Pages

Pages

Pages

Monday, December 30, 2019

Climate Links: December 2019

Biosphere Collapse? Robert Hunziker, counterpunch. Dec. 19, 2019.
... And, in Madrid, COP25 (Conference of the Parties25) was underway Dec. 2nd-13th with 25,000 participants from countries of the world gathered to hammer out the latest details on global warming/climate change. The question arises whether the conference had “legs.” By all appearances, it did not. Rather, it was another repeat climate sideshow.

Making matters even more surreal, because of the above-mentioned death-defying global plans to accelerate fossil fuels by 120% to 2030, the Stockholm Environment Institute claims the world is on a pathway to 3C pre-industrial, probably “locked-in” because of fossil fuel expansion across the globe.

But caution-caution-caution, the IPCC has already informed the world that 2C brings the house down, not only that, scientists agree 1.5C is unbearably unlivable throughout many regions of the planet.

In short, the world is on a colossal fossil fuel growth phase in the face of stark warnings from scientists that emissions must decline to net zero. Otherwise, the planet is destined to turn into a hot house. As things stand today, it appears “Hot House” is baking into the cake. And, Hot House implies too much heat disrupting, and destroying, too many ecosystems for the planet to support 7.8 billion people.

Dr. Peter Carter, IPCC expert reviewer: 
“Right now all three major greenhouse gas concentrations, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are accelerating. It means we are on a trend for total planetary catastrophe. We are on a trend for biosphere collapse. Carbon dioxide is on a rate exceeding anything over the past millions of years. We are at 412 ppm. To put that into context, we have an ice core that goes back 2.2 million years. The highest CO2 over that period is 300 ppm.” 
"We’ve had four separate reports this year on the status of countries meeting, or not meeting, their mitigation targets to avoid catastrophe. Result: “It’s basically the end for humanity. We’re looking at biosphere collapse. The richness of life is being destroyed by deforestation and by catastrophic climate change"

The External Costs of Human Activity Are Killing the Planet. Paul Craig Roberts. Dec. 30, 2019.


The 2010s were another lost decade on climate changeJames Temple, MIT Technology Review. Dec. 24, 2019.
The only measurement that matters is greenhouse-gas emissions—and they continued to rise.
... Indeed, the 2010s mark the decade when the impacts from climate change became unmistakable, at least for any objective-minded observer. As temperatures rose, Arctic sea ice melted far faster than models had predicted. The world’s coral reefs suffered widespread and devastating bleaching events. And regions around the world grappled with some of the costliest, deadliest, and most extreme droughts, hurricanes, heat waves, and wildfires in recorded history. 
Since carbon dioxide takes years to reach its full warming effect, and we have yet to even begin cutting emissions, we’ll face even starker dangers in the coming decade.


Our pathetically slow shift to clean energy, in five charts. James Temple, MIT Technology Review. Dec. 24, 2019.
We’d better pick up the pace in the 2020s.
  1. Renewables are still dwarfed by fossil fuels.
  2. The share of carbon-free electricity has barely budged
  3. EV sales soared this decade
  4. But EVs are still a sliver of total auto sales
  5. We need to radically accelerate clean energy additions


Canada's infrastructure was once cheap and effective to build. Now, it's a titanic transfer from taxpayers to the world's biggest businesses and investors. Rosemary Frei, boingboing. Dec. 13, 2019.


Australia Burning; Tourists in New South Wales and Victoria Flee to Beaches. Yves Smith, naked capitalism. Dec. 31, 2019.


Living On Borrowed Time. Adam Taggart, Peak Prosperity. Dec. 6, 2019.
How soon until the consequences of our excesses catch up with us?

Visual Capitalist resource depletion timeline

extinction statistics

Insect loss chart

Word aquifers





Sunday, December 29, 2019

The decline and fall of civil society

The Decline and Fall of Civil Society. Cognitive Dissonance. Dec, 15, 2019.


Chapter One


From my perspective at least, it’s a chicken or egg question. Was civil discourse among a diverse human population desired, or even required, in order for civilization to form and flourish? Or did civilization initially coalesce, with civility to follow shortly after as a means to increase socioeconomic efficiency and to encourage people from killing or maiming each other by setting minimum standards for public conduct?

Or could it possibly be more symbiotic, with both components required in varying degrees and amounts for either component to survive and thrive in the combined form of ‘civilization’?

I am a child of the 1950’s and 1960’s, a time so far removed from today’s brave new world that, even to me, feels like ancient history. This is not to say it was all pomp and circumstance back then, but in many respects so-called civilization was much more civil in my youth than it is now. And this applies to just about all modern social interaction, regardless of the underlying medium, method or mix.

Nothing brings this stark contrast to mind more than when I am out and about pursuing simple chores and errands. ‘Please’ and ‘Thank you’ are nearly absent from the public’s vernacular, particularly among those under the age of thirty. Holding a door open for either sex has actually earned me a sharp rebuke on several occasions, always from someone young enough to be my (grand)son.

Whenever I walk in front of anyone, such as along a narrow supermarket aisle or inside a crowded restaurant, many of the younger people I encounter are somewhat surprised to hear me say “excuse me” as I transgress their personal space. On more than a few occasions, the perplexed person asked why I was excusing myself or indicated I had offended them in some manner. But those over fifty years of age nearly always understand and appreciate my consideration.

As a child I was taught that polite niceties and respectful manners in public are the social lubricant of a civil society. That manners make the man, enabling people to quickly assess who you are by your respectful demeanor, polite behavior and social etiquette. I speak to others as I wish they would speak to me, with me always going first and never really expecting anything in return. Sort of the original “pay it forward” on a personal and recurring basis. Or as my mother was fond of saying, proper manners put the ‘gentle’ in gentlemen and gentlewomen.

It was, and remains, a deliberate attempt to take the communication high road regardless of the chaos in our mind, the dirt beneath our boots or the jerk standing in front of us. Sure, some people abuse the process for their own personal gain by leveraging polite society to their own advantage. But this is not an acceptable excuse to refrain from engaging in polite and respectful behavior both in public and private.

So…what happened? Or maybe a more accurate question would be, why is this happening, since it appears our plunge down to the lowest common denominator isn’t over yet by a long shot.

Those looking for one-word answers should just keep looking. Anything explaining or describing human behavior in any detail consumes reams of paper (or megabytes) and entire lifetimes of study. But the desire for simple answers to complex, codependent and manipulated human behavior is a fundamental part of the problem itself.

A perfect example of this is the repeated claim that a crude, rude and egotistical President Trump is the reason this country has devolved into petty snips, snide Twitter storms and other assorted vulgarities. While there is no doubt ‘We Prefer our Sociopaths Well Dressed and Spoken’, Trump is little more than a symptom of the larger social disease writ yuge. Those individuals too ideologically blinded and emotionally invested in their own (political) navel gazing to see anything other than Trump (and his supporters) as the source of nearly all the nation’s problems are themselves a significant portion of the problem.
The same can be said for all sides of the great sociopolitical divide.

