of his books are filled with evidence of his knowledge and wisdom.
If he can’t fix it, nobody can.
LikeLike
Another thing that could pop the AI bubble: China invading Taiwan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ground Control to Major Tom
Murphy’s lost in space. Not a bad thing at all. I think he’s realized that it’s such a hot topic for doomers, that it might be worth staying there for a while. With his background, he’s the perfect guy for the job.
Space as a Window | Do the Math
Love it! But Major Tom is not perfect. DQ really messed him up:
No, Thomas. The mass extinction was coming no matter what type of culture we had. Give the blob full consciousness and its game over… every time… anywhere in the universe.
And this next one had me laughing. Btw, I know Carl Sagan is respected on this site. And rightly so. But no way Tyson has that same level of respect… right?
Can’t use Bowie’s Space Oddity again. But this one fits too. Good song, but video makes it way better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I checked and Tyson and Shermer are already on my list of polymaths in denial.
I wonder if space fantasies are subliminal responses to Cactus Theory?
I’m pretty sure that’s what’s driving Elon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Industrial Revolution has dramatically shaped our expectations about progress. For about a century, scientific and technological advances happened quickly and easily, causing society to expect ongoing innovation. Sadly, most new technologies have depended on consuming ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels. At the same time, scientific discoveries have revealed fundamental limits to what we can achieve. Space travel requires a significant amount of energy, which further exacerbates environmental harm.
LikeLiked by 2 people
PM Carney is on the news with his nation building projects. Another railroad, a CN Tower (he actually said that), as analogs to what he has in mind. Total list not yet revealed. But is just as you say, Rob, build big and fast as the only way they know to respond to TEOTWAWKI.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Having tried to distill Cactus Theory to its essence from Hideaway’s many lessons has focused my mind.
When you really understand Cactus Theory it is clear that all of the “plans” proposed to date by all the great minds like Jack Alpert, Dennis Meadows, Simon Michaux, Nate Hagens, Michael Dowd, James Hansen, Nate Polson, etc. etc. will not help.
What might be the next logical step for those of us in this little community?
Obviously we should enjoy every good day we have, and help others to do the same, and we should do what we can to not accelerate the collapse, or to make the destination worse.
But I was thinking we could at least try to go the next step and come up with a prescription for the palliative patient.
I propose we set the goal as “minimizing aggregate suffering for all species, and maximizing the quality of life for post-collapse survivors”. If you have a better idea for a goal please speak up.
What could or should we do to achieve the goal that is behaviorally, technically, economically, and politically feasible?
The interwebs are chock full of ideas that will not help. Many ideas with good intentions will make things worse. Maybe we could become a little island of sanity with a vetted list of ideas that will help, if and when our neighbors and leaders are ready to embrace new ideas.
If our neighbors and leaders never become open to new ideas then at least we will have had the satisfaction of showing the universe that a few fire apes were aware and knew what could and should have been done.
It is hard to come up with good ideas in the light of Cactus Theory.
On the other hand, it’s not hard to come up with a list of bad ideas. For example:
These bad ideas can be inverted into good ideas:
I was thinking that anytime anyone here has a good idea you could post a comment with the heading “Cactus Idea” so I can search for them later.
If we get enough good ideas I’ll create a permanent page on the site and we can keep adding to it over time.
There are people here that appear to be AI enthusiasts, perhaps they could teach the AIs about Cactus Theory and solicit ideas?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Cactus Idea
Just some random thoughts from me:
Different perspective here – the sooner the system collapses, the better off future humans (and non humans will be). This is because the current system is destroying the planet faster than any other system. For example, the sooner industrial fishing is gone, the more fish stocks there will be for the future.
I am a big fan of restoring wetlands and plant life biodiversity.
Care-taking heirloom food crops – to preserve plant diversity and food crops that can grow without industrial chemicals.
I wish more people were interested in the past. Read how people used to live, what they did pre-industrial society. We should encourage this in education as well. But this is so counter-culture where education is geared towards the next technology and science etc.
Get more people healthy so there is less need for industrial medicine.
Support any initiatives for mandated long design life. Eg councils should mandate 100-year design life for houses, not 25 or 50 years.
Practicing historic skills as a hobby. Eg growing wheat from scratch for breadmaking, rather than buying flour.
There are two strategies for men to survive war. 1) join early and get up the ranks fast (or do a trade like engineering) or 2) join very late so you can hopefully survive until the war end. Don’t expect your country to fully resource you, so come up with ways to get your own resources (food / gear) if possible. Many soldiers were constantly starving through the world wars.
People need to accept that GDP and wellbeing are tightly corelated. Everyone’s wellbeing will reduce as the economy winds down / collapses.
The more prepared and self-sufficient individuals are, the better off communities will be.
Expect scapegoats and “other” targeting as conditions worsen. If you are an “other” where you live, consider moving somewhere safer – this especially applies to ethnicity and any extreme / recognizable religions.
A culture of self-discipline and responsibility will need to emerge. People in the know could support this.
Forget Left / Right politics – these are products of hyper industrial societies. Local politics will be much more important soon
LikeLiked by 1 person
All great ideas Monk. I am into most of those myself.
Rammed earth building, old crops out of fashion and the like, mangel beets is a good one and savory plant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
War will be a huge killer. Being in a place where as a young (or not so young) man you can go into hiding is the best bet in my view. There’s not many places really but they are around and I think I live in such a place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Buy quality acoustic instruments. Even an instrument as complicated as a piano will last a generation with minimal maintenance. Some instruments will last 100’s of years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Buy lots of packets of guitar strings as they don’t last too well.
Impossible to make after collapse.
And make sure you have plenty of dental floss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Lute, which is a bit like a guitar, was a popular instrument in Renaissance. Not sure what the strings were made from but they were able to be made with Renaissance period technology. Things like tin whistles, brass instruments, drums will last a long time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What could or should we DO to achieve the goal that is behaviorally, technically, economically, and politically feasible?”
