Copied from The Automatic Earth. August 2012

Alexander Aston:

I think about history … a lot. It has always been my deepest fascination. When I was little I would construct whole civilizations with my Legos and play out their existence. Monuments would be constructed, kings would die, wars would start, cities would be rebuilt, lineages would rise and fall. I suppose as a child what captivated me was the magnitude of the human epic, the drama of the shifting patterns of human relationship over the course of generations. I simply loved telling their stories, and the sort of melancholic beauty that one feels reflecting on all that has passed, all that has succumbed to time and is irretrievable.

The western historical canon is well known to us in its essential form. The basic narrative runs, “Humans gave up their wandering and settled the fertile crescent, cities emerged, myths and legends were established. Then came the Greeks and all that is noble and virtuous in western culture was born: reason, art, democracy, etc. Next the Romans who brought, law, order and engineering until crushed by the barbarians and the rise of Christianity. The dark ages ensued until Europeans pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and proceeded to make their rightful claim on the world as the descendents of Greece and Rome.”

The characters of our narratives have become so familiar to us that we tend to simply view our ancestors as us, separated only by time. I have watched the siege of Troy, the burning of the library of Alexandria and Gladiatorial games all carried out with clipped British accents as though everyone living in the past 10,000 years spoke the queen’s English. What happens in the reshaping of history through our narrative lens is, if you will, a cultural-morphic personification.

We attribute to our ancient cultures our own cosmologies and create a linear relationship between our cultures. Now I am not saying that we are not the descendents of the ancients that preceded us and that they have not had a powerful influence upon us. What I am saying is that we distort our ability to truly empathize and understand the humanity of those who preceded us and in doing so we distort our ability to understand our own position in history and relationship to those that will follow us.

The truth is that the ancients were radically different cultures than ours. The stories they told about themselves are not the same as the ones we tell about them. Though we can only reconstruct their worlds now using what facts we know, it is important that we work to empathize with their reality as best we can so that we might understand our own more fully. We must work to imagine the condition of the ancients. I often think of what it would have felt like to go into battle.

Can you imagine standing on the field, heat bearing down on you as you stare out at the mass of humanity on the opposing side, light glinting off of metal? You would have that deep anxiousness in the pit of your stomach. Drums beating as you and the columns start to move, first walking, jogging, then running, everything moving faster and faster.

Leather and metal strapped to your body chafing against your skin, the scent of other humans and dust from thousands of sandals hitting the earth surrounds you. Blood and adrenaline pumping through your body to match the pounding of the war drums. Closer and closer the inevitability of the clash descending upon you, the roar of thousands of voices screaming in unison fill the air and… impact.

What was the psychology of these humans? What ordered their world, what was the visceral intensity of their experience? What makes them “us”, what gives them their own unique truths? The people that we call the “Greeks”, were an Iron age people in the Mediterranean, already with their own vast history filled with legends and fallen civilizations as distant from their times as we are from them.

Certainly the Hellenes form part of the DNA of our culture, their ideas and actions have been transmitted through the shifting dynamics of human society and played a large role in the shape and expression of our cultures. Yet they were not “Westerners” or “Europeans”. They were a people trying to make sense of the process in which they were embedded, trying to create a coherent narrative out of all that they had inherited and did not even remotely imagine of us.

Yet why is this idea of reframing the narrative so important? I would argue that if we do not demythologize our history we will be incapable of demythologizing ourselves, and if our understanding of our lineage is mythic then our relationship to our own times is equally so. That when we respond to our condition with pre-scripted narratives we are attempting to conform reality to our own thoughts, assumptions and biases. This reduces our adaptability because it reduces our ability to see possibilities and to embrace a diversity of perception and response. Think of all the humans burned at stakes, all the texts that have been obliterated simply because they challenged the dominant narratives.

I want to try and posit a different narrative, an attempt at demythologizing history and civilization a bit, and to better map the “geography” of our past to the best of my understanding. I will largely use the lens of western history as that is what I am most familiar with (like those most likely to read this) but not to disregard other histories. This is not meant to be a referenced, academic paper (I am working on that separately), rather I will use logic and what is largely common historical knowledge to establish my argument for a different perspective.

I believe the universe can be viewed as an entropic fractal. Energy and matter collect into differentials that work to more efficiently dissipate available energy. When a differential is formed that can contain a portion of available energy from a source and stabilize it in negative feedback loops, it will form a more complex and energy dense structure at a smaller scale than its source.

This works algorithmically. Unstable structures, such as supernovas, die out, creating not only the room for more stable structures to form but also the materials that provide new differentials. Stable structures increase the amount of energy available on a local scale, which increases the probability of energy pooling into a smaller, available differential. Given enough time and space, material complexity and energy density will be increasingly selected for by the repetition of this process.

Simply put: given enough variables in structure, energy will continue to create denser and more complex structures at successively smaller scales.

In turn life is also an entropic mechanism, it harnesses available energy and dissipates it. However, given the magnitude of available energy in relation to the earth, life forms a massive positive feedback loop expanding and processing larger and larger amounts of available energy. Organisms greatly increase energy density and make energy more available on a local scale by doing things like excreting the byproducts of metabolization (such as when anaerobic organisms oxygenated the biosphere) by being energy dense packets for predation, or simply by decomposing.

By its presence life increases available energy, by increasing available energy it increases the probability of the emergence of new organisms to harness that available energy, creating in turn more complexity and density in a positive feedback loop of adaptation and evolution. In other words the presence of life reshapes and changes the conditions in which it arose, forcing it to continually adapt to its own presence. What we can see in evolution is that the organisms most capable of harnessing available energy are the most fit.

If you will permit me a bit of poetic license, one can view all living organisms as singular entities that have been transforming and mutating in the changing currents of energy over billions of years. Evolution is simply the logic of entropic complexity played out algorithmically with increasing complexity due to the feedback mechanisms inherent in the process.

What we see is an embedded process of agency, set by universal parameters of energy organization and behaviour. A process of agency that is played out with increasing speed and complexity through a cosmic positive feedback loop. I would argue that Humanity, imbedded in this process, forms a whole new fractal of agency. Simply put, the human mind represents the sum logic of evolution, for the purpose of harnessing available energy, in a singular organism. Instead of adapting physiologically it adapts behaviourally, furthering the geometric growth in complexity.

Humanity’s arrival has also played in a self similar pattern to the emergence of life. As symbolic consciousness first started to emerge from the “ocean” and step onto the shores of Africa it increasingly began to respond to its own presence. Hominids began organizing into complex social structures, forming a sort multicellular consciousness, capable of ever more sophisticated interactions with its environment and thus changing its environment in turn. Our socio-economic structures create an ecology of consciousness in which humans operate.

This raises the issue of Civilization. Given that social organization and H. sapiens are axiomatic, and that the species is biologically predisposed to the extremely successful system of hunting and gathering, the massive mutations in the social structure over the past 10,000 years must have been predicated upon evolutionary pressures in which tribal systems had no competitive advantage.

Given what we know of the adaptability of the tribal system to environments, and its proliferation globally, the only new environmental factor at the onset of agriculture which would have provided the competition necessary for a mutation in social structure is humanity itself. This is not to negate structural factors such as the end of the last ice age, but recognition that the presence of human consciousness was the fundamental factor.