Morals, ethics, honor, fairness, justice, even freedom; these essentially esoteric concepts vary widely between race, religion, culture and nation, and have radically changed in definition, usage and structure since human beings began to congregate and cooperate.

But civility, in principal and practice, remains nearly constant over the millennia. Either we greet others with respect and deference, or we do not. It is that simple. Who, what, when, where and why we treat others in this manner depends upon all the previously mentioned esoteric concepts. But civility itself varies only in the words, body language and physical interaction (hand shake, bow or curtsy etc.) if any.

While by definition, something concealed is essentially impossible to see, know or understand, one may examine its secondary effects and attempt to discern an outline or pattern. But this can be hazardous when it comes to humans, for we do not truly know the intentions of our fellow (wo)man, regardless of how close we may think we are to him or her.

Therefore, the social purpose for civility is to even the playing field, to create a common consensus when it comes to (initial) human interaction, particularly between unknowns and even if only on a superficial level.

It is my supposition the human race is insane beyond redemption; therefore, no amount of applied logic, critical thinking or examination can make much sense out of pure unadulterated madness. If this is so, what better way to deal with our collective madness than to begin each interaction with civility in action, word and deed?

It seems perfectly reasonable, even to unreasonable people, to impose commonly accepted rules and regulations when everyone is driving a variety of vehicles on commonly shared roads. And yet so many people ignore the same concept when it comes to basic human interactions on a much more personal level.

It seems to me that as civility among the teaming masses ebbs and flows, so to does the tendency for humans to bicker, fight and war. And it appears this ebb and flow is cyclical.

The one redeeming characteristic we humans possess is our ability to adapt to, and survive, our own insanity….so far. Unfortunately, our technological leaps, particularly in the ‘art’ of warfare, applied propaganda and mind control, far surpasses our ability as a species to evolve and mature. Until relatively recently, one mad man or woman could only inflict so much mayhem upon his or her fellow madmen. Sadly, this is no longer the case.

All that said, there is clearly a cycle, an ebb and flow of high peaks and deep valleys, to our lunacy. I am an interested observer of the theory of repeating historical cycles mirroring the length of a human life (approximately 80 years) laid out in Strauss and Howe’s ‘The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy – What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny’. If there is a single book one should read, then read again in 2020, it’s this sparkling gem.

To quote the Amazon book description “First comes a High, a period of confident expansion as a new order takes root after the old has been swept away. Next comes an Awakening, a time of spiritual exploration and rebellion against the now-established order. Then comes an Unraveling, an increasingly troubled era in which individualism triumphs over crumbling institutions. Last comes a Crisis—the Fourth Turning—when society passes through a great and perilous gate in history. Together, the four turnings comprise history's seasonal rhythm of growth, maturation, entropy, and rebirth.”

Does that sound and look familiar?



Cycles within cycles within even more cycles.


An Unfamiliar Family Unit.

In my opinion, a major contributing factor to the growing incivility is the accelerating breakdown of the family unit, the single most stabilizing factor that directly counteracts the tendency of the insane to become even more spastic, erratic and destructive. Sadly, there are forces at work inflaming, if not outright encouraging, this trend of family dissolution if for no other reason than to divert attention from blatantly maniacal power grabs and consolidation, economic pillaging and corruption, excessive self-indulgent obsessions and various other obscenities.

For various biological, psychological and spiritual reasons, we hopelessly addled humans are prone to addictive behavior. We are, for all practical purposes, born addicts.

Be it alcohol, drugs or a multitude of various other externally ingested/infused/inhaled chemicals that modify the brain/body chemistry in order to alter perceived reality, or obsessive-compulsive behavior such as the mad dash to consumerism, food, sex, money, video anything, thrill seeking, gambling, electronic gaming, hoarding, texting/Twitter/Facebook etc.; the list of addictions and addictive behavior in one form or another is endless.

Addiction has been the scourge of humanity since Eve got drunk on Adam’s Boone’s Farm apple wine. Shortly after World War II, governments, various (multinational) corporations, pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, intelligence services and wealthy private individuals and organizations began extensive scientific research designed to develop products and services that feed off, and feed into, our collective tendency towards addiction.

To be fair, they might describe their research a bit differently.


Over the last decade this targeted R&D, combined with the exponential speed and capacity increase in fixed and portable computing, has culminated in powerful handheld, portable and fixed computing devices. When combined with access to websites specifically designed to feed our obsessive need for instant gratification, social interaction and personal/social affirmation, these computing devices have turned much of this nation, and most of the ‘civilized world’, into little more than walking talking zombies incapable of critical thinking, independent thought or polite personal interaction if it doesn’t involve a keyboard, handset or glowing screen of some kind.

The modern-day phenomenon of instant (often anonymous) long distance communication has succeeded in breaking down the customarily observed social and civil discourse rules normally encountered when personally interacting with someone within arm’s length or stone’s throw.

One simply does not call a total stranger an asshole (or some other vulgarity) to his or her face, if only out of fear of severe and instant retribution for the insult. Yet this type of rude, anti-social and, at times, repugnant behavior is quite common within the Twitterverse, in comment sections of blogs, vlogs, alternative/mainstream news websites and wherever else a ‘user’ feels sufficiently removed from any sense of close proximity to others.

How far has this gone, you ask? People hook-up, make-up and break-up via the ‘verse with nary a second thought. Two or more people have entire conversations via messaging services while seated at the same table, including fights and flirting sessions.

I actually once witnessed a face-to-face fight via an unknown messaging service, something only obvious by closely observing flying fingers on smartphones, expressive body language, dirty looks and the sudden exit by one of the parties who swore at the other party before leaving in a huff. Not a spoken word had passed between them until the very end, yet obviously plenty had been said.

While there always existed the means to communicate over any distance using pen and paper, even personal messenger, the passage of time in order to do so was always a significant and limiting factor. For this reason and others, words were usually carefully chosen and deployed. If nothing else, cooler heads tended to prevail when one needed to compose something long hand and dispatch it via pack mule, rather than compressing your shorthand diatribe into 140 characters or less before punching the ‘send’ button.

Interestingly, I just read that while Twitter recently increased the 140-character restriction to 280, the average message length decreased from 34 characters to 33. So even though our Twitterverse is twice the size, we have somehow managed to find an even lower lowest common denominator. There is no low road to travel, only lower and lower roads.

Basic social skills normally absorbed by the age of five are strangely absent, or at a minimum not fully formed, in fully grown adults these days. But is this really surprising when we recognize the vast majority of people thirty-five years of age or less have spent nearly their entire lifetime consuming manufactured reality in the form of computer gaming, starting with Sega and Nintendo game consoles in 1983 all the way up to stunningly realistic virtual reality devices available today?

No!

What is surprising, at least from my point of view, is the fact gaming addiction and abuse is only now beginning to be seriously studied and medically described so treatment plans can be formulated. I suspect the only viable ‘treatment’ is total withdrawal, similar to alcohol and drugs. And while the actual addiction rates may be comparable to alcohol, meaning as little as 5%-10%, it appears those not addicted, but still abusing gaming, is probably another 10%-20% of all gamers. And I would hazard a guess nearly all those under 35 engage in gaming now and then.