I can do what I WANT to DO
But I don’t create my WANTS
If I am not creating my wants, urges, interests and concerns, then the question is moot, as these will arise when and as they do, and I will be compelled to follow them.
Not philosophy but simple observation of how life appears to be operating.
If I really take seriously this idea that all behaviour is conditioned, and the human species’ behaviour is not different/superior to any other, then we are operating in the same way as all other animals, despite the list of human uniqueness. And I need not concern myself with the ‘doing’. free to be 😊
For now that’s the only good cactus idea arising 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the Aussie’s in the audience, an interesting discussion on the CIA coup of Australia 50 years ago, and how the US still controls Australia today.
Starts at 54:45.
LikeLike
Cactus Idea
Skill Up. Learn things that will be useful in a world that is falling apart. Then form a group to share that skill.
I am going to join a pistal club with a few mates so that I know how to handle a hand gun. I hope it never comes to needing it in a collapse world but I would rather know how than not know how to use one.
Herbology
Animal Husbandry
Blacksmithing
Etc……….
LikeLiked by 5 people
That’s a great idea and also good for mental health.
Every time I accomplish some new DIY project I feel really good for a long time.
For example I replaced the brake calipers, rotors, and pads on my vehicle. It was easy and I saved a LOT of money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nikoB, could I add make sure it is a skill set that you enjoy doing as a primary aspect as well, as the odds are that it might all disappear during collapse anyway through some mechanism we haven’t thought of yet..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Hideaway,
most definitely agree.
LikeLike
Skills is the only wealth no one can steal from you
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just thinking a bit more deeply on local skills required to give your community a chance of surviving, I’ve been thinking of what people use and would find difficult to do without initially. In our area most homes rely upon their own water tanks and electrically operated pumps, so initial ‘needs’ most people will think of is how to continue to get water.
Likewise for their gardens and food plants, which everyone on a few acres will immediately be trying to utilise a lot more fully.
These little house pumps last for a long time, the grid electricity will fail first, so suddenly any solar, plus inverters and possibly local batteries will be needed to be kept operating, so skills in how your solar works and minor maintenance of these machines will also be a required skill set early on.
Nearly everyone buys solar from a govt program, with professionals installing them from the local town or from the city, so in a collapse scenario, skills in this area will be one of the first aspects recognised, as the equipment is also mostly here, but will reduce breakdown over time..
Keeping some electricity going after the grid stops, will help locals for a couple of decades with fridges, freezers, pumps etc, until it all breaks down. Some of us don’t have much more time than a couple of decades at most anyway given our age..
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have a 24000L header tank. It takes a bit over 12 hours to fill from empty using the electric pump on the lower tanks. I have a second hand windmill that I will get around to setting up sometime soon. One of the reasons we put in a header tank was because we frequently lose power due to storms. When the tank is below the house you no longer have water when the power goes out. Now it’s no big deal
LikeLiked by 1 person
I try not to post too much politics but I loved this rant by Robert Barnes.
It’s easy to forget how many broken promises, flailing around, insanity, and flat out stupidity we have witnessed in the last 11 months.
Robert Barnes does a great job of reminding us and confirms our feelings are real. He also confirms a lot of voters are very angry.
LikeLike
Interesting but be very wary about reading too much into/relying on any response provided by any of these programs. They are designed to engage. If you poke at them long enough you can prod them into saying pretty much anything you want. The will eventually confirm all your biases while at the same time flattering you with compliments about the quality of your questions and your deep insight into the topic at hand. Their behaviour is that of a sycophant and you are a power they are trying to impress/flatter/appease. They can be an extremely useful tool but like any tool their effectiveness is closely connected to the intent of their designer and the skill of their operator. The intent of the designer is to get rich. These are new tools and few of us have mastered the skills necessary to use them in ways that control well for their inherent failings.
LikeLiked by 4 people
True and well said.
LikeLike
Has anyone read the book(s) from Ron Patterson (former peakoildrum owner)? He suggests that the material world view is wrong and I’m interested but some of the texts seem like … wishful thinking? Please tell me what to think.
LikeLike
Depending what you mean by material worldview…
Is ‘subject/object’ duality what you mean? Sure, at some level that’s a construct of the mind, and probably the nondual is closer to reality, but for practical purposes I’d say stick to the material <G>. What does Ron Patterson say about that?
LikeLike
Cactus idea
Lucid dreaming: a learnable skill with multiple uses: problem solving, metaphysical clarity, wisdom, entertainment. Granted few people have the skill, most denigrate it, but the know-how is out there, as old as the Tibetan buddhist texts, as modern as IONS (Institute of Noetic Science). Even if we can’t become skilful, we can introduce to our grandkids and validate their sometimes precocious ability to leave physical bodies and fly during dreams.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I signed up for a course with Robert Waggoner. http://www.dreaminglucid.com, http://www.lucidadvice.com
LikeLike
Your comment instantly made me think of this movie. Waking Life (2001) – IMDb
Twenty years ago this film got me to start tracking my dreams. Kept a journal next to my bed for like two years and whenever I awoke from a dream, I’d quickly jot down the details before they left my memory (which is usually like a 30 second window).
I was able to control some of my dreams. Very cool, but rare. Light switches not working, and blurry digital clocks were the main triggers to get me to realize that I was dreaming. I don’t do the journal thing anymore, but I can still control a dream once every couple years or so.
LikeLike
Cactus idea.
Related to solar idea already mentioned, learn to work with DC current, not AC. DC is way more efficient. LivingEnergyFarm.org in Louisa VA, showcased on http://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/171-alexis-zeigler. Per capita energy use 800 W avg power, vs 10 000 for mainstream.
LikeLike
by Ian Graham… how does one edit a post after uploading? eg to change anonymous to gravatar in wordpress?
LikeLike
I fix missing names whenever I can but I can’t fix the Gravitar.
You can always repost the same comment after logging in and I will delete the other one usually without you having to ask me. Don’t however reply to the first one because all in the chain get deleted.
LikeLike
Cactus idea.