The agricultural revolution began independently in multiple locations almost immediately after the establishment of indigenous societies in nearly every major geographic region of the Earth. Since the tribal system was so successful it experienced steadily growing populations, and these population pressures would have created increased competition over the available resources, ultimately resulting in the migration of populations in order to meet their resource needs and maintain the growth rate. This process of expansion is shown by the species’ global establishment by 12,000 B.C. However, as tribal populations reached near total coverage of the planet, migratory patterns would have become more restricted by the presence of other human populations.

Agriculture and ultimately civilization began near simultaneously (on a evolutionary and historical scale) worldwide, on roughly the same latitudes. The epicenters of Civilization in the Fertile Crescent, Mesoamerica and the Yangtze and Indus valleys are, or once were, some of the most fertile areas on Earth, meaning that they would have already supported some of the densest populations of indigenous peoples in the world.

Since the members of a species fill the same ecological niche they are naturally in competition for the same resources, and the larger the population the greater the competition leading to an increasingly rapid depletion of resources. As tribal societies filled the Earth’s hunter-gatherer carrying capacity there would have been a steady intensification in competition for resources as the traditional geographic range of hunter gatherer peoples became increasingly limited.

However, tribal structures would have been in a state of competitive equilibrium, meaning that there were no major advantages in resource gathering among the competing populations. Due to the limits on range imposed by population densities, and the inability to out-compete neighbors for their resources, tribal societies adapted to these new environmental forces by intensifying the usage of their resource bases. It is at this point that the mutations from the hunter gather lifestyle into agricultural society began. In essence, the root cause of Civilization is the adaptation of humanity to its own presence.

H. Sapiens has an unprecedented interface with its environment. Due to their tool making and cognitive capacities, humans create incredibly complex social dynamics in order to interface with their surroundings. They essentially operate as one synchronous social organism in order to compete. When humanity first came into being, the tribal interface was in a homeostatic state allowing human populations to expand worldwide.

When the tribal interface began to overshoot the environment’s carrying capacity for that specific socio-economic model, it was not a physiological interface that was in a state of competitive equilibrium but a behavioral one, therefore natural selection favored behavioral adaptations that broke the competitive equilibrium.

When the adaptive qualities of the human species came into direct competition with one another, a positive feedback loop was created where intensification of human interaction with its resource base ultimately led to agriculture. Like a star igniting, populations reorganized into ape hives around more localized energy production and denser thermodynamic flows. This in turn created the first major food surpluses which subsequently led to larger populations, which lead to greater levels of cultivation, surplus, and a rapid expansion of peoples carrying the new social mutation.

This would have increased population pressures but civilized peoples had developed a competitive advantage, in numbers initially and later in technology, over the smaller indigenous populations. Once agriculture had achieved a competitive advantage over the tribal interface it began to expand and fill the environment’s carrying capacity, mutating again when its expansion hit competitive equilibrium over limited resources.

The same fundamental dynamics of population growth apply to Civilization as they applied to the earlier indigenous humans. The success of the adaptation led to steadily growing populations, and as they exceeded the capacities of their resource bases Civilization began to migrate outwards, reaching near total coverage of the globe and human institution by the 19th century. Populations continued to grow but room for expansion became increasingly limited by the presence of other civilized populations, which led to a rapid intensification of resource competition worldwide.

Like its tribal predecessors, Civilization had reached a level of intense competitive equilibrium amongst itself and began adapting to its own presence by intensifying the usage of its resource base. Just as the human population verged on one billion and competition between Agrarian Civilizations reached its zenith, the Industrial Revolution began. Industrialization spread rapidly throughout the densest populations of humanity worldwide, creating another positive feedback loop and rapid growth rate similar to that of agriculture before it.

The past 300-odd years have shown the competitive success of the industrial society over its agricultural counterpart, to the point that it has become the dominant form of social structure for the vast majority of humans.

In light of my conjectures I want to give a slight reframing narrative of western history starting with the rise of Christianity and the Collapse of Rome. This is meant to be an illustrative but truncated narrative focused more on the broad historical pattern, so please excuse me for any glaring omissions.

The Roman Empire was highly dependent on expansion to maintain its structure. The wealth, in both resources and slaves, taken from conquered territories in an expanding periphery was used as the major fuel source for socio-economic activity within the Empire. As the Empire expanded it had to increasingly expended more energy on maintaining coherence within its territory. Overtime the net energy needed to maintain the empire exceeded the net gain from further expansion, meaning that it lost the primary energy source it was organized to harness thus sending it into a long, though not completely linear, period of contraction and decline.

There is an important behavioural component in the culture of Rome at this time. As the patronage systems broke down and services went into decline, as famines, pestilences and other disaster would rip through Roman cities, the Roman elite, the patriarchs and priests tended to have a common response. They’d bugger off. The elites would tend to retreat to their country estates and wait out the worst of it (though this did act to seed the manorial system of the middle ages), leaving the lower classes to sort themselves out.

Christianity went from being a cult of ostensibly 12 families to the dominant religion of the empire in less than 400 years. No small feat in a world where the fastest form of travel was the Trireme. This is often described as one of the “miracles” of Christianity and I am sure there would be those that would be quite displeased to hear me say it would be more appropriately called natural selection.

The Christian worldview, its behavioural/cultural genetics or memes, describes a system of mutual aid and care giving, i.e. “love thy neighbour”.

When Christians started encountering the inadequacy of the Roman system to support its citizens they would stay in the urban centers and provide basic care and food to the citizens as their beliefs required them to. Basic care increases a human being’s survival rate dramatically, so if you had a christian community you were more likely to survive difficult times. As more people were saved by Christian charity they adopted what was a more functional model of social organization in terms of survival.

Of course this all came with cosmological justification that was transmitted with the behaviour. In this way Christianity was able to grow geometrically in the empire and undercut and supplant the social order despite powerful attempts to stop the process. Adaptation and evolution by any other name.

Thus a behavioural adaptation occurred that tended to create a more effective distribution of resource and increase survival rates amongst its adherents. As the economic ecology of the Roman Empire continued to break down, communities formed around country estates where energy production and distribution was localized, forming the roots of Feudalism.

Because they were more efficient, independent and durable in structure they supplanted the deteriorating ancient economic models and assembled the basis of social organization in the middle ages. Not a pretty system by any means, but an effective one. In essence the manor system created ecological pockets of humanity that were able to whether the collapse of the system.

Now we flash forward a bit to the black death. Roughly 50% of Europe’s population is estimated to have died. Combined with events such as the Little Ice Age, the Great Famine, the Western Schism and the 100 Years War. the cultural world view of Medieval Europe began to fall apart and the feudal structure was massively destabilized.

The Plague created more available land as well as a far higher demand for available humans due to the reduced supply of population. This ultimately helped to establish the wage and rental systems, stagnating manorial wealth while increasing economic opportunity and mobility for many surviving Europeans.

As the manor system began to fall apart, cities began to expand as populations migrated for new economic opportunities and a new “middle class” began to emerge (despite attempts by the elite yet again to stifle such changes). It is not surprising that the first major expansions of economic and cultural activity developed in the Italian city states.

Firstly they were the point of introduction of the plague in Europe so they had a head start on stabilization and recovery from its effects. Secondly, because they were the major European trading centers with the rest of the Eurasian continent, they would also have provided the most economic opportunity.

As populations moved into the Italian cities they would have done so with their cultural narratives severely shaken, making them not only more susceptible to new ideas but indeed hungry for new narratives and identification in a vastly changed society. Thus the long dormant memes (preserved for Europe by the Arabs) of the Roman and Hellenic world began to take root and spread. Ancient ideas fueled new ones and the culture began to reorganize its self-conception in the process we term the renaissance developing the first real challenge to the medieval worldview in millennia.