As with nearly all recognized and acknowledged addictions, the gaming addict’s social, emotional and intellectual development is severely stunted or stopped completely. As with those addicted to television, movies or streaming video, one would be hard pressed to convince me spending a significant portion of one’s time in front of flickering screens is healthy and beneficial to life as we know it. Something has to give and the loss often expresses in social interaction deficiencies.

The sum total of this particular slice of insanity is a slow breakdown of polite society among the younger generation who have known nothing else other than instant verbal and non-verbal communication with few, if any, filters. I personally think if all wired/wireless networks, including cell phone and satellite, suddenly went down, withdrawal symptoms would begin immediately, followed shortly afterward by signs of severe psychological stress, including suicide, by anyone under the age of thirty.

I say this with tongue only slightly in cheek. Without providing any links for you to follow (Google is your spying intrusive stalking friend) there have been plenty of academic and scientific studies released over the last several years that conclusively show the corrosive damage done to the psyche of individuals from long term use of video gaming. One simply cannot insert an electric cattle prod of this magnitude into the structural mechanisms of civil society, beginning with the youngest and most impressionable, and not inflict (massive) damage.



The bane of civil society.

Children Having Children

While one may think the title of this section is self-explanatory, meaning a discussion is about to commence regarding under-legal-age children producing offspring, while applicable this is not the case. What is rarely discussed publicly, because to do so would question certain polite lies we wish not to challenge, is adults of legal age and sufficient intelligence, but not of mental and emotional maturity, producing offspring.

For millennia, the common family unit consisted of a man and woman (married or not) their offspring (which may have consisted of children from multiple biological mothers and/or fathers) and often grandmother(s)/grandfather(s) living and participating in the family unit.

Even as the national standard of living rapidly increased after World War II, the parents of the parents, even if no longer domiciled within the primary home of the child, were often still in close contact on a near daily basis, particularly when the grandchildren were young.

In addition to offering physical help with the exhausting task of raising a newborn or toddler, the grandparents were there to offer guidance, wisdom and experience in the delicate and critical art of child rearing.

Using a transmittal mechanism as old as the human species itself, that of hands-on presentation, participation and assistance combined with verbal explanations and encouragement coming from the most trusted source, those who have a vested interest in long term success, valuable life skills only recently practiced by the birthing parent(s) are once again imprinted upon the new parent(s) and, for the first time, upon the child.

I’ve heard and seen the term “adulting” (as in “adulting is hard”) used by twenty somethings (and younger) to describe the act of applying adult life skills they either did not previously possess or were only now putting into practice with varying degrees of success. The very fact there is a unique term used to describe an age-old process of cultural skills and ‘knowing’ transference speaks volumes about the fundamental deficiency of life skills in an entire generation and counting.

I can fully understand the lack of experience when dealing with admittedly difficult first-time life situations. I suffered the same lack of hands-on experience when I was younger. We all did. What is missing is the near complete lack of critical thinking skills, intellectual curiosity and imagination and simple this-then-that diagnostic skills when confronting a first time unknown. The problem is between the ears, not the object in hand.

If not for the availability of YouTube videos and blogs discussing basic skill sets (simple money/banking activities, medical services procurement, insurance, basic tool use and repairs etc.) an entire generation would have collapsed under the weight of its own ignorance before ever getting off the ground.

One simply cannot overstate how vitally important it is for the next generation to learn firsthand from personally invested and intimately involved teachers possessing personally experienced knowledge and wisdom. A lifetime of experience and understanding consistently applied through loving, caring hands to young parents eager to do their best and a child void of preconceived notions and institutional bias often results in a mature and stable relationship between parents, child and civilized society.

While I romanticize the practice a bit, the process as outlined is fundamentally correct and critically important for the long-term survival of the human species. From our log cabin windows and decks, we see on a daily basis this ancient method practiced by the animal kingdom, especially the doing and showing by the parent and community for the benefit of the child. The animals intuitively understand their only purpose on Earth is to teach their children how to survive and flourish.

There is no greater calling or purpose in life than to successfully perpetuate life. To consistently fail in these duties is an extinction level event. We arrogantly insane humans are abrogating our sole responsibility to properly prepare our children for life beyond the nest in exchange for self-indulgent pleasures and self-gratification.

With grandparents increasingly absent or warehoused into nursing homes and retirement communities, the precious life cycle of handed down knowledge and wisdom has lost its most vital component. All other information sources that might be employed to replace the grandparents’ role in the teaching process are tragically inferior and, at best, third rate.

That Dr. Spock book, YouTube video or helpful neighbor lack the critical ingredient needed to bring the parent(s) and child to full bloom, a vested interest in raising that specific blood legacy child under those exact circumstances to the best of their ability. Nothing can replace the sacred familial bonds firmly established when the older parent helps the new parent teach and mold the youngest member of the extended family.

The unfortunate result, after sixty plus years of slow and steady entropy of this precious teaching/learning cycle, is the disintegration, in conjunction with the other influences outlined above, of the self-sufficient, self-sustaining nuclear family unit. We are now in a situation where the birthing parents have not only been poorly trained in life skills by their captured-by-self-interest parents, but now they don’t even have the physical presence of those very same (grand) parents to help raise the grandchild precisely when they are most critically needed.

While today both parents must work in order to pay the bills, whereas two generations ago one working parent provided the same level of financial support, with grandparents absent or warehoused, the new parents have little choice but to warehouse their own infant or toddler into assembly line ‘child care’ institutions. The family destruction cycle perpetuates endlessly, with only a few exceptions to be discussed in the next chapter.

As each subsequent generation fails to pass down critical life navigation skills they were never taught, we eventually arrive at a situation where emotionally and intellectually stunted Eloi adult children are bearing additional Eloi children. Each generation slides further towards the lowest common denominator until we have Eloi acting out like spoiled children demanding free everything, including a life devoid of conflict, safe spaces free from bad Morlocks and someone else (OK Boomers) to foot the entire bill. Again, this concept will be greatly expanded in chapter two.

Obviously, I’m painting with a very broad brush here. Not every family has devolved in this manner; in fact, I suspect it isn’t even a majority who have. But all it takes is a small, determined and very vocal petulant and demanding minority to change social and political policy to suit their immature world view. And by doing so they’re actually helping to widen the political divide they too are caught within.

Seen thru the eyes of a child, the world is a cruel, unfair, unjust and inhuman place to live. I get it. The observation is not without merit and you will not find me arguing otherwise. But children of all ages see the world from a powerless and victimized point of view. From that position, all they are capable of doing is demanding the strongest authority figure fix what’s broken.

But what if that authority figure is causing most of the problems and is quite possibly the principal antagonist? Is the solution more of the same, and then hope it all just goes away? Not for an instant am I dismissing the significant responsibility of the previous generations, including the Boomers of which I am a charter member, for the mess the younger generation finds itself engulfed in.