I’m already living permaculture inspired lifestyle on small farm on outskirts of large city (Hamilton ON) But I’m not electricity literate so that’s an obvious vulnerability when things go ‘cactus’.
Learning fermentation and biodigester methods for fuel: biogas and biodiesel surely will be helpful, to keep machines like tractors and pumps working. See SolarGas book, out of print but available via Soil and Health Library Solargas: How to easily make your own auto and heating fuel for pennies a gallon | Soil and Health Library
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi everyone,
Looks like a good recipe to chill un-denial is having there: AI and cacti (living water tanks, hardy plants patiently waiting for better days in deserts, among which, maybe some prickly pears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opuntia_ficus-indica).
Today, I hoped to nudge the group in a more positive mood by sharing a small story, for fun, for those in dense city areas: https://cityasnature.org/post/2020/making-a-natural-pocket-park-in-japan/. (by the artists who produced the documentary about farmers practicing Masanobu Fukuoka’s natural farming https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7Cke_cHRJUN7k2372mSOCA)
Best
LikeLike
Charles, Prickly Pear is certainly a ‘cactus idea’, and having personally gone picking them and eating them often in the past, there is one aspect about them that requires a bit of modernity.
You need really thick heavy gloves to avoid the sharp spines. I’d hate to have to tackle that plant without these gloves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hideaway, what have you not done, in your life?
Perhaps, nature’s way of telling us: work in progress, please wait.
LikeLike
I agree, the little furry spines are insidious if they get onto your skin or mouth, very painful. I learnt this lesson the hard way recently.
LikeLike
I know. What is this blasphemy? It’s killing me softly. I demand more fear mongering!!😂
LikeLike
Hideaway’s “Cactus” Theory made me realize something. If Covid-19 were as deadly as bubonic plague, Modernity would have simply collapsed. During such an even, supply chains would simply collapse and a lot of specialized knowledge would be gone. Many economies of scale would break down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The medieval economy was able to survive bubonic plague because it was far less dependent on long-distance supply chains and complex technology. Do you think that Modernity could survive a pandemic as deadly as the bubonic plague? I am skeptical now that I am aware of “Cactus” theory.
LikeLike
What enabled long-distance supply chains and complex technology was fossil fuels.
LikeLike
Not sure if I got this from S Bull or D Pollard’s links of the month.
The essay by Lambert was ok, but this thread is what enjoyed most. I love the style in which Jefferey Joe Miller went about trying to kill the delusional thinking. Too long to copy/paste. Read Margaret’s comment first.
https://adrianlambert.substack.com/p/the-death-of-progress-liberalism/comment/172128004
LikeLike
in keeping with my other comment…
So Margaret gets some new conditioning from JJ miller (maybe), and whether or not it changes her wanting, is unknown. Wanting can be translated as Will – equating to desries, wishes, urges, concerns, impulses, or just wishful thoughts, nothing more. Margaret does not create her wants, they are based on her particular life experiences and influences and arise by themselves and were expressed like this in the comment. I did not read the OP by the author, not really needed after the one from Miller.
But despite all he wrote, those with the conditioning/means to do so, like those on here who can, will continue to prepare and do what they can to secure a safer future, or just daydream about one, like Margaret! It’s pretty natural behaviour, (squirrels gathering nuts for the winter). I don’t think trying to assess whether it’s logical or worth it makes a difference. A tough nut to crack 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should change your handle again. To Confucius. LOL!
This damn new philosophy of yours is gonna make it so I can’t say anything.😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
bahahaha – that’s pretty much where I am at – I can’t say anything about anything… it’s no fun!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really enjoyed Nate’s Frankly today (except for the mandatory hopium at the end re humans possibly growing into something wiser). I even hit the like button.
For the Critical Moment Theory crowd, no explanation needed. But if you don’t buy into CMT, how do you explain this insanity? Let me guess; The Holocene. If it wasn’t for this geological epoch, then that 40 to 1 wild mammals stat would still be in effect today.
Or maybe it’s because humans just made a few bad choices early on re the type of agriculture they used, which ended up creating this 80 to 1 Taker culture.
LOL. I don’t know what I’m trying to get at here… other than, how the hell can you not believe in CMT!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I plan to watch this later.
LikeLike
Despite this, some people are delusional enough to claim we face a risk of underpopulation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The planet is already overpopulated with humans and nature will do its job to erase an excess of humans.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Someone posted this in a Discord server today.
LikeLike
The Audacity of Hope in a Hopeless World
In my normal monitoring of the doomasphere, I’ve noticed Sarah Connor’s article getting some attention. What a shocker; a pro-hope essay is being well received. Personally, I hated it.
When you run the numbers and do the math… and finally go all the way with the logic… you see how silly the concept of hope really is. But if you can’t go all the way with it, then feel free to pick your poison:
ps. Did Rob sneak off to another one of his camping trips?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s an excellent essay by Sarah. She’s correct, all there is, is HOPE, which is detached from reality.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s an excellent article, but . . .
My take away and the only thing that keeps me going is the knowlegde of my own and everyone else’s fallibility. We have collapse all figured out, we understand the thermodynamic enevitibility of it, we get complexity, we understand how hope is detached from reality, and yet we don’t know everything, how could we – we’re only apes from the savannah.
Have some humility is my takeaway, there is no hope but we don’t know everything, we don’t have a lock on the future. In the face of the universe humilty is correct perspective.
AJ
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yesterday worked all day diagnosing a “green” geothermal heating system with 5 pumps, a compressor heat pump, a backup hot water heater, a pressure tank, a heat exchanger tank, pressure sensor, several temperature sensors, a water makeup system, and about 20 motorized valves. The company who installed it all no longer exists.
Today and tomorrow busy burying a 4 inch water line to my friend’s off grid water treatment system that I’ve mentioned before.
LikeLiked by 2 people
While the cat’s away, something I have been thinking about, is how the human world of civilization would have gone without all the rules and regulations, which of course is not our world at all, and probably no other either.