Around the same time wealth from the New World began to pour into Europe, largely through the Spanish conquest of the Americas. One could also argue that the age of discovery was fueled by geography. With Portugal and Spain on the periphery of the major Italian economic centers and with dense populations prohibiting expansion to the east they were directed towards oceanic exploration and expansion in the west to fuel their economies.

This infusion of wealth represented a massive energy boon that stimulated economic activity and also out competed the old aristocratic economic models. This wealth was largely distributed into Northern Europe, especially the Netherlands, France and England, which became the manufacturing base of Europe.

Thus nations on the periphery of the old medieval order – the Church of Rome -, became both more economically powerful and independent. It was this combination of economic transformation, infused with humanist values of the Renaissance spreading north, that helped spark the reformation.

Economic independence provided the insulation necessary for a new conception of human relationship to take root and challenge the authority of Rome. Though in terms of area and populations the Catholics came out dominant, it forever shattered the Church’s hegemony over Europe. This in turn created a divide in the cultural geography of Europe, providing new niches for ideas to flourish and spread, ultimately giving rise to the Enlightenment, scientific thinking and the impetus for the industrial revolution.

This is a pattern of punctuated equilibrium, in which long periods of relative stability are punctuated with periods of rapid adaptation and diversification. An ecological system reaches a high level of equilibrium and complexity in its relationships; then something causes the equilibrium to fracture, whether a meteorite or the plague, thus reducing the complexity of the system.

This acts to clear the more inefficient and fragile structures, opening up energy flows and new niches for more stable species (or ideas) to expand into. What is very fascinating on an thermodynamic level is that every phase of punctuated equilibrium ends with a severe reduction in available energy, whether energy available from the sun or from working populations. This collapses the structures dependent on formerly large energy flows, but it creates a selection mechanism for structures capable of organizing more efficiently and densely in relation to available energy.

A perfect illustration of this is the radiation of Endothermic animals (mammals) and Angiosperms with the extinction of the dinosaurs. Endothermic animals have a much higher energy density than exotherms, and though they have higher energy requirements as well, this was offset by the size of the early mammals. This energy density allows them to maintain a higher state of internal equilibrium in relationship to available energy (localized energy production), thus allowing them to better survive the reduced warmth of the post meteorite environment.

It’s the same with flowers and deciduous trees: their broad thin leafs allowed them to better photosynthesize in the reduced light of the nuclear winter, and as coniferous canopies began to clear it allowed for their radiation. With the collapse phase of punctuated equilibrium the most energy dense and efficient structures are selected for, meaning that all subsequent radiation will inherently be more complex due to its increased density and efficiency, further feeding into the positive feedback loop of entropic complexity by making more energy available on the local level.

This is the mechanism that best expresses the emergence of complexity as I understand it. It emerges by orders of magnitude by organizing energy and matter into complex relationships which break down, then algorithmically selecting the most energy dense and efficient remainder to reorganize into a greater order of complexity.

This invariably makes the process faster and faster as systems with an increased capacity for energy density manifest complexity more rapidly, in turn making them more susceptible to breakdown when something interferes with those complex relationships.

In a super brief overview of history we can illustrate it like this: Roughly 8 Billion years from the big bang to the emergence of life. Roughly 2.5 billion years from the emergence of prokaryotic cells to the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and roughly 1 billion years from the emergence of Eukaryotes to Multicellular organisms. 370 million years to the colonization of land etc.

Again, in human history we can see a similar pattern, 150 thousand years to the “great leap forward”, 40 thousand years to the development of agriculture and 10,000 years to industrialization. We see this at an even smaller scale in european history, Roman break down, reemergence, Medieval break down, reemergence. Events break down the ecology of human organization and it reforms into denser more complex structures, complete with new adaptive behaviours.

So here we are in 2012 and what we do know is that our systems demands far exceed the capacity of the planet to support it and it is increasingly becoming a thermodynamic impossibility. Our conception of society is at complete odds with the physical and biological parameters that gave rise to it. The collapse of our world order is coming down to simple maths, and while inconceivable to many, it is also irrefutable to anyone willing to look at the basic truths of physics and ecology.

We are caught in the unfolding of a titanic logic bomb between the demands of our economic system and the limitations of both our planet and humanity itself. The high priests of Economics fiercely deny this and demand ever more blood sacrifice from us in order to end the eclipse of their infinite future. This is endemic behaviour of elites throughout history, who have consistently attempted to conform reality to their metaphysics, the worldviews born of, and insulated by, their privilege, while the burden of reality is increasingly placed on those beneath them.

Historically this plays out until the inertia created by their inability to adapt breaks the old order apart. Roman Senators, the Ancient Regime, Mandarins and Czars all suffered from the most extreme forms of normalcy bias, ones used to the command of reality; invariably such hubris condemns the majority to tragedy.

So what can we infer from our history thus far? The history of a species’ population growth tends to follow a pattern known as M.I.G.O.D.S. or migration, innovation, growth, overexploitation, decline and stabilization. So far humanity has repeated the first steps with increasing intensity due to its cognitive capacities and ability to adapt behaviourally. Hunter Gatherers migrated and developed innovations to their new environments which continued the processes of population growth and migration.

However, when overexploitation started to confront human populations (at least in those areas that permitted the development of agriculture), humans developed new innovations in culture and production that allowed for the process of growth to continue. This did not nullify the rest of the M.I.G.O.D.S. pattern but delayed it allowing us to reach a level of global overexploitation. What is truly fascinating about us is that yet again Humanity’s greatest ecological pressure is itself.

So what are we looking at when we peer into the future using this understanding of population growth? Ignoring either an stratospheric rise or total collapse into oblivion, what we see in the J-curve is a drop followed by stabilization, a state of equilibrium forming a relatively straight line. When we look at this part of population patterns in terms of human history, what we are looking at is a radically different society than any we have ever experienced before.

It represents a transformation or mutation in human social structure as radically different in its function and self conception as the differences between Hunter Gatherers, Agriculturalists and Industrials. The only other thing that I think can be said with relative surety is that on a historical scale the process of transformation will be bloody well fast.

That is why I say that this process will be an order an of magnitude higher than agriculture and Industrialization combined.

Not because we will achieve an unlimited growth in complexity, but because of the speed of reorganization that will be necessary. The speed of decline exerting pressure on societies on the one hand, and our historically unparalleled capacity to transmit information on the other, combine to create the conditions in which behavioural adaptation can manifest very rapidly.

There are two major questions in my view when looking at this. Firstly, at what point in decline do we stabilize, and secondly, what will be the cultural expressions of that stability? The first question is important because the point of stabilization will have a massive impact on the social complexity of future organization.

How much population do we lose, how much information and technology? The extreme of a post industrial stone age puts that into perspective. Obviously the social structures and psychologies of those populations after such an event would be radically new, they would also be far more stable than our current system but the degree of loss in complexity would be astounding.

The second question is far more difficult to approach as the variables are endless and one can only make conjectures as to what is possible. All of us who have thought of these issues have considered the horror that is possible, and many of us have felt terror contemplating such things. However, I want to end this by looking forward to the possibility of a more hopeful and even better future.

This is not to make light of what we as a species are about to encounter. Getting from here to there is going to be painful and difficult to say the least. I have little doubt that we will see wars, uprisings, atrocities, natural and-man made disaster as well as a decrease in populations (deaths) on a global scale unparalleled in history in terms of sheer numbers. These events will affect the human psyche for the rest of its history in one form or another. Still, between delusion and despair lays clarity.