But unless the generation now entering the halls of power are willing to face the ugly truths, and instead turn their heads and look for the first available scapegoat (just like ‘We the Boomers’ did) exponentially more of the same insanity will be utterly disastrous on a scale unimaginable and unprecedented in the history of human civilization.

I was not being melodramatic or nonsensical when I described the dissolution of the family unit as a potentially extinction level event for the human species. At the very least, absent extinction I expect this situation to eventually result in us willingly frog marching ourselves into a life of human bondage as we surrender our lives to the control of sociopaths and vile despots.



Only the human species has abandoned the family unit.


Denial and Cognitive Dissonance

Probably the most difficult ‘truth’ we all must face, at least if anything is to change, is the stomach-churning realization that all is not as it appears. And I’m not just talking about garden variety ‘official’ deceptions, such as the constant political lies and narrative manipulations in order to start, maintain or expand various wars, covert operations, extrajudicial drone killings or even outright illegal foreign military incursions.

If nothing else, the very fact the US government has been blatantly and repeatedly lying about the war in Afghanistan for the last 18 years should be more than sufficient proof for anyone to recognize those in power are institutionally and psychologically incapable of telling the truth. Psychopaths lie, and for us to deny this fundamental truth is the ultimate in self-destructive self-deception.

There is a deeply embedded political, corporate and institutional corruption operating in plain sight within both houses of Congress, every federal agency of the executive branch, especially the intelligence, investigatory, military, tax, and judiciary agencies, essentially all state and local governments and just about every Fortune 500 company out there. It permeates our learning institutions, the mainstream media, charities, even religious institutions. The only question remaining is the level of corruption one must either remove or endure.

This is the fate of all Empires in terminal decline. The question is always when, not if.


Politicians piously preach about relatively minor political party differences while proclaiming exclusive political party purity. The entire political system is neck deep in pay-for-play kickbacks, corruption, influence peddling, nepotism and pure political partisanship.

I could go on, but I think we already get the picture.

Or at least we think we do, hope we do, are desperate to believe we do…but fear we do not. Something evil lurks in the background where there exists barely audible voices, unrecognizable shapes and fleeting movements lost among the shadows. We dare not approach because we so want to believe we’re the good guys, the world’s policeman bringing truth, justice and democracy to lands far and wide. But we have the sneaking feeling we’re actually delivering death and destruction, pain and suffering and “We the People” are the black hat wearing bad guys.

Can we really be the good guys in the white hats while simultaneously bombing the shit out of second and third world countries because they happen to be sitting on valuable natural resources we want, or draw their sovereign borders within geopolitical hot-spots we insist on controlling? Better not ask, because we might not like the answers we get.

So we pull up our collar, button up our overcoat, don dark sunglasses and plug our ears with our fingers in an ultimately futile attempt to carve out a safe space within La-La Land. Is this not the true American Way, that of feigned ignorance? Or at least abject indifference? Tell me another lie Daddy so I can believe it’s the truth.

We live inside a world view narrative created almost entirely by external ‘authorities’ that, quite frankly, doesn’t make a lick of sense. Rather than face that ugly reality, we massage, mold, spin, embellish and deny portions of it, all in an effort to make it fit within our own uniquely spun version. But just because the externally imposed narrative allows us to choose between two or three different sets of silverware doesn’t mean we have control over the dinner menu, guest list or even when or where we eat.


The secret behind controlling a large diverse population who believe themselves ‘free’ is to let them think they are in charge by offering vigorous debate within a narrowly defined subject list while offering the ‘election’ of easily controllable and pliable puppets drawn from a narrow selection of idiot savants who are experts solely in affable media presentations while staying on message.

Or as I like to say, I love my wife because she lets me think I’m in charge.

One may always complain about the effects of Empire, but one must NEVER question the basis and validity of Empire itself. The only purpose of power is to use it. Or more effectively, threaten to use it while not actually doing so. For example, we don’t like paying taxes, regardless of whether or not we agree with the concept of a shared social burden. And many people would not pay taxes unless there was an implied threat of fines, imprisonment and even death if they did not.

So how do we reconcile the conditioned-from-birth belief we are all free (and therefore free to exercise our free will) with the reality that the vast majority of our lives are controlled to some extent or another by various government edicts (papers please) financial obligations (I owe, I owe, so off to work I go) and the simple fact we must pay someone somewhere merely to exist, necessitating the need to participate in the controlling and suffocating money meme narrative?

The taxes, for example, are a relatively modest example of a narrative variable we all massage in a slightly different manner in order to live with the inner tension of our own cognitive dissonance. Unlike the widely accepted myth of American justice, where we are all supposedly equal and innocent until the state proves us guilty (though some are much more equal than others) when it comes to Federal income taxes, we are all declared guilty until we prove ourselves innocent at our own expense. There are no public defenders in tax court.

Then again, there are exponentially greater dissonances to battle with, such as living with the emotional distress of looking too closely at the men, women and children we bomb into oblivion under the banner of bringing freedom to the world. Can you say boomerang collateral damage? Is it any wonder nearly all of us desperately attempt to self-medicate away the pain, if only through various mindless distractions or via emotionally soothing intellectual masturbation?

Don’t Bogart that joint my friend.

By no means is the infantilizing of civil society restricted to the US. Wherever Empire has spread its cultural infection, stomped its military boot or corrupted the native socioeconomic systems, we witness a similar spiral downward into the abyss. The only significant difference is the degree of desecration and the amount of cultural assimilation achieved so far. Maybe a few more car bombs or random shootings orchestrated by the Empire’s hidden hand are in order to subdue the population.

Ah yes, the America Way in full display.

In chapter two I will more fully explore how our inner demons, grossly inflamed by the Empire’s poisonous sting, exert overwhelming influence over our day to day emotional and intellectual being. And the most powerful control mechanism known to man (and soon AI machine) the money meme.



Cognitive Dissonance

Friday, December 27, 2019

Dennis Meadows: Decline is now inevitable

"Decline Is Now Inevitable" - Dennis Meadows On 'The Limits To Growth'. Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com, via zerohedge.

Fifty years ago, an international team of researchers was commissioned by the Club of Rome to build a computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth on a finite planet.



In 1971, its findings were first released in Moscow and Rio de Janeiro, and later published in 1972 under the title The Limits To Growth. The report concluded:

Given business as usual, i.e., no changes to historical growth trends, the limits to growth on earth would become evident by 2072, leading to “sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity”. This includes the following:
  • Global Industrial output per capita reaches a peak around 2008, followed by a rapid decline
  • Global Food per capita reaches a peak around 2020, followed by a rapid decline
  • Global Services per capita reaches a peak around 2020, followed by a rapid decline
  • Global population reaches a peak in 2030, followed by a rapid decline
Growth trends existing in 1972 could be altered so that sustainable ecological and economic stability could be achieved.

The sooner the world’s people start striving for the second outcome above, the better the chance of achieving it.