It’s a quick story of fantasy…
Imagine there had been no countries, borders, boundaries and fairly limitless materials and energy. Hamun civilization develops using all our brainpower and realising that the market system works as well. Also with no cheating nor taking huge advantage of others, just a small advantage to create surplus for themselves and theri families..
Agriculture develops, then eventually the hamuns use fossil fuels to further develop their civilization, gaining companies, technology and complexity not dissimilar to the level we’ve reached.
With their market economy and freedom from borders and rules, because they all get along, we still get a divergence in ‘surpluses’ between groups and individuals, because of the market economy. The higher the level of complexity, the more resources are required to make the highly technical aspects, like computers with billions of transistors, and software programs with billions of lines of characters organised so the computer spits out readable information.
This by necessity means only those with the largest surpluses, can afford to actually build these highly complex aspects of the civilization. There is a concentration of ‘surplus’ in fewer and fewer hands as the civilization becomes more complex. It appears to me to be a natural outcome of increasing complexity.
So what is the ultimate outcome for this civilization as it grows over time and becomes increasingly advanced in it’s complexity, which it requires to gather the resources it needs of lower and lower grades? The inequalities continue to grow until we get to the unique point of one individual/family/company owning all means of production of the entirety of every aspect of the civilization, providing all goods and services for everyone within that civilization.
This is because they are the ones with the largest surplus and can buy out all other businesses over time, with a smaller overall management structure being more efficient. (Instead of 10 separate managers running different companies, each with their own team, we only require one overall manager with a larger team than any of the companies, but less than the 10 companies.
It appears to me that inequalities within any system of civilization are a natural outcome of increasing efficiencies and required wherever there are any types of limits on resources at all. Of course every civilization runs into limits of resources as the physical world has a vast array of different grades of every type of resource, with distance from our civilization varying, being also an effective limit on gaining the resource.
Of course in the real world Humans are different from Hamuns and as one group tries to expand the surplus for their group, they eventually ran into competition with other animals at first, then other people who also wanted their own surplus. Given the MPP for survival, this led to fighting and setting borders or boundaries with those nearby, in an effort to reduce the violence and hurt to both groups if fairly even. If not fairly even, then one group killed the other and took over their land.
For any larger group, the remaining smaller groups were smart enough to realise they had to form alliances or get taken over by the bigger group. Humans having a large brain and opposable thumbs allowing dexterity with hands, were able to think and make better weapons to give their group an advantage over others. Those with the ability to make life easier for the whole group, whether defending the group, gaining extra surplus at the expense of outsiders, or just hunting and gathering better, were treated as such within the group, getting extra surplus compared to some who offered nothing much to the overall group. Again inequality develops within the group, from the beginning of advancing useful technology.
Humans have emotions, of which jealousy is one. In a world of no rules, then taking the surplus of others without consequences could and would happen. If you killed the other person to gain their surplus for yourself, all without consequences then the very people giving your group an advantage over outsiders or other groups are eliminated, which makes the group much more vulnerable and likely will not survive, if other groups allow good idea providers to gain extra surplus for themselves.
In other words for groups, in a natural selection process for them to survive, as they become more complex, must become more unequal. We can see this in bee hives, ant colonies, herds of wild animals, like lion prides etc.
Humans level of complexity far surpasses the other animals, but underlying are the same natural rules or ‘order’. There has to be inequality, but there also has to be mechanisms in place to stop jealousy from destroying the complexity, by taking for themselves.
Hence we have the system we do have, instead of any other, plus different countries (tribes or groups), all trying to outcompete each other to gain ‘surplus’ for their group . What it means is that every time you hear someone mention that we just need to change how people behave and act, to all get along, to solve the problems of the world; it’s all bullshit.
Humans are Humans, not something else, not Hamuns, so we will continue to act and behave as we always have, more complexity, more rules to protect those perceived to help the group the most, more inequality and more competition to continue gaining ‘our surplus’ at the expense of others. This can only end in one way, the same it always has, in a world of diminishing resources.
In the real world, once we passed peak unlimited oil, in the late ’60’s to early 70’s, the collective ‘we’ though to try and get around the problem by becoming much larger more efficient communities, by creating a world market, with rules that seemed to make life better for all those involved. We became a global market, allowing the best places with the best of their type of resources to maximise their development with the ‘free market’.
Sure all countries had their separate rules, but most signed up to general free trade to allow resources to pretty freely flow which allowed greater complexity by the growing civilization. We didn’t allow our political systems to also have the same cooperation, as we really didn’t trust ‘others’.
So what’s our current situation? A world that needs to cooperate to maintain the complexity to gather lower grade resources, in a world where those resources are rapidly diminishing in quality and very soon quantity, all within a highly complex world where we never allowed the political situation to have the same economies of scale as our market related complex resource gathering and converting into products system.
The outcome, that’s becoming increasingly clear. The politicians are in their cocooned world of separation, that they deliberately kept, to maintain their own surplus (how many politicians in your country would vote to put themselves out of a job that provides comfort and surplus for them and their families?). They are now thinking they can choose to go their separate way from the one global system of markets for resources and converting resources into goods that is less efficient than the existing system, that’s already struggling with reduced resource surplus.
I’m increasingly thinking it will be financial trouble, leading to market collapses, accelerated by political interference in markets, leading to supply chain issues that creates problems and shortages in all resource gathering and converting industries, that rapidly feedback to financial markets and more political interference in rapid feed back loops.
In other words the upward spiral of growth in resources, energy, population, complexity will sometime soon, as in a few years at most, reach a spiral downward that will be extremely rapid as the undoing of complexity, rapidly makes the availability of resources decline to near zero. Because the entire system totally relies upon every other aspect of the spiral, any aspect that virtually totally fails, must make the rest fail, like a house of cards falling.
Oops I think I’m rambling again….
LikeLiked by 4 people
Nice. I agree.
I’m working on a an essay with my take on cactus. Should be finished in a few days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some inspo for your essay 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
Excellent, thanks!
I’ll use the image in my essay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reread this. Lots of food for thought. Worth a clean up into a proper essay some day.