The poet and philosopher Rainer Maria Rilke wrote:

“People have, with the help of so many conventions, resolved everything the easy way, on the easiest side of easy. But it is clear that we must embrace struggle. Every living thing conforms to it. Everything in nature grows and struggles in its own way, establishing its own identity, insisting on it at all cost, against all resistance. We can be sure of very little, but the need to court our struggle is a surety that will not leave us. [..]

The fact that something is difficult must be one more reason to do it. “.

It is my conjecture that the struggle we are headed into could lead to an unparalleled transformation of humanity. That it could lead to the birth of cultures that are healthier and happier than any before known by our species. Societies that will look back on our times with the same astonishment at our barbarity as we look on those societies that burned their people at the stake or cut out their hearts atop pyramids.

I often tell people in conversation that we are living in an age of dinosaurs. Massive beasts in the shape of nation states and corporations roam our planet, consuming resources, metabolizing them and excreting waste. The very logic of their organization will lead to the energy scarcity that will precipitate their extinction. It is my view in light of this metaphor that our job is to be mammals. As the ecological “equilibrium” of these systems starts to break down from energy/resource scarcity, those groups that are able to organize more efficiently, sustainably and ultimately with greater local energy density, will be the societies that are selected for.

Thus forming the base for healthier, more functional cultures to radiate from. They will be islands of stability in an ecological/economic collapse, and their adaptations that make them more fit for survival will form the basis of an Ecocultural revolution. As the old systems break down populations will look increasingly towards new narratives and models that work, adapting those behaviours to their own localities in a process of lateral transmission and organic emergence that has always underpinned true social transformation.

I do not want to make too many claims on what such societies would look like, for certainly sustainability in Montana will look different than that in Maine, or Russia or all the other myriad locations of human society. Some will be religious communities, others anarchist, others quasi feudal. What I will hazard is that the logical cultural hallmarks of these societies will be increased local resiliency with production and the vast majority of needs met locally.

These systems of production will manifest through incredibly sophisticated observations and interactions with their environments. I would also hazard that the most successful of these societies will exhibit high levels of compassion and individual freedom. There are two good reasons for this.

One is that compassionate societies that take care of their members have higher levels of trust and cohesiveness. They more efficiently distribute resources for the good of the larger community increasing their ability to operate and survive in difficult times.

The second is that societies that do not force individuals into monolithic, pre-scripted narratives of behaviour increase the adaptability of their individual members and thus the total community. By creating a society that embraces a diversity of ideas and behaviours in its population it algorithmically increases the possible responses of the society to various circumstances.

So I want to take a moment to imagine a possible future, one that is in my view ideal but not impossible. I think of societies where human existential, social and emotional needs are met by a system of production capable of supporting material needs through a sophisticated analysis and interaction with the ecological and thermodynamic process in which it is imbedded.

I often imagine a world where children dive and play amongst the reefs formed by our submerged cities. A world filled with small city states, rural communities and tribes. I imagine them as able to harness some of our old knowledge through recycling and reusing what they can of the vast wealth produced by our own ancient civilization. Perhaps they can produce electricity, transmit radio waves and still listen to the grand and beautiful music of our culture.

I envision their habitats as ecological gardens, by relying on what they are capable of producing locally and efficiently and by distributing with an egalitarian ethos they are able to free themselves up for other cultural pursuits. I see individuals that are free to pursue their passions in the context of supportive communities creating deeper security, connection and meaning in their lives.

Imagine a society where education and learning are freed from causal economic narratives and embraced as one of the great joys and passions of human consciousness. Where Art and Philosophy are celebrated purely for the joy of the acts themselves. Imagine societies that work conscientiously with their people from early childhood to old age, cultivating their unique abilities and awareness to ever more profound understanding and self expression of existence.

Imagine communities surrounded by vast tracts of wilderness and between those vast and wild lands routes that connect communities for trade and communication. Perhaps they will ply the seas in sailing ships. Perhaps it is all just fantasy but I would rather spend my life working towards renaissance than fleeing apocalypse.

In my view there is no more noble and honourable task that we might take on in our lifetimes than to try and create this future for our descendents. To create a world in which we are the ancients that they look upon with that mixture of horror and awed respect, forgiving us our confusion and complexity for having done our best with what we knew.

The endeavour is monumental and far from assured. We would have to analyze all that we know of our world and humanity to see what has worked and what has failed in order to assemble a new vision from a collage of working parts. We would have to operate in our communities with radical creativity and criticality and we would have to embrace the possibility of failure with the dignity of having tried.

In the words of Rilke:

“Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love.”

First published in the RADIX think tank

“Brevity is the soul of wit.“
William Shakespeare

From the top down: The future looks dire. Soaring unemployment, increasing energy prices and food poverty all seem unavoidable. And a growing mental depression about the nation’s state – the inability of politicians to say anything positive which is believable.

From the grass roots: The future looks promising. Individuals and families intent on creating new lives for themselves are moving in with experience in managing businesses. The possibility of creating food-based local economies is beginning to be realised. Real growth is on the agenda.

The Model
Population migration from rural to industrial life and the growth of cities was a “natural” human evolution in response to the development of the use of cheap fossil fuels.

The future will depend on the declining availability and increasing cost of fossil fuel energy, which will prompt human migration and evolution into and at the grassroots. What they do, where they live and how they prosper will shape the new era.

So-called “renewables” may delay the evolution, but their renewal may not be viable because they will require fossil fuel inputs.

Both kinds of migration, during economic growth and shrinkage, are processes which do not involve top-down intervention.

At the grassroots, the growth in the number of self-organising and co-operating individuals and extended families will gradually evolve into a new, radically different society.

There are good times coming – at the grassroots

10th October 2023 by Barry Cooper Leave a Comment

5

(3)

“Brevity is the soul of wit.“
William Shakespeare

From the top down: The future looks dire. Soaring unemployment, increasing energy prices and food poverty all seem unavoidable. And a growing mental depression about the nation’s state – the inability of politicians to say anything positive which is believable.

From the grass roots: The future looks promising. Individuals and families intent on creating new lives for themselves are moving in with experience in managing businesses. The possibility of creating food-based local economies is beginning to be realised. Real growth is on the agenda.

The Model
Population migration from rural to industrial life and the growth of cities was a “natural” human evolution in response to the development of the use of cheap fossil fuels.

The future will depend on the declining availability and increasing cost of fossil fuel energy, which will prompt human migration and evolution into and at the grassroots. What they do, where they live and how they prosper will shape the new era.

So-called “renewables” may delay the evolution, but their renewal may not be viable because they will require fossil fuel inputs.

Both kinds of migration, during economic growth and shrinkage, are processes which do not involve top-down intervention.

At the grassroots, the growth in the number of self-organising and co-operating individuals and extended families will gradually evolve into a new, radically different society.