Few reports have generated as much debate, discussion and disagreement. Though it’s hard to argue that its forecasts made back in the early 1970s have proved eerily accurate over the ensuing decades.

But most of its warnings have been largely ignored by policymakers hoping (blindly?) for a rosier future.

One of the original seventeen researchers involved in The Limits To Growth study, Dennis Meadows, joins us for the podcast this week. Fifty years later, what does he foresee ahead?
Decline is now inevitable. 
We’re without any question moving into the remainder of a century which is going to see, by the end of these decades, a much smaller population, much lower level of energy and material consumption and so forth. 
Whether we retain equity amongst people and avoid the more violent forms of conflict remains to be seen. But sustainable development is no longer an option.

This is one of the most important discussions we’ve ever recorded among the hundreds produced over the past decade.

Thursday, December 26, 2019

COP Out

COP Out. Katy Lederer, n+1. Dec. 19, 2019.

“Bold Climate Action” does not mean what you think it means


ANOTHER COP, another fleet of climate bromides launched down my Twitter feed by well-meaning environmental ministers and corporate sustainability programs. “Ambitious action,” “time for action,” “bold climate action to fight climate change”—this sort of language is put in heavy rotation every year when delegates from almost every nation meet for the COP. “COP” stands for “Conference of the Parties.” According to the website of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (known by the deeply uncharismatic acronym of UNFCCC), the COP is “the supreme decision-making body of the Convention” and is tasked with achieving “the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Its framework is based on the one that produced the Montreal Protocol, the agreement put together to address the growing hole in the ozone layer. But unlike the Montreal Protocol, which was ultimately successful, the results of the COP have been a bust. Why do those who convene and underwrite it keep promoting it as a platform for “ambitious climate action”? 

The COP has officially been talking since March, 1995, when it met in Berlin. For the first half of this month, it was talking—for the twenty-fifth time—in Madrid. (What is the definition of insanity again?) Famous COPs have included: Kyoto (number 3), which the US refused to ratify and from which then President George W. Bush withdrew in 2001; Copenhagen (number 15), which tanked when the US and other large economies failed to hammer out a deal; and of course Paris (number 21), where, in a show of audacious optimism, world leaders set the goal of keeping warming “well below” a 2 degree Celsius threshold, the widely received baseline; this after twenty years of failed negotiations. 

At the time, there was reason to be hopeful about Paris. It helped that the US President was then a person who accepted the reality of global warming, but it wasn’t only about politics—red states versus blue, or increased trust in climate scientists. It was also about advances in clean energy technologies. Renewable generation like wind and solar had, in many regions, reached price parity with fossil fuels—a development that seemed to promise a dramatic market tipping point. Bankers were eager to expand into new markets—ones that wouldn’t contribute to the heating of the earth. The concept of “stranded assets”—fossil fuel assets that would be rendered nearly worthless by global action to fight climate change—had been widely taken up. If politics and diplomacy had been unable to address climate change for over twenty years, then perhaps market disruption finally would.

But as the markets for low-carbon technology and energy efficiency have grown, fossil fuel interests have come over the top. Last year, for the first time, the United States became the world’s largest global oil and gas producer—bigger than Saudi Arabia, bigger than Russia. Under the aegis of a policy of “energy dominance,” the Trump administration has been dismantling Obama-era climate safeguards and pushing the aggressive exportation of American fossil fuels. Responding to testimony from four youth climate activists from across the political spectrum earlier this year, Garret Graves, representative of Louisiana and ranking member of the Select Committee for the Climate Crisis, argued that other major oil producers did not share “American values” and produced “dirtier energy,” implying—stunningly—that extracting American fossil fuels could therefore be a form of climate action.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s Aramco IPO last month was the biggest in world history. Valued at nearly two trillion dollars, it is worth over 50 percent more than Apple or Microsoft. Even American billionaires like Warren Buffet and Sam Zell have gone long on continuing extraction. According to a recent piece in the Financial Times, they have been quietly buying up fossil fuel assets. “If Mr. Buffet and others are correct . . . that companies have been oversold, and are now trading at prices that imply a calamity that will not come,” the piece explains, “then the energy sector could be one of the big winners in 2020 and in the years to come.” The “calamity” the piece references is the possibility that global demand for oil and gas “falls off.”

On Sunday, December 15, after the Madrid COP finally came to a close, António Guterres, the Secretary General of the U.N., openly expressed his disappointment on Twitter. “The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation & finance to tackle the climate crisis,” he wrote. According to the New York Times, the United States in particular had stalled an agreement to compensate developing countries for climate-related economic losses, obstructing progress on agreements reached in Paris despite having formally withdrawn from the accords. How could it have been otherwise? In a new regime of US “energy dominance,” in which fossil fuel industries have been picked as the so-called “winners,” “market disruption” in the energy sector now means pressuring embattled, poorer countries to keep buying fossil fuels from the world’s major carbon emitters.

In spite of this destructive doubling or tripling down on fossil fuels, it remains received wisdom among diplomats, pollsters, and academics who study climate change communication that positive messaging around the issue is crucial. Words like “tackle” and “ambition” and phrases like “bold climate action” are deployed with the hope they will shield the listener from despair. And, of course there is some truth to this. I have on many occasions found myself reading articles or watching videos that depict a better world—a greener, more abundant world of clear blue skies, chic solar buildings, and content citizens walking in a park—and feeling hopeful and excited for the world to finally tackle climate change! But pretending that an international convention that has been repeatedly sabotaged by its most powerful members might produce a “bold” or “ambitious” result is not a hopeful thing. In fact, it’s just the opposite, undermining the positive impact of all the other climate messaging, some of it—like the passionate youth climate movement or the accelerating pressure on institutions to divest from climate-wrecking assets at odds with their stated missions—truly bold and truly ambitious.

Now, in the days after the failure of COP Madrid, I see a tiny UK flag descending down my Twitter feed. COP26 is scheduled to convene in Glasgow—soon after the next US presidential election. What will be different about this twenty-sixth convening? A different set of politicians? Some new green energy technologies? Maybe, as so many euphemistically call it, an increase in international “political will”? Why not just tell it like it is? That fossil fuel interests still dominate our global politics, and that all of this vague language functions—surely unintentionally; I have no doubt the motive to convene is in good faith—as a distraction from continuing fossil fuel extraction. 

The science does not tell us to “act on” or “tackle” climate change—this is the language of psychological displacement. Rather, it tells us with great precision that we must lower our emissions, which means, in the absence of magical carbon capture or energy efficiency technology, a quick and aggressive turn away from fossil fuels. Until those officially tasked with negotiating for our futures and the future of humanity become more accurate and rigorous with both their language and the global politics that language ultimately implies, it will be, like the proverbial turtles, “bold climate action” all the way down—or up, as the case would seem to be, at least when it comes to the inexorably rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. 




Climate Learning Tree

The Climate Learning Tree. Summer Praetorius, Nautilus. Dec. 26, 2019.

Why we need to branch out to solve global warming.