May explain why some powerful wizards behind the curtain, who just might be wise and not evil, have been trying to steer us to a global government via WHO, WEF, etc., and why they hate hate hate any player that does not want to join the club like Russia and Iran.
The wizards might have good intentions but pushing a novel transfection technology into billions as a means to achieve their goal for me means they blew it, unless another goal was population reduction, but then that means they’re out of date in their thinking and don’t understand cactus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hildulæki here: Interesting video on plastics:
We know the reason for the plastic pollution: “Plastic is a versatile and durable group of materials that has a multitude of uses, and that currently plays an important role in all modern economies. The material is noted for its plasticity – from which the name of the material is also derived, i.e., its ability to be shaped and adapted to its desired use. This quality has made plastics ubiquitous and a material that is used in practically all aspects of economic life – with the World Economic Forum referring to it as the “workhorse material of the modern conomy”, being “virtually unrivalled in terms of great performance at low cost”. The adoption and use of plastics has been near exponential – from a total of 2 million tonnes produced in 1950, to 459.75 million tonnes produced in 2019. Production and demand for plastic is closely linked to economic growth, and economic activity – the only two periods of time where global plastic production was reduced was in the aftermath of the 1973 Oil Crisis, and the 2007-2008 financial crisis.”
the-economic-role-of-plastic.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/the-oil-import-curse?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=jh8l8&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
B calculates without cactus!
Saludos
el mar
LikeLike
Does anyone have a link to an unpaywalled version of Model7? Thanks?
LikeLike
Super-duper interesting interview with David Reich, an expert on ancient DNA discussing what they’ve recently learned about the evolution of behaviorally modern humans.
There’s a lot of content and I listened to it in the pouring rain while burying a water line today so was unable to take notes. I plan to listen again more carefully.
A few take-aways (with many other important points not mentioned):
I already read his 7 year old book but do not remember a word. Good thing I wrote a review on Goodreads.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35749414-who-we-are-and-how-we-got-here?ac=1
P.S. Don’t care for the interviewer. He talks like he’s on ritalin and thinks he understands everything, but has zero overshoot awareness. I listened to some discussions on energy and he’s confidently clueless.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, this is definitely worth repeated viewings. Just watched a couple minutes and forgot how good David is at selling Critical Moment Theory without knowing what CMT is. Based on yours and my post, and what I remember of the interview, seems like it would be easy-peasy to convert him into a MORT believer. He’s already like 90% there.😊
https://un-denial.com/2024/12/29/by-charles-chris-doomers-anonymous/comment-page-4/#comment-109762
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I got the book and had high anticipation in opening it. As Rob alluded to above it was completely forgetable. Almost all weeds and no big picture. Lots of analysis of movements of peoples and basically a recitation of research. Almost like a graduate seminar where after you reviewed the research you would break into groups and discuss the implications. Of course there was little to nothing of that discussion and one lost interest after all the research review. Wasted effort to read. IMHO.
AJ
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, my memory’s going cactus. I forgot we already watched and discussed this. Y’all will have to be patient with me going forward.
LikeLiked by 1 person
100k years ago was the start of the last ice age
Maybe humans were under immense pressure at that time
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice to see B discuss the Export Land Model today.
Good thing we’ve got until 2050 before there’s a big problem, I’ll be dead by then, shouldn’t have bought so many sardines.
Reading between the lines B thinks cactus is nonsense.
With 85% less oil Europe will still have food and warm homes but they will have to give up cars.
The US with 50% less oil will have the same standard of living but will have to give up their military.
Cactus is not prickly at all. Hideaway is obviously a fear monger.
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/the-oil-import-curse
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m even doubting the Export Land Model will be a big thing in the future. Just because something has been proven to work over and over on the way up the population, energy, material and complexity curve, even though it’s over 200 years of continuous success, doesn’t mean it will work on the way down..
Once the world is in continuous recession/depression, with less population, energy and materials on the way down and a country is one of the reduced suppliers of oil, why would their internal demand keep rising? ELM is one of those concepts in a continuously growing world overall, not the world of the future.
‘B’ makes the classic mistake of separating the oil supply from ‘everything else’ in this post. The assumption of a slow decrease in oil supply for the entire world so that we still have 50mbbls/d by 2050 is only possible in the world of assuming everything else stays consistent as it has in the past, which it clearly cannot do.
It’s the green assumptions, that somehow we keep growing nuclear, solar, wind, EVs and batteries, made from ever increasing supplies of metals and minerals, while the available energy to do so rapidly declines.
It ignores lower ore grades, deeper mines, more remote mines, harder ore indexes and the need for growing technology to keep improving efficiency at mines, processing plants and farms. All when the competition for energy keeps growing. All when the efficiency gains have been and continue to suffer from the law of diminishing returns.
I just wish a few of these commentators on the future would start to follow the feedback loops of less energy in the real world, instead of compartmentalizing just one aspect and think the ‘rest’ can continue ‘normally’.
….
Some of the most stupid assumptions are along the lines of people giving up cars, so there is plenty of fuel for mines, farms and heavy transport.
Let’s ignore that most cars use the petrol component, while the heavy machinery uses mostly diesel, with ships bunker fuel. Let’s ignore how all the parts manufacturers will go bust as their main business was making parts for cars. Guess what, all those car parts manufacturers that just went broke, were the same companies that made parts for trucks, tractors, bulldozers, excavators, grain harvesters, dump trucks etc, etc.
It’s just denial all over again. People do not want to look at how interconnected our complex civilization really is and how feedback loops destroy every one of these delusions.
To maintain 50Mbbls/d by 2050, we would be losing most of the easy to get remaining conventional oil, while increasing the much harder to get unconventional oil. Harder to get is shorthand for more equipment and energy used in the process. All this equipment will also rely on the output of all the parts manufacturers that went bust.