Copied from the Naked Emperor Newsletter

In ancient Rome, the term “mos maiorum” represented the unwritten code of conduct that shaped Roman culture and identity. Translated as “the way of the ancestors,” mos maiorum encompassed the values, customs, and traditions passed down through generations. As Romans navigated the complexities of life, they often looked to the wisdom of their ancestors as a guiding force. By adhering to these established norms, they aimed to maintain a stable and prosperous society. Today, as we navigate a world of rapid change and innovation, there is a growing recognition that the ancient wisdom of the mos maiorum may offer valuable insights for modern living. Amidst the benefits of progress, there are also concerns that some modern trends diverge from principles that have proven beneficial for millennia. By understanding and appreciating the core values of the mos maiorum, we can explore how to strike a balance between the wisdom of the past and the opportunities of the present, ensuring a healthier, more fulfilling life in our modern world. The mos maiorum emerged as the moral and ethical foundation of Roman society during the early years of the Roman Republic. It evolved from the collective wisdom and experiences of Roman ancestors and was central to the Roman identity. The mos maiorum was rooted in values like pietas (duty towards gods, country, and family), fides (trustworthiness and reliability), gravitas (seriousness and responsibility), virtus (courage and moral excellence), and religio (religious observance). It was through adherence to these principles that Romans believed they could achieve societal harmony, personal integrity, and success in both civic and private life. Throughout the course of Roman history, the mos maiorum remained a powerful guiding force, adapting and evolving with changing times, but consistently serving as the ethical compass for individuals and communities. As the Roman Empire expanded and encountered new cultures and ideas, the mos maiorum served as a stabilising factor, grounding Romans in the values and traditions that had sustained their society for centuries. Today, the mos maiorum can offer a lens through which to view modern challenges and the need for a return to some of the tried-and-true principles of our own ancestors. As noted above, the mos maiorum was founded on several key values and principles that guided Roman citizens in their everyday lives, interactions, and decisions. These included: Pietas: Reverence and dutifulness towards the gods, one’s country, and one’s family. In essence, it was about fulfilling obligations and responsibilities, and honouring the relationships that defined Roman society; Fides: Trustworthiness, loyalty, and good faith. This concept encompassed both personal integrity and reliability in social and business dealings, making it a cornerstone of Roman social interactions; Gravitas: A serious and dignified demeanour, characterised by self-discipline, responsibility, and a sense of duty. It was the quality that made Romans appear steadfast and reliable; Virtus: Courage, strength, and excellence, particularly in a moral sense. It was often associated with valour in battle, but also extended to personal integrity and ethical behaviour; and Religio: The observance of religious rituals and reverence for the gods. It reflected the Romans’ belief in the importance of maintaining proper relations with the divine, which they saw as crucial for the well-being of the individual and the state. These principles formed the foundation of Roman ethics and morality. By adhering to them, Romans aimed to lead lives that were in harmony with the traditions and wisdom of their ancestors. In doing so, they believed they were contributing to the stability and prosperity of their society. As modern individuals grapple with the challenges of contemporary life, manifesting in mental health problems, depression and poor health, the principles of the mos maiorum can serve as a source of inspiration, offering timeless wisdom for building a meaningful and fulfilling life. In the modern world, progress and innovation are often celebrated as unambiguously positive. New technologies, ideas, and ways of living are readily embraced with the assumption that they must be better than what came before. While it is true that certain advancements have brought undeniable benefits, such as improved hygiene, faster means of travel, effective medical treatments, and enhanced communication, it is crucial to critically examine the broader implications of modern progress. Often, the rapid pace of change leaves little room for reflection on whether newer solutions are truly superior to time-tested practices. As society becomes more complex and interconnected, the allure of novel and convenient solutions can overshadow the wisdom of the ancestors. Practices that have served humanity for generations may be disregarded in favour of modern alternatives that promise quick results and ease. For example, the trend toward processed foods and sedentary lifestyles has led to health problems that were less prevalent in societies that followed more traditional dietary and physical activity patterns. Likewise, the reliance on fiat money and speculative investment has created economic instability compared to more sound financial practices. The inclination to blindly trust authority figures and follow the latest trends can lead to decisions that are disconnected from the values and principles that have sustained societies for millennia. In the rush to embrace the new, there is a risk of losing sight of the enduring wisdom that can be found in the practices and customs of the past. By examining modern progress through the lens of the mos maiorum, we can better understand the potential trade-offs and make more informed choices that align with timeless values. In the modern era, certain societal trends have diverged significantly from the values and principles that have guided humanity for centuries. Some of these trends include: Processed Foods: The proliferation of processed and fast foods has led to a departure from traditional diets rich in whole, natural ingredients. This shift has been linked to a host of health problems, including obesity, diabetes, and heart disease; Sedentary Lifestyle: The rise of sedentary lifestyles, driven by technology and changes in work patterns, has resulted in decreased physical activity. This has contributed to a range of health issues, including musculoskeletal disorders and poor cardiovascular health; Toxin Exposure: Modern life is characterised by increased exposure to toxins, including pollutants, chemicals in consumer products, and certain medical interventions. These toxins can have harmful effects on health and well-being; Avoidance of Natural Sunlight: Urbanisation and indoor-centric lifestyles have led to reduced exposure to natural sunlight, which is essential for vitamin D synthesis and overall health; Fiat Money: The reliance on fiat money, which can be printed at will by central banks, has contributed to inflation and economic instability. This contrasts with sound money practices that have a tangible backing, such as gold; Reliance on State Intervention: An increased reliance on state intervention for protection and provision has led to a decline in individual and community responsibility. This trend can erode the sense of community and mutual support that has historically been a cornerstone of societal cohesion; Scepticism Toward Family Formation: Contemporary concerns, such as climate change and economic uncertainty, have led some individuals to postpone or avoid starting a family. This trend can have long-term implications for societal structure and continuity; and Blind Trust in Authority: An uncritical acceptance of information from authority figures and mainstream sources can lead to a lack of independent thinking and scepticism. It is important to critically evaluate these trends and consider how they align with or diverge from time-tested principles and values. By doing so, we can make more informed choices that contribute to individual and societal well-being. As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, the principles of the mos maiorum offer a valuable guidepost for achieving a balanced, fulfilling life. Here’s how these ancient Roman values can be applied in a contemporary context: Pietas: This principle of duty and reverence can translate to a commitment to the well-being of family, community, and society. By taking on responsibilities and contributing to the welfare of others, we can forge strong social bonds and create a sense of belonging; Fides: In an era of misinformation and mistrust, this value of trustworthiness and reliability becomes even more crucial. By acting with integrity and keeping our promises, we can foster positive relationships and build a solid reputation; Gravitas: Amid the constant stream of distractions and instant gratification, cultivating a sense of seriousness and responsibility can help us stay focused on long-term goals and avoid impulsive decisions that may have negative consequences; Virtus: This principle of courage and moral excellence can inspire us to stand up for our convictions, even when faced with adversity. By acting ethically and striving for excellence, we can make a positive impact and inspire others to do the same; Religio: While the specific religious practices of ancient Rome may not be relevant to everyone today, the value of maintaining a spiritual connection and finding meaning beyond the material world can still be beneficial. By exploring our spiritual side and seeking a deeper understanding of life, we can find a sense of purpose and fulfilment; By integrating these principles into our daily lives, we can achieve a balance between the benefits of modernity and the enduring wisdom of the ancestors. In doing so, we can build a solid foundation for a meaningful life, fostering a sense of well-being, purpose, and connection with others. The mos maiorum provides a timeless blueprint for navigating the challenges and opportunities of the modern world, helping us make thoughtful decisions that align with our values and contribute to a more harmonious society. The mos maiorum, the guiding principles of ancient Rome, offer a valuable framework for modern folk. Rooted in timeless values such as duty, trustworthiness, seriousness, courage, and reverence, these principles can help us make thoughtful decisions that align with our values and contribute to a harmonious and fulfilling life. In an era marked by rapid change and innovation, it is important to remember the wisdom of the ancestors and consider the long-term implications of our choices. By striking a balance between the benefits of modernity and the enduring wisdom of the past, we can create a more sustainable, meaningful, and interconnected world. The lessons of the mos maiorum remind us of the importance of individual responsibility, community engagement and ethical conduct in building a society that reflects our shared values and aspirations. Be more like the Romans, respect the mos maiorum

First published in the RADIX THINK TANK

For some time, I thought our shrinking economy would eventually save the world.  But I have been reluctant to say so for fear of being seen as more eccentric than usual.