As a paleoclimatologist, I often find myself wondering why more people aren’t listening to the warnings, the data, the messages of climate woes—it’s not just a storm on the horizon, it’s here, knocking on the front door. In fact, it’s not even the front door anymore. You are on the roof, waiting for a helicopter to rescue you from your submerged house.

The data is clear: The rates of current carbon dioxide release are 10 times greater than even the most rapid natural carbon catastrophe
1 in the geological records, which brought about a miserable hothouse world of acidic oceans lacking oxygen, triggering a pulse of extinctions.2

Despite the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, views about the severity and impact of global warming diverge like branch points on a gnarly old oak tree (below, but see link to original article for better, more legible, version of the tree...).



The first split is between deniers and acceptors; only the denial branch doesn’t go anywhere—it’s just a dead stump, no longer sustained by the nutrients of evidence. 

The next bifurcation is on the root cause of climate change. Naturalists say “the climate has always changed,” which aside from ignoring evidence that the recent increase in carbon dioxide is from burning fossil fuels,3 is a diversion tactic for derailing meaningful conversations by stating the obvious. Of course, the climate is always changing; the relevant variable is the rate at which it does so.

If we follow the branch line that accepts the evidence for human-induced climate change, the next major split is between those who see global warming as a good thing and those who view it as a bad one. The former view an ice-free Arctic as a business boon for oil extraction or sweltering cities as an expanding market for air conditioners, or they are your clueless uncle joking about his property going up in value because it will suddenly be beachfront property.

This view is perched on a naïve premise that stability still prevails even amid the progressive undercutting of the systems that make it possible. It neglects the fact that accelerating the rates of change makes the probability of crossing thresholds far more likely.

If you keep following the branch points higher and higher, you come to a split in the messaging around the outlook for the future. This might even be between two climate scientists with similar backgrounds—some of whom are struggling with ecological grief4 and depression over dying coral reefs and the world their children will inherit, while others seem to always keep their chin up, adamant that the only way to communicate and solve the problem is to make sure it is wrapped in a bow of positivity.

The divergent outlook of the future is like the old geological battle of gradualism versus catastrophism. Gradualists asserted that it was slow and steady processes like erosion that shaped the earth. Catastrophists pointed to extinction events in the fossil record as evidence for episodic events that punctuated the status quo and completely altered Earth’s bio and geo-spheres—events like asteroid impacts or volcanism-induced carbon catastrophes. Both, it would turn out, were right. They were just pointing to different periods in Earth’s history—different slopes on the graph—adamant that they had the proof to back up their claim.

If we were to consider this dualism in terms of personality, we would all fall somewhere on the spectrum of gradualist to catastrophist. Gradualists expect more or less steady rates of change. They have money in the stock market; trust in stability. They are inclined to believe science will engineer a solution to climate change. Catastrophists have a healthy respect for the unexpected. They store their money in gold and bury it under the apple tree, viewing any day as ripe for collapse: earthquake, stock market, tsunami, bolide. Catastrophists are not patient people.

The fact is, climate change will come both slow and steady as well as fast and furious, reflecting the long-term average changes in global temperature and the short-term extremes that will continue to get more and more outrageous as the system absorbs energy. The last five decades have been to some extent slow and steady because the oceans have absorbed so much of the excess heat energy,5 buffering us from the brunt of it. This has likely contributed to a false sense of security for those who don’t know the climate system is riddled with thresholds and tipping points,6 thinking that future changes will unfold just as gradually as the past.

But all that heat is now fueling massive storms and generating marine heatwaves that can take down entire ecosystems in shockingly abrupt timescales. Slow erosion can give way to sudden failure. The last five years have given us a taste of the fast and furious. In these fives year, we have witnessed the collapse of coral reefs,7 the collapse of the California kelp forest,8 wildfires9 and hurricanes10 of unprecedented proportions. These are local catastrophes unfolding in real time to the occupants of these regions, their lives already divided into before and afters, much like a geological timeline.

If there is one lesson we should heed from Earth history, it’s that thresholds become far more likely as the rates and magnitude of change increase. And the danger of thresholds is that they are effectively one-way doors: easily walked through and closed to re-entry. This is the time-asymmetry of instability: It takes much longer to establish stability than it does to unravel it.

Rates may be the simplest and most critical aspect of climate change to understand, and yet it is not something that most people likely see on a regular basis. When I talk about rate, I take for granted that I am conjuring an image in my mind the whole time, in part because I stare at graphs of climate history every day. All those stories of ecological catastrophe are compactly folded up into a single near-vertical line on a graph. That’s when you know you’re in trouble: when the slope suddenly goes vertical (below).


DANGER AHEAD: Temperature anomalies for the Holocene period (green)11 compared with recent global warming (blue)12 and future projections of a low carbon emission scenario (RCP2.6, pink) and high emission scenario (RCP8.5, black) from the IPCC AR5 report.13 The Holocene exhibits relatively gradual rates of change, whereas rates of modern and projected temperature increase are many times greater. We still have agency on whether we choose to take the double-black diamond route or an intermediate slope.

For many climate scientists, the awareness of being on the knife’s edge of the graph, plotting steeper and steeper every day is like learning to live with vertigo, partitioning off a deep sense that we are no longer on stable ground while simultaneously trying to get on with the day, show up to work, laugh with our kids.

Those who warn about potential instability have always been labeled “Cassandras of doom.” There’s an irony to this because Cassandra was right. She was just ignored as an “alarmist”— that dirty word now cleverly used to emasculate anyone concerned about climate change into the category of “hysterical woman.”

The thing about alarms is that they turn out to be useful. The canary in the coalmine, smoke detectors, tornado sirens, cell phone alerts; we generally agree that instruments to detect and convey impending threats are a step in the right direction. In fact, we require them in most buildings. The inconvenience of an occasional false alarm is far outweighed by the benefit of not dying in your sleep by a raging fire.

So while catastrophists may get the eye-roll of hyperbole, gradualists warrant an occasional head-slap of naivete. Their apparent inability to conceive a fundamentally different world leads them into a default mode of complacency, one that ironically makes it much more likely to provoke the thing they aren’t expecting. On the flip side, catastrophists are more prone to expect disaster, and might be more motivated to prevent the potential threats. So each will unwittingly prove the other one right, if they have their way of things.

What if instead of feeling threatened by differences in opinion, we were to reconceptualize them in much the same way a tree will distribute a canopy to collect as much sunlight as possible—as a multi-pronged approach to getting the job done? In the same sense that both fast and slow processes contribute to Earth change, both steady progress and immediate local action will contribute to climate solutions. Let’s take stock of our pace and work together, thankful there is someone else to fill the space we can’t. After all, we are not lone trees, but a living, connected forest, and balance is essential for stability.




Summer Praetorius is a paleoclimatologist who studies the dynamics of abrupt climate change.


References

1. Cui, Y., et al. Slow release of fossil carbon during the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum. Nature Geoscience 2, 481-485 (2011).

2. McInerney, F.A. & Wing, S.L. The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum: A perturbation of carbon cycle, climate, and biosphere with implications for the future. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 39, 489–516 (2011).