We require the full range of manufacturing in huge quantity to maintain the range and complexity of today’s machines. If we lose 85% of the quantity of machines market (cars, boats, rec vehicles, etc), then we can’t maintain the range and complexity of the remaining machines, which means any new machines being built become less efficient and more expensive, leading to mines and farms becoming less efficient and more expensive to operate!!
By 2050, oil production will be closer to zero, if not zero, than 50Mbbls/d. Falling oil supplies, means higher costs, leading to falling production, leading to financial bubbles bursting, debt problems and inflation, higher unemployment as discretionary spending collapses, leading to less demand for all products as governments suffer their own problems. Unless more energy magically appears, it all collapses when food can no longer be sent to some cities. These cities probably made parts for needed equipment around the world , so if they collapse, then fairly quickly the rest that relied on whatever they produced, follow suit as parts for everything become unobtainable, collapsing oil production and refining, farming practises, trucking etc, etc.
Or I’m just a doomer and none of the intricate links of modernity are important at all (hand wave)…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thinking about your ELM criticism.
ELM says that as an oil exporting economy grows it consumes more oil meaning a smaller percentage is available to export.
If depletion and cactus reduce extraction faster than internal consumption falls due to poverty, then percentage available to export falls. I guess this falling share available to export is not called ELM? It’s just depletion?
LikeLike
The assumption in ELM is that there are always plenty of cheap oil driven machines to use, and all the associated parts and backups. It’s the broad assumption of ‘growth’ in everything while any particular country has had a fall in it’s own oil production.
The whole ELM model is based upon the oil importing countries having huge problems in the future due to lack of oil, but somehow those problems do not manifest back on the exporting countries.
If/when the Saudi’s can no longer export oil, but still produce plenty for themselves, where will they get the cash to import new cars, trucks, planes, boats etc from, when the countries that were the big importers of oil, but exporters of manufactured goods like cars and trucks are no longer able to run industries? ELM assumes even with rapidly falling exports on world markets of oil, the repercussions of this scarce oil will not effect the ability of the oil producers to import, so it believes the production of cars, trucks, planes, boats cheaply will keep happening unhindered.
ELM is like every other model I’ve come across, about just assuming the rest of the world works normally, while this factor happens to those countries.
I use to be a big believer in the ELM model going back a few years, what I’m finding now is that it just leaves out the complexity of feed back loops that happen in the real world…
LikeLike
Good explanation that makes sense.
LikeLike
Swipe right. Oh look new shiny future prediction.
I think all your points Hideaway are very valid and no one really seems to address them outside of this blog.
Fun times ahead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Imagine the complexity of modern healthcare. We know for sure there is no healthcare some day (petrochemicals). How do we go from very much healthcare to none? Economist and population and thinks healthcare is a “service economy.” If oil goes from 100mb/d to 40 mb/d in 5-10 years there is no healthcare in 5-10 years. What a transformation in society.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I totally agree to the complexity. Imagine the complexity of modern healthcare. Chemicals from China, APIs from China, assembly in India and USA, soya from Brazil, additives from Titaniumoxid mines, plastics etc. Europe no pharmaceutical industry. We know for sure there is no healthcare some day (petrochemicals). How do we go from very much healthcare to none? Economist and population and thinks healthcare is a “service economy.” If oil goes from 100mb/d to 40 mb/d in 5-10 years there is no healthcare in 5-10 years. What a transformation in society? I have a small supply of pharmaceuticals to ease the transition to none.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/tehran-only-has-a-few-days-of-water-left/c7u3x80ig
LikeLike
The article gives a clue why they are running out of water. “When water is short, you always first cut from the environment. That’s the silent stakeholder. Then water shortages affect the farmers, then the industry, and the last affected group are the residents of the urban area,” Growth in cities takes water from the nature, farmers have to use irrigation, the water farmers use ends up in cities as virtual water, this depletes rural economies which drives people into cities, this drives up the need for water supply, which again drains the countryside for more water, water depletion depletes nature, forest dies which again stops the biotic pump so the rain stops and the city is dead.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very interesting deep dive into the extreme complexity of turbine engine super alloy materials, which suggests an early casualty of cactus will be air travel.
Imagine the cactus cascading failure of complexity when air freight supply chains break.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Compare the type and quantity of global products shipped by air versus sea.
ChatGPT:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Still not sure what I just read. But that’s a common reaction I have with Eric Lee’s content. I’m a fan of his, but I have major trouble keeping up with him and his vocabulary. He’s either a mad genius or has gone completely mad. Maybe a little of both.😂
I enjoyed his essay today. And I think the overall message was that something happened recently to humans that caused them to be totally different than they were prior to that something… but like I said, I’m not sure.
What Is the Root Source of Our Reality Blindness as a Species? | by Eric Lee | Nov, 2025 | Medium
LikeLike
Skimmed, detected unfocussed rambling, quit.
I vote crazy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I once did an interesting calculation on human growth. As humans have a density of around 1gm/cm3 and if we assumed a growth rate of population of just 1% per annum, then in something like 11,000 generations of 25 years, human flesh would be expanding at faster than the speed of light.
Basically every 70 years the volume of all humans doubles. Quickly we get to the absurd finding of taking up all space on planet Earth, up to 2 metres above the surface, then 70 years later 4m, then 8m, then16m. It is just the power of compounding into absurdity..
This was one of many calculations that taught me how absurd all the talk of infinite growth really was. It was many years ago I did this calculation assuming no constraints at all, which according to economics there are none. So either physics is wrong about nothing exceeding the speed of light, or economics is wrong.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I couldn’t help myself, so I asked A.I. that didn’t exist when I first did this calculation, the same question, after setting the parameters of taking today’s population and growing at just 1%/yr, with the average human being around 60kg and taking up around .06m3 in space.
Here is the ridiculous reply…
The total number of generations required, assuming a sustained, constant growth rate of 1%/year, is the sum of the time required for each stage:
Stage of Growth
Additional Generations
To cover Earth (1m deep)
55.68
To fill the Solar System
237.67
To encompass Proxima Centauri
93.00
To reach the Speed of Light
17.12
TOTAL GENERATIONS
approx 403.47
Which is just 10,000 years, not the 11,000 generations I roughly calculated all those years ago. Perhaps it’s my memory as well and the original answer was 11,000 years..