A recent comment by Tim Morgan in his Surplus Energy blog has encouraged me to have my idea published.  He said:

“I have a hunch – it can be no more than that – that humanity might, in a sense, be saved from ourselves.  We might want to cling on to BAU (Business As Usual), and consumerism, and fight tooth-and-nail to do so, but rising ECoEs might call time on both before we succeed in completely wrecking the environment.“

I think we have reached the same conclusion, albeit by different routes.

I believe that our shrinking economy will naturally use less energy, which in the end, will “save the world.”

The way things are now developing indicates how we will get there. We must ignore the financial economy and focus on reality. Our system of government and everything else is unravelling.  On its own, despite government attempts to maintain Business As Usual (BAU).  

In principle, evolution into the new era will be like the unplanned emergence of industrialism and consumerism.

Unemployment in discretionary markets is increasing and will continue for the foreseeable future. Those involved will find employment at the grassroots.

The future will be self-organising, heterogeneous, and driven by grassroots doings.

Grassroots businesses collectively use less energy than the existing system.  It is in their interest to do so because avoiding food poverty is all-important to the families running these businesses. Going off-grid is an example.  

Activities at the grassroots will lead the way in the shrinking economy.

Sooner or later, the simplicity of the grassroots economy, using less energy, will naturally overcome the nastiness of the fossil fuel-based growth economy.

Nate Hagens describes the process in his article in the KOSMS journal for global transformation thus:

“The Great Simplification will be the era of the 21st century, where we unwind a lot of the complexity built into our system over the last century or two.  It doesn’t have to be a disaster, but it’s going to mean a different sort of existence.  It’s going to mean less material throughput per average human.”

Growth at the grassroots will be the natural way our world will save itself.  

The Coming Age of Climate Despair

THE UNDERSTANDING’S SLOWLY DAWNING THAT OUR CIVILIZATION’S IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY

by umair haque

Everyone, meet 2023’s latest villain: the doomer. What you might call doomer-shaming now fills the pages of august newspapers, from the Guardian to the Washington Post. Bad Doomer! They cry. Don’t you know it’s not…that bad!

I think this deserves a certain scrutiny. Because our systems have a certain tendency: they tend to downplay risks, in the name of “balance,” while promoting a kind of feel-good optimism. It’s happened time and time again over the last few years, yielding more and more disastrous results. The pandemic, which they tell us is “over.” The rise of fascism, which was presented as a heroic story of intellectuals and brave rebels taking on The System. Is this what’s happening with….climate change?

The doomer-shaming argument — call it the optimists’ argument, if you like — goes like this. It advances three central claims. “We have the technology to solve climate change, we just aren’t applying it fast enough.” So: one, we have the ‘technology’, two, ‘we’ aren’t ‘applying it’, and three, hidden in all this, a claim of ‘not fast enough’, meaning we just need to scale up our current efforts.

But is any of this true? Does this argument carry any water?

Let’s examine the claims one by one.

‘We have the technology to stop climate change.’ Do we? What doom-shamers mean when they say this is the following: they use it as shorthand for certain regions in rich countries having shifted to renewable energy. So wind and solar and so forth are growing. That’s a good thing, but does it equate to ‘we have the tech to stop climate change’?

Our civilization doesn’t know how to make any of its basics without fossil fuels. None of them. Not food. Not cement. Not steel, not glass, not industrial chemicals, not plastics. There are substitutes beginning to arrive for some — a tiny few — of these huge, globe-spanning industries. Like bioplastics, or green steel. But they are at the scale of a town or a city. They are nowhere near capable of supplying a civilization. Not even remotely close.

Think of the simple example of food. Modern industrial agriculture depends on fossil fuels to produce fertilizer. What exactly do doom-shamers mean, then, when they say ‘we have the tech to stop climate change’? We emphatically don’t have a replacement for industrial agriculture — green agriculture is a field which certain nations are trying to pioneer, like the Netherlands, but to imagine that it’s going to be able to feed a civilization very soon…when it can’t even feed itself on such a supply yet…is unrealistic in the extreme.

So: ‘we have the tech to stop climate change’? Do we? Let’s delve even deeper into the logic. This means: regions in rich nations have switched to renewable energy. And so America’s carbon emissions have stabilized, albeit at very high levels, while Europe’s have fallen. But this is a false economy. Looking at it from just the perspective of emissions, sure — looks like great news. But to the economist in me, things are less rosy.

What are America and Europe? The world’s largest consumers. What do they consume? Imports. From where? Poor nations, like China, India, Bangladesh, etcetera. What’s involved in manufacturing all those things the rich West voraciously consumes, from electronics to household goods, in the poor East and South? That’s right, emissions.

If we were to look more honestly at the emissions of the rich West, we’d use a lens called something like “consumption weighted emissions.” That means: if I consume, buy, say, a meal and a broom and a gadget today, just because that stuff isn’t made within my borders, doesn’t mean we can get away with saying “we didn’t emit.” It would look at the total emissions down the production stream of a given good, and assign them to the consumer, at least in part.

That’s because it makes little to no sense to say that it’s “just” the poor East and South that’s “emitting” carbon, when it’s doing so to satisfy the rich West’s demand. To put that another way, if a rich Westerner buys a good made in China, it’s not the Chinese worker who’s going to use it — he’s just made it for the rich West, who enjoys a cheaper price, because of course, there’s no carbon price attached to it. So this is a game of emissions-shifting, really. If we looked at the world this way, we’d see that in fact, America and Europe still emit significant amounts of carbon, on a consumption-weighted basis.

I raise all that because it’s crucial to understand how the world actually works. The world isn’t just a video game — there’s some ‘tech’, drop it on a fictional city. In the real world, we have institutions, systems, politics, and economics at play. ‘We have the tech to solve climate change’ meaning rich countries have managed to slow or stabilize their emissions here and there — it doesn’t apply to the world nearly yet, precisely because even as rich countries do that, which is good, they’re still basically responsibly for emitting vast amounts of carbon that are assigned to poor ones, because their demand is what quite literally creates those emissions.

So does this mean the world just has to ‘apply the tech’? Well, how would we do that? There’s India, firing up gigantic new coal power plants. Why is it doing that? Well, partly to satisfy Western demand, and partly to try and satisfy its own populace. Why isn’t it — after all, the sun shines pretty intensely there — building out solar and wind? The answer to that’s pretty simple: it has no reason to yet.

Why not? The ‘climate finance gap.’ That’s a term you should know. It means that we need $5 trillion a year to fight climate change. So far? We’re at $650 billion. That’s 13% of what’s necessary. In other words, we have almost 90% of the way to go. And because that 90% is missing in action, poor countries have little alternative but to draw on the cheapest short-term sources of energy there are, which is why China and India are far away from giving up on coal.

The real world, remember? What good is ‘tech’ if nobody can…afford it? Let’s say that in the next century life-extension therapies become available. Shall we just say that ‘the quest to fight human aging is over’? But what if only billionaires can afford them, and everyone is still out there…succumbing to the ravages of age. Technology is never a panacea. It exists in the messy, complicated, often dismal world of human political economy.