3. “How Do We Know That Recent CO2 Increases Are Due to Human Activities?” RealClimate.org (2004).

4. Cunsolo, A. & Ellis, N.R. Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nature Climate Change 8, 275–281 (2018).

5. Cheng, L., Abraham, J., Hausfather, Z., & Trenberth, K.E. How fast are the oceans warming? Science 363, 128-129 (2019).

6. Lenton, T.M. Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against. Nature.com (2019).

7. Hughes, T.P., et al. Global warming impairs stock–recruitment dynamics of corals. Nature 568, 387–390 (2019).

8. Rogers-Bennett, L. & Catton, C.A. Marine heat wave and multiple stressors tip bull kelp forest to sea urchin barrens. Scientific Reports 9, 1–9 (2019).

9. Park, W.A., et al. Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California. Earth’s Future 7, 892–910 (2019).

10. Trenberth, K.E., et al. Hurricane Harvey links to ocean heat content and climate change adaptation. Earth’s Future 6, 730–744 (2018).

11. Marcott, S.A., Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., & Mix, A.C. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,3000 years. Science 339, 1198-1201 (2013).

12. GISTEMP Team. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), version 4. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2019).

13. IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Stocker, T.F., et al. (Eds.) Cambridge University Press (2013).

Monday, December 23, 2019

James says Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas from the Big Bang


James, proprietor of the insightful Megacancer blog, is a rare individual who understands the energy flows that drive the issues that matter:
  • why we exist
  • why we behave as we do
  • why we are in deep trouble
  • why nothing will stop our demise
His year-end essay is brilliant and I have pasted it in full below.

I agree with everything James said but I thought I would add a few Christmas bobbles that help me to be less angry about our predicament.

When our leaders, scientists, friends, and family do not support the only actions that might reduce future suffering, namely rapid population reduction and a planned contraction of the economy, I know the reason as James explains, is that we, like yeast and all other life, evolved to maximize energy flows.

While true this is not, at least for me, a sufficient explanation because unlike yeast, we are highly intelligent and capable of impressive intellectual feats. How can such an intelligent creature not use its brain to at least try to do the right thing?

The answer, of course, was provided by Dr. Ajit Varki and his Mind Over Reality Transition (MORT) theory.

The smart ethical people we see doing the wrong thing each and every day, despite obvious science and evidence they are capable of understanding, do so because their brains evolved to deny unpleasant realities.

When I look with despair, for example, at COP25 where our best and brightest not only accomplished nothing (except burning a bunch of carbon to get there), they didn’t even honestly discuss the problem, we know that thermodynamics, as James explains, is driving the insanity, but we also know that it is evolved denial of reality that blocks their intelligence.

Denial makes our intelligence ineffective on every issue that matters, and thermodynamics, expressed through genetics, does not permit intelligence to exist without denial, so it is what it is, and there is no way out.

Humans are not evil, nor are they stupid, they just can’t see reality.

This holiday season I am grateful to be alive to witness and understand a rare event in the universe, and I’m thankful for good health, good food, a warm dry home, and caring friends and family.


Merry Christmas!. James, MegaCancer. Dec. 16, 2019.
Undoubtedly you have struggled to consume some gradient and produce some entropy. Or maybe I should say “you all – plural” since its all of your cells that have created the shape-shifting and often grandiose “you “ within your brain to help your skin-enclosed system get around and get what it needs.

Hope your system is consuming much gradient this holiday season, your homeostasis is hunky-dory and your condition is one of great comfort and peace. I’m sure the new year will bring many surprises as you maneuver through the competitive landscape in search of new wealth-enhancing and energy-consuming opportunities. Provided below is a little commentary on our current predicament (also known as a rant).

The Universe as a single dense point of energy can be seen as the initial gradient. The Big Bang and inflation reduce the initial gradient as time and space expand according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Time and space are impossible without gradient dissipation. Gradient dissipation produces time and space and change. You can see this in a wrist watch which must dissipate gradient (battery/spring) to move and create a progression along a circular time line. The events of time can only occur because gradient can be dissipated and the heat can escape into the inflation of the Universe. Time is not possible without change (movement) or change in position which is inherent to the gradient dissipation process. Humans create time by burning energy gradient and dissipating it as heat. Like magnets aligning with the magnetic poles, all of life has evolved to align with the initial massive dissipation (Big Bang) as residual dissipating phenomena. There is no other way for life to behave than the way it does, consuming gradient. If species deviated from their role as reducers of gradients, they would simply disappear. They are constantly being realigned as gradient reducers in order to remain as dissipative structures and stand-out from the less active background. An individual’s “success” in life, in acquiring and consuming resources or having many offspring is the thermodynamic success of the Universe which uses and shapes humans and other life for its dissipative bidding. You think you are successful, but you have been used to further the apparent goals of an expanding Universe. It’s no accident that successful dissipation bolsters your self-image and gives you a good feeling as your homeostasis is maintained. More money, more food, more investments, more children, more dopamine, more………. it all feels good and that’s no accident. The Universe leads you through life in an endless quest for more free energy gradients and after each acquisition the happiness seems to fade until another is found.

Big Bang – NASA

All behavior and structure of life comes from and aligns with the Big Bang and expansion of the Universe which humans have logically described with the laws of thermodynamics and entropy. Humans and all other life are captives of these laws and struggle daily to acquire energy to create motion, structure and time with the hydrosphere, atmosphere and open space acting as willing heat sinks. Any organism that attempts to practice “freewill”, that somehow deviates from the program, will find itself realigned with reality or eliminated from existence. Freewill is bounded overall by the requirement of reducing gradients and humans have evolved to eliminate gradient as quickly and efficiently as possible (deriving profit) for reproduction or growth. These requirements can be summed-up in the Maximum Power Principle and/or Maximum Entropy Production principles. Faster, more powerful vehicles, faster computers, faster jets, more economies of scale, burn more faster, more profit, more growth, more gradient reduced and electromagnetic radiation sent into space. Humans have evolved to be such intense competitors for energy that they can’t seem to “just say no” to save themselves. It was never meant that they would be able to “just say no”. Extinction takes care of dissipative structures that run their course through extinction. It is only natural that capitalism should be the dominant economic system when the collapse occurs since it slavishly maximizes growth even making spurious promises of future gradient availability in exchange for burning gradient today and creating population overshoot conditions. Some people wonder what -ism comes next. I believe it will be a pervasive state of natural “terrorism”, the type observed in nature where all life forms are one mistake away from becoming someone else’ s meal.