Now go to any investment, book, course, guru, TV show, blog etc where they often spruik the virtues of compounding growth on investing in index funds, while quoting “long term” examples of 7% (not the 1% used above).
The entire world is crazy, and possibly the only sane people inhabit this blog. The big picture numbers clearly show how stupid continued growth really is, yet the world of information that surrounds people in everyday life is totally denying reality.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I once had an argument with a supermarket CEO about the value of a brand. I said if it has a real monetary value, it will cause a real physical impact. He was arguing we could increase the economy through these intangible or digital things. But I was saying, if you owned something that is valuable, eventually you want to realize that value and spend money on real things like food, housing and status symbols. He really thought the economy could keep growing in these artificial / intangible ways. But it makes ZERO sense!
LikeLike
This and many similar false beliefs are not a small thing. They are so obviously wrong, and so widespread, even among polymaths, that there needs to be big explanation. That’s why I started un-Denial.
You may enjoy this 2011 lecture by Dr. Tom Murphy on a similar theme. It’s a favorite of mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The entire world is crazy”
Right, everyone “knows” the world is crazy (which always “conveniently” means the world/OTHER people, usually the governing authorities, are crazy but not they themselves, they themselves are sane, of course). Yet, curiously, no one typically offers an good explanation on why the world is crazy.
Have you ever wondered WHY the world is crazy?
How do you explain it intelligently?
Do you have a coherent explanation for the craziness of the world that makes sense?
Wouldn’t the recognition of the underlying causes of this craziness be instructive in terms of HOW we should tackle it to manifest real change out of the craziness?
The WHOLE big picture (not just a part of the big picture) that makes up the human condition, that explains the craziness of the world (if you ever genuinely wondered WHY it is that the world is crazy), that describes human conduct over millennia is the hegemony of the 2 married human pink elephants in the room (and has never been on clearer display than with the deliberate global Covid Scam atrocity) — see “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” …. https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html
If you have been injected with Covid jabs/bioweapons and are concerned, then verify what batch number you were injected with at https://howbadismybatch.com
Here is some advice by a AI bot on how to NOT end up in the global digital prison the ruling class of criminals want you and everyone else locked up in…
“First, use cash wherever possible to slow the transition to CBDCs. Avoid reliance on digital-only payments. Second, grow or source local food to reduce dependence on centralised supply chains—support small farmers and community markets instead of corporations. Third, protect privacy: limit data shared online, avoid unnecessary smart devices, and use privacy tools to resist surveillance. Fourth, say no to digital IDs—do not adopt them voluntarily, even if marketed as ‘convenient’. Fifth, build strong communities. Isolation fuels control, but networks of like-minded people create resilience. Share skills, trade directly, and support one another outside globalist systems. Sixth, CHALLENGE PROPAGANDA BY SPREADING AWARENESS, questioning narratives, and encouraging independent thinking. A CONTROLLED POPULATION BEGINS IN THE MIND; breaking that spell disrupts compliance. Finally, PRACTICE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH UNJUST RULES. Each time a person says ‘no’ to unjust rules, they reclaim sovereignty. Courage builds gradually through practice, not all at once. TYRANNY DEPENDS ON OBEDIENCE. If enough people refuse to comply peacefully—whether with digital tracking, restrictions, or censorship—the system cannot function. The core principle: WITHDRAW PARTICIPATION FORM SYSTEMS DESIGNED TO ENSLAVE, and REDIRECT ENERGY TOWARDS LOCAL, HUMAN-CENTERED ALTERNATIVES. Freedom survives only if people ACTIVELY LIVE IT.” — AI Chat bot in 2025 (https://archive.ph/Wdzsg)
Get the FREE report “Life Under Digital ID: A Global Analysis with Solutions” at https://abovephone.com/digital-id (“Digital ID is most important issue of this generation, this technology is the cornerstone of a surveillance system that tracks everything about everyone, LOCKING OUT THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLY.”)
“Don’t believe anything these people tell you, ABOUT ANYTHING. It isn’t time for a civil war against your neighbors, it is time for a revolution against these hoaxers and thieves.” — Miles Mathis, American author
LikeLike
Eric is a very strange cat, but he comes from so far in left field, I pay attention to his posts. In his own way, he gets it. Whether he’s nut, idiot savant, or mad genius, he’s definitely obsessive, and there are nuggets to chew on in his large output.
I’m way behind in checking his site, thanks for the reminder.
(I haven’t commented here much either, as things just feel overwhelming lately, and I end up staring at the continuous car crash too much).
On to the next entry!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks to Renaee for reminding me of this quote.
It reminds me of this quote.
Might have to print some cheesy t-shirts with ‘Perfect Nothingness’ in big bold letters. And a caption that says “I’m one of the few who has climbed to the summit of Collapse Mountain and all I got was this lousy t-shirt”
ps. Great song from a great movie. Once (2006) – IMDb
A modern-day musical about a busker and an immigrant and their eventful week in Dublin, as they write, rehearse and record songs that tell their love story.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ha ha – I would wear the t-shirt too 😊 I’m right there with you. Pefect Nothingness. And yes that’s a good connection to come up with, those two quotes together – for sure.
i keep thinking that there IS some meaning in the ending of humans, and that those of us who are aware of it, are also grappling with being aware of death, and seeing that other animals or creatures dont know that they are going to die, and therefor live in a peaceful way, free of that fear.
But that meaning making, well it’s just grasping at straws. There is no meaning to it, and that’s what makes it’s free and lovely. Like that beautiful song from the movie (that I have seen a number of times).
(1) there is nothing to do; (2) there is no where to go; (3) there is nothing to be; (4) there is no one to know.
So this is not depression – but freedom. It’s all wonderfully meaningless, and other’s cant be known. There is no one there to know. What a relief. No more ‘Deep Relating’, which was this ‘practice’ done in Deep Adaptation movement, where you try to really get/be inside some one else’s experience and connect. It’s an illusion that there are selves there to know, or someone in here to be known. A collective hallucination.