And that world’s primary interest, in this day and age, is profit. Here’s another startling statistic that I’ve cited before. Guess how big fossil fuel subsidies are globally? They’re about $6 trillion.

How much are we investing in fighting climate change again, as a world? LOL, $650 billion. In other words, we’re subsidizing fossil fuels ten times as much as we’re investing in fighting climate change. Ten times! Everyone should know that number, but almost nobody does, because if I say it — whoops, am I a doomer? Shame on me!! I kid. There’s a real point here.

‘Just apply the tech!!’ is much easier said than done. Let’s go back to an old example: one of humanity’s great accomplishments, eradicating smallpox and polio. That required a worldwide effort. And people got involved, at the grass roots. It was seen as something beautiful and historic and world-changing, which it was. But it wasn’t as simple as ‘just apply the tech!’ — it never is.

And with climate change, we’re talking about profound levels of social change. Traumatic, shocking, incendiary ones. How do you tell someone used to life’s creature comforts that they suddenly have to be more aware of the resources they consume? Without alienating them? So that they can learn statistics like the one above — fossil subsidies are 10X climate investment — instead of…

Concluding what Americans have — Americans rank climate change 17 out of 21 priorities, aka, almost dead last. ‘Apply the tech!’ is a nice slogan. But it has next to no bearing in the real world. In that one? We can lose knowledge, in great, historic stumbles. Once there was Greece, then were the Dark Ages. The ‘tech’ — philosophy, art, literature, right down to math — was forgotten in the mists of ignorance, hate, violence, and poverty. The real world is far, far messier and more complicated than doom-shamers want to admit, and that’s a problem — for all of us. Because of course they’re the ones who are out there saying the problem’s simple.

But it’s not. The problem of solving climate change? It’s really, really hard. It is the hardest problem humanity has ever had. We have systems built to maximize profit, and externalize costs, which span a globe. Atop them, we have vast inequality, and the feeling of despair, powerlessness, and pessimism in the average person — 80% of people in America, China, and Europe think their kids will be worse off. Systems like that resist the very changes that need to made in them and by them. They offer up everything from inertia to denial to outright disinformation and propaganda. And that can be seen in…

What happened, politically over the last decade? What will history chuckle at, about this age? Think about: this summer, the planet’s burning. The ocean’s as hot as a hot tub. And it was less than a decade ago that around the world, societies rejected a thing called a “Green New Deal.” Just ‘apply the tech’! Shout the doom-shamers. But people have already rejected that. The problem is much deeper than the shamers think: the real world isn’t an authoritarian fantasy. What are we to do if people themselves reject Green New Deals…the same decade…the planet starts to burn?

History, like I said, will chuckle at that. Because it illustrates just how hard this problem really is. Today, there’s climate change really beginning to affect people in hard ways — not just abstract, airy-fairy ones. Inflation’s hurting their wallets, as is a lack of insurance, a rise in risk generally. Systems are beginning to fail — water, food, finance. The air’s becoming unbreathable in places that never expected it, like, say, Manhattan or Washington DC. So what are people doing? How are they responding? Is there a massive turn to green politics? LOL, no. The world’s turning fascist, faster than ever.

So. Climate change is a hard problem. The hardest one humanity has ever faced. It’s emphatically not just a technological problem. It’s an everything problem. Social. Cultural. Economic. Political. Financial. Why are fossil subsidies 10X climate investment? Because our economies are built that way — in turn because people themselves rejected green politics, and still do, for their own cultural reasons. These factors are tangled up on one another, and making progress on one alone is emphatically not enough. Sure, America and Europe have done well with emissions lately — but only at the cost of India and China doubling down on fossil fuels, precisely to satisfy the insatiable appetites of the rich West. As a world, that is why emissions continue to rise.

Because climate change is a hard problem. Much, much harder than doom-shamers make it out to be. It isn’t just about applying the tech — and even if it were, we don’t remotely have the technology for fossil-fuel free basics for our civilization, right down to food. The doom-shamers are wrong in this sense, and it’s a very real one — not to mention the next one, which is that even if we did have ‘the tech,’ our systems and institutions are set up to actively thwart it, in the name of profit and power at any cost, which is why we don’t have it. When fossil subsidies are 10x climate investment, is it any wonder we don’t have fossil-free basics yet?

Meanwhile, I think that “doomers” mean something like the above. I know of very, very few people — and there are some, to be sure — who’ll say things like: “the human race should die off! And that’s a good thing!!” — and mean it. It’s OK to even wonder about that, to muse on it, to mull it over — Sartre did. He said: “man is a useless passion.” Doomer?

But he emphatically didn’t mean: hey, it’s OK if billions die — his entire point was the opposite. I don’t see anyone saying that we should “give up” as in do nothing about climate change — except the fanatics and lunatics of the far right. Do you? Do you seriously see anyone thoughtful saying “give up!! Let the apocalypse roar!” Not even remotely — what some are saying is “we’re not doing enough, fast enough, and more needs to be done, now.” That’s the opposite of: “give up!!” This was the message of James Hansen’s latest paper, after all — the one which concluded maybe 8 to 10 degrees of warming is in the pipeline.

So I think that “doomers” mean the above: climate change is a much, much harder problem than we think. And we’re running out of time. We’re making little to no progress. Our paradigms are wrong, and our systems and institutions may well need revolutions before they can change.

Another way to think about that is this. The doom-shamers are an old American thing: the centrist incrementalist. Such figures believe that existing institutions, making piecemeal policy changes, can solve any and every problem. But can they? Or is climate change a problem far beyond that scale and scope — one that requires genuine transformations and new institutions? Like, say, a global carbon tax? Or basic rights, universally recognized, for nature?

Incremental centrism doesn’t get to those solutions. Often, it stands in the way of radical change. And “doomers” are right to point that out. Why is it, after all, that fossil subsidies are 10x climate investment? Because we don’t have a functioning carbon tax (not on you, dear reader, on megacorporations and their emissions). So there’s no good way to get money and resources — fast enough, quick enough, big enough from dirty to clean.

It’s not “doom” to point that out, that’s a critique of the way power works, its inertia, and its tendency to get trapped in problems of its own making — a classic one, in fact. And in this day and age, it’s reality. It’s just a fact that our economies and politics haven’t made one single transformative change to fight climate change yet, not really — from carbon taxes to rights for nature. We should be doing better — so why aren’t we?

Of course, rich regions of the world making more renewable energy is a good thing. But on a global scale? It’s not going to stop rising emissions. And all their fatal consequences. Nor is it any indication that rich nations — who really do control the global economy — are ready to rewrite its rules for anything more than profit, fossil subsidies, and power, at any price. The global economy’s rules are still what they are: poor countries “owe,” rich ones consume, corporations profit, and billionaires grow richer by the year, all of which turns people fanatical, desperate, and self-destructive. Do you see a single leader of a rich nation talking about a Green New Deal for the World? I didn’t think so — when they do, perhaps, there’ll be some appreciation of how hard the problem of climate change real is.

But they don’t for a reason. They know they’d be laughed at scorned even in their own countries. Precisely because as climate costs bite, everyone’s getting poorer — inflation, interest rates, system breakdown. As people get poorer — nobody’s interested in a fair deal for those distant others. They just want life to go on as it was, before the Bad Times. So there’s no politician around the globe calling for a politics of reality right now — except the UN’s Secretary General, and he can do it precisely because he doesn’t have to pander to anyone, or worry about being hectored by lunatics.