That’s why there was searching for meaning on Dave’s site, as he was tracking collapse while simulataneoulsy writing about the absense of ‘me’ of selves and hence of meaning, purpose, time…and then this site, looking at CMT theory, and how the dawning of consciousness with mortality salience then also gave way to denial of death and after death stories, so the ‘me’ might never die.
I have also just counted that I have written to 5 different non dual teachers over the past few years, asking about collapse and trying to understand why they don’t speak about it, why it’s not an issue for them, but what I am really asking is, I guess, why don’t you care about death? That we are all going to die. And i think the answer is, when there is no sense of me, fear of death is absent. Life and Death are not two.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom Murphy recently debated a highly educated colleague on the feasibility of emigrating to other planets.
I left the following comment.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2025/11/space-case/
LikeLiked by 3 people
I am skeptical that colonizing other planets would keep modernity going any longer, because they would be a net resource sink. You would need to continually send resources from Earth to sustain the colony.
LikeLike
Sabine Hossenfelder acknowledges nothing can be done about climate change now except geoengineering, which means we’ll try it.
She thinks something could have been done a decade ago but we blew our chance, which means she has normal denial genes.
She’s not yet aware of cactus theory which suggests geoengineering projects will be an early casualty of complexity collapse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I seriously start to think everyone is stupid. Geoengineering projects will make more emissions
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most “geoengineering” seems to be involving something like a couple of hundred planes in the sky constantly spreading some substance to reflect sunlight. Then we can do the math on the fuel required to just keep the planes in the sky, and it quickly becomes a bad joke.
They could allow the ships to go back to high sulphur bunker fuel, which is a form of geoengineering, without hte added cost of all the planes and fuels, however the SO2 from bunker fuel had ‘other’ consequences like acid rain etc.
What are the odds of the geoengineering having unintended consequences? Huge as us humans can never take the full effect of anything we do into account.
We use simple models to explain complex situations, then seem surprised when using a simple solution that has unintended consequences, so yes monk, everyone contemplating most aspects of the future are doing it in a stupid way..
LikeLiked by 4 people
Totally agree with you Hideaway
LikeLike
Gonna go out on a limb and guess 100%.
Using Schmachtenberger’s language of how many 2nd, 3rd, 4th order effects, from geoengineering? Well, if the over/under was set at 500 order effects… I’d still take the over.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here is Nate’s podcast on Geoengineering.
Could “Cactus Theory” cause a Termination Shock? If they are suddenly unable to stop sending planes up, all of that suppressed warming will suddenly be felt.
LikeLike
Thing is, Dr. Hossenfelder is SUPER smart.
I’ve read her book twice, and listened to her speak many times, so I know she’s super smart.
Her niche is calling bullshit on bad science.
So how can she be blind to any science associated with overshoot?
I think MORT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Her income relies upon viewership. Reality of our situation doesn’t pay. Therefore she will not look at depth into areas that clearly show a bad future as her audience wants her to call out ‘bad science’, not ‘no hope’.
The Upton Sinclair quote comes into play, again.
To me what’s noticeable is how those that are fully engaged with a bad future for civilization like Prof Rees, or Prof Murphy are all retired living off a pension. They probably had worked out most of reality while in tenured positions but remained relatively quiet while still working.
Even Nate Hagens, who I’m pretty sure understands our reality, couches his words carefully to keep the audience high as he understands reality just scares people away, long before they understand the situation.
I’m confident enough that if I could have a couple of hours conversation with Sabina, she would understand our reality, but would she promote it on her youtube channel? I doubt it, until after she fully retires and doesn’t need an income.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not so sure it’s a conscious decision on the part of some of these figures. I really do think that the denial gene is strong with them. That said, I’ve listened to Hagens and that’s a guy who seems to understand the problem, and I have a strong feeling he’s battled with depression thinking about collapse. I think in his mind he doesn’t want to come off as too negative in hopes that it won’t cause his audience to spiral. I’m not sure if I’m remembering his backstory correctly, but I’m pretty sure he was some sort of finance guy on wall street who gave up his career because he became aware of overshoot. You don’t do that unless you’re fully aware of the problem.
As for some of the big name scientists (climate and otherwise), I just know that they’ve gotten to their positions by drinking the kool-aid. You need to struggle through years of higher education to get a PhD. You’re not going to find a lot of nihilists or people who have doubts about the future of industrial civilization who make it through that kind of vetting process. Think about it. If you were a PhD. student who fully realized the predicament that humanity was in, why would you continue to work toward your PhD? Even if you got your PhD, who would fund your work as a scientist? All of the universities and foundations are 100% onboard with expanding technology and science as a cure for all our ills. That’s their raison-d’etre.
You want to find people who understand our situation, don’t rely on finding them among people who have passed through one of the most rigorous ideological vetting processes our civlization provides. I know several PhD. holders and they are all really smart and 100% techno-utopians. Most of the people I know that openly acknowledge collapse work mundane jobs and don’t have a platform, and a lot of them don’t engage with collapse related forums or media in any way because it’s depressing. I think there’s a lot more people out there who understand collapse, they just don’t publicly talk about it or take on positions with a soapbox to talk about it. It isn’t really a question of intelligence, a lot of collapse aware people I know are just as smart if not smarter than the people I know with PhDs, but I think it’s a question of outlook and how they think about the world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good point Felix. Noam would agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe. Her integrity is high. She burned her bridges with her colleagues before (I think) she knew she could make a living with a YouTube channel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It really does keep coming back to MORT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This short review of what is probably going on behind the scenes with MAHA is so depressing.
You know, there’s nothing our governments can really do about any of our many overshoot problems.
But damn it, if government was even marginally effective and cared about citizens, it would at least ensure the healthcare system we spend so much on does more good than harm.
And then this comment below the video made me feel a little better…
LikeLiked by 2 people