However we feel about climate change, one thing’s certain. We mustn’t fight one another. Our side is guilty of this mistake time and again throughout history. But none of us are the enemy. Those of us who recognize there is a climate emergency now are all on the same side. Whatever distinctions follow from that are secondary. The opposition is powerful enough without us defeating ourselves by shooting one another in great circular firing line of a purity contest.

This isn’t about who’s rightest, scoring points. Factionalizing and division only saps us, all of us. Infighting does climate denial’s work for it. It’s about saving what’s left of our civilization, before it’s too late.

The hardest problem in human history. And we’re not doing a very good job of solving it yet. That’s not “doom,” that’s just reality. Look around and tell me things are going well. Sicily. Greece. Canada. On fire. Oceans, boiling. Those orange skies over Manhattan were just weeks ago. Every summer after this gets worse. Emissions still rise. This is just objective reality.

To point that out shouldn’t be something objectionable. When we turn messengers with warnings into “alarmists” — and “doomer” is to climate change what “alarmist” was to fascism — we make a grave error. We imagine it can’t happen here. That’s usually how it does.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

This is intriguing.

Skip the ads to This Week’s Science News.

Copied from Dr Tim Morgan’s blog.

The UK economy is, in my opinion, entering the long-predictable crash phase.

Essentially there are two possible scenarios here. First, the aggregate burden of national or global liabilities just becomes so great that vertigo sets in, as people begin to realise that these liabilities cannot be honoured ‘for value’. The result is a dash for the exit doors and, of course, these doors get smaller as people rush towards them.

The second, which is starting to happen in Britain, is a stress collapse, in which household finances crumble under too great a set of burdens. Think about it – mortgages or rents; cost of essentials; debt servicing; car finance; perhaps student loans; HP or BNPL payments; TV and other subscriptions, the list goes on – it all just gets too much. Part of the problem is that we regulate banks, because they take deposits (we look after the customer as depositor) but we don’t do much to regulate non-bank credit (we don’t do much to look after the consumer as borrower).

The problem with using rate rises to tame inflation is that it’s indiscriminate – it hits all borrowers, not just those driving inflation by borrowing to buy the unaffordable. Why should someone who has borrowed to invest in a business be hit in just the same way as someone who has taken on too many BNPL loans to buy things they don’t really need and can’t afford? Just as bad, the burden imposed on the latter is less than inflicted on the former – if you’re already paying 15-20% for non-bank consumer credit, the effect of a 3% rise is far less than it is for somebody with, say, a 3% mortgage.

by Richard Heinberg, originally published by Resilience.org

June 15, 2023

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the resulting disruption of multiple global supply chains, policy think tanks have increasingly adopted the term polycrisis to signify humanity’s destabilized status quo. The World Economic Forum’s 2023 Global Risk Report uses the newish word 13 times in 90 pages. Scholars from a range of disciplines (including Columbia University historian Adam Tooze) have written about the polycrisis, and both Cascade Institute and Omega Institute have published papers and reports on it. The Cascade Institute notes that “a global polycrisis occurs when crises in multiple global systems become causally entangled in ways that significantly degrade humanity’s prospects. These interacting crises produce harms greater than the sum of those the crises would produce in isolation, were their host systems not so deeply interconnected.”

Evidence of polycrisis is usually separated into two buckets—environmental and social. Signs of environmental crisis include climate change, the disappearance of wild nature, relentless resource depletion, the increasing chemical pollution of air and water, soil loss and degradation, and fresh water scarcity. Evidence of social crisis includes increasing economic inequality, poverty, racism and other forms of discrimination, the rise of authoritarianism, and impacts of rapid technological change (such as automation).

Our current set of crises can be described as a polycrisis because self-reinforcing feedbacks between ecological breakdown and social breakdown are strengthening and growing more numerous. For example, climate-driven human migration presents challenges to political systems while also eroding traditional cultural norms that support environmental stewardship. Societies in the midst of social crisis, and ones turning toward authoritarian regimes, are seldom able to muster efforts toward resource conservation, emissions reduction, and habitat preservation; indeed, under such circumstances, past efforts in these directions may be undermined.

All of this is happening in the wake of a couple of decades’ worth of historical studies that show societal collapse to be a normal, predictable, and even inescapable periodic occurrence throughout the past few thousand years. It appears that societies tend to become more complex, develop new technologies, accumulate wealth, and grow more unequal over time. Their leaders start to quarrel with one another, weakening overall social cohesion. Finally, after two or three centuries of this, almost anything can push a society over the brink—a natural disaster, resource depletion, war, insurrection, epidemic, or financial crash. Scholars who engage with the accumulating literature on societal collapse can hardly help noting the relevance for today’s world. We’ve built a global civilization of unparalleled complexity, wealth, and inequality, all based on depleting, polluting fossil fuels. What could go wrong?

An early warning came in 1972 with the publication of The Limits to Growth, a report by MIT system dynamics scientists on their efforts to model the likely future interactions between population growth, consumption growth, and resource depletion. Their computer-based scenarios suggested, under business-as-usual conditions, global industrial society would likely collapse during middle decades of the 21^st century.

A new report by Post Carbon Institute (PCI), Welcome to the Great Unraveling: Navigating the Polycrisis of Environmental and Social Breakdown (full disclosure: I’m one of the authors), seeks to build a coherent narrative about the roots of the polycrisis, the signs of its arrival and evolution, and why we should be thinking differently about the future. When confronted with evidence that our collective path is unsustainable, many of us tend to jump to “all-or-nothing” ways of thinking, sometimes framing our future in simplistic terms as “the end of the world” or “apocalypse.” But according to the report’s authors, this tendency is unhelpful. While a complete and sudden end of humanity is theoretically possible via nuclear war, our more likely future will consist of decades of social, economic, political, and ecological turmoil punctuated by periods of rescue and recovery. There is still considerable divergence between best- and worst-case scenarios, and we still have agency to affect outcomes.

According to the PCI report, we should be spending far less effort building upon expectations of a future that looks much like today only with more technology, mobility, and wealth; instead, we should devote our collective brainpower to questions like, How does a civilization downsize gracefully? Or, What have we achieved that our distant descendants would like us to preserve for them?

Maybe we’d be better off avoiding the word “collapse” altogether, since it tends to be disempowering. Nate Hagens, who interviews polycrisis experts on his podcast, terms the era we are entering “The Great Simplification.” Regardless what we call it, this will be a time that calls for new attitudes and behaviors. Strategies that seemed to make sense before the polycrisis, such as efforts to grow national economies, will need to be replaced by different ones, such as efforts to build resilience. Fortifying resilience at the community level will be especially important: as global supply chains grow brittle and shatter, humanity will depend more upon local economies for survival and opportunities to thrive. Cooperative strategies to ration scarce resources and reduce inequality will also be required so as to defuse conflict and ensure optimal outcomes for as many as possible.

If humanity descends into blame and desperate efforts to maintain a status quo that by its very nature cannot persist, the future looks dark indeed. Imagine what a young person a few decades from now, living in a depleted and ravaged world, might feel while looking at surviving images of today’s “influencers” enjoying comfort, convenience, and privilege on an epic scale. However, if we work together now to build a truly sustainable way of life, maybe future generations will have at least some reasons to thank us.

Read the report

Image credit: Derivative of “The Great Unraveling” by Michele Guieu. Used with permission.

Richard He