To name itself “Homo sapiens” is only indicative of the hubris of humans as they slowly commit suicide by gradient reduction. “Smart” or “sapient” is defined by most humans as the ability to create tools to break open new gradients for dissipation while depriving other living organisms the same opportunity. Humans seem unable to imagine any other parameters of success besides consumption, growth and reproduction. No surprises there, it’s what complex dissipatives do. So, as the chimps fight in Washington, D.C. (mostly about power and money – dissipative matters) and the average family wonders how much money (gradient) they’ll have to spend to travel (motion) to Disney World and have a good (time), the biosphere degrades into a lifeless necrosphere similar to the slime found at the bottom of a yeast petri dish that has eaten itself into oblivion. Eventually only dust devils and their larger brethren, the hurricanes and typhoons will raise the formerly vital dust beyond its gravitational resting place as the Universe continues to expand without even tallying the insignificant contributions from the Earth’s extinct dissipative spinbots.

Humans should never think of themselves as smart or intelligent, they’re simply a thermodynamic event maintaining homeostasis through gradient reduction. Their entire mentality serves energy/wealth acquisition, consumption and reproduction. Being a social mammal (obtaining energy as a group) they are hierarchically organized and are constantly striving to improve their social standing by whatever means possible (if they haven’t yet seen the futility in such efforts). Those able to control the most money/energy are admired and envied by their sycophants while those with less success are regularly scorned and often deemed unworthy of reproduction or even living. Just as the human civilization will enslave, consume and/or deprive other species of their ability to live and reproduce, so too wealthy humans will enslave less avaricious humans and use them for self-enrichment.

Have you been transported to the nucleolus (school) for the last twelve-years to have your brain refined for information and tool use? You are an RNA destined for one of the the technological cells. Don’t be late. Did you get your college degree? Are you ready to function as an RNA “job” within a civilizational cancer for the rest of your life before you can retire to await the personal cancer your toxic “sapient” system has given you? I assure you that your local medical establishment and undertaker are ready to provide in your time of need and desperation if you can provide a life’s worth of savings in exchange (usually extracted in the form of monthly health insurance premiums the paying of which has put you into an early grave.) Are you satisfied that an oligarchy of bankers, government and corporations have initial claim upon society’s nutrients and thin the blood currency for the remainder of society which struggle to feed themselves, their cells and their vehicles? Is that the cost of survival vis-a-vis other equally exploitative nations? Perhaps if the thinning of the blood by inflation was not enough, the taxes and interest, fees and penalties are acceptable costs for enduring life as an expendable, productive molecule attached to an hedonically enhancing smart (not sapient) phone. And now that there’s not enough to share with the worker dissipatives, the electronic prison takes shape with various surveillance, monitoring, compliance, social credit, FICO scores, 5G and facial recognition.

Pleasant Valley State Prison in California where bad people are kept while the good people destroy the biosphere and themselves.

Since the energy horizon is shrinking, those endowed with rights from which the rest have been alienated, will try to compensate for the loss of energy by introducing new “savings” to the system, a few low-cost behavioral and structural changes to hold society together for a while like a rationing of essentials and sharing. As the existing system is already strapped for metabolic energy and any major disruptions threaten collapse, a full conversion to “renewable energy” is not seen as workable, especially when we will likely need even more energy to heal wounds inflicted by an increasingly chaotic climate. We will eventually be overwhelmed by the inflicted damages and inherent contradictions of our “Black Friday” hyper-dissipative existence. Our slowly disintegrating arrangement will go extinct one way or another without a source of clean energy that meets current metabolic needs and provides enough net energy to re-stabilize the climate. The resource bill (if the technologies even existed) to accomplish this self-saving task will grow faster than the interest on the Federal debt and in any case the climate destabilization has likely already achieved positive-feedback, escape-velocity, well beyond any feasible means of addressing it. In the meantime those at the universities are earning their six-figure salaries arguing over political correctness as if being nice to each other and erasing or rewriting sordid chapters in human history is the challenge of the day.

And where will we find our CEOs, government officials and military when push comes to shove in the international competition for food and energy? With all the courage they can muster they will scurry into their fortified bunkers to wait-out the “winnable” nuclear war only to re-emerge when the stinkadelic cheese of next years’ appropriations comes wafting through their gold-standard air purification systems.

The rest of us will need to use our imaginations.

Let’s hope for a happy new year with smart algorithms, lightning fast trading computers, a massive pump-and-dump and lots of resources stripped away from those that can least afford it. I recommend working harder in the new year so we can eliminate the gradients and get to where we’re going faster.
I may have posted this before but it’s worth another watch.

Economic growth: the engine of collapse

Economic growth: the engine of collapse. Tim Garrett. Dec. 18, 2019.

Economists and environmental scientists are working to develop strategies that forestall our worst visions of the future,  so we can maintain a healthy environment alongside a robust growing economy that meets development goals. The hope is that, with astute academic guidance and sufficiently powerful doses of political will, we can safely navigate our way through the Anthropocene. 

But there are physical limits to what is possible. The human world is as much part of the natural universe as anything else. If we readily accept that the complex motions of the earth’s climate march to physical laws, it's hard to see how society should somehow be divorced from the rest of the universe. 

To be sure, many of us see treating people as physical systems seems a bit abhorrent, somehow an abnegation of the essence of what it means to be human. The music of J.S. Bach surely is proof that we are not mere automatons! We're different. And if we truly want to triumph against profound societal challenges, then surely we can.

But - sigh - even music appears to obey simple mathematical laws seen throughout nature. Perhaps if we really want to address our 21st century existential crises we should start trying to think more broadly about what it means to be human. 

To get a sense of any physical limits, it helps to look at how physical systems function. A useful concept here is a thermodynamic “heat engine” where available energy powers cyclical motions thereby enabling “work’’ to be done to move something else while giving off waste heat. This process is as familiar as burning gasoline in a car to power its pistons and propel it forward.

What is less recognized is how this basic idea from physics can be extended to living systems. Organisms take high potential chemical energy (food and oxygen) and release it in an unavailable chemical state (mostly heat radiation, water and carbon dioxide). The interesting part is that organisms employ a selfish self-propagating twist. Unlike a car, if conditions are right, living things can use the energy and matter in food to grow, allowing themselves the opportunity to consume more energy in the future.

So, for example, people use the energy in fats, proteins, and carbohydrates, along with the matter in oxygen, water, vitamins and minerals, to sustain their daily motions and metabolic processes. Whenever we manage to consume more than our daily metabolic needs, we get bigger, and usually our appetite grows too, meeting our newly larger metabolic demands. 

Groups of organisms take this self-reinforcing cycle to the next level. A lioness expends energy to hunt gazelles so that she can feed herself and her pride. With enough extra food, her fertility allows her to reproduce and support cubs, so increasing the  predatory population.

The global economy is just a natural extension of these thermodynamic concepts, what has been termed by some a “superorganism”. Collectively, we bootstrap ourselves to greater heights by extracting energy and material resources from our environment in order to sustain interactions among the accumulated fruits of our prior labours. Growth happens only when there is a remainder of raw resources available to make more people and new stuff. 

Suppose for a moment that we were offered the opportunity to look down at our growing civilization from afar. We might see, for example, the back-and-forth of people and their vehicles as they move over the land, sea, and air. Looking even closer, we could measure the activities of human brains and notice that, as part of a larger whole, these brains use some combination of past experiences and new information to make estimates of economic and societal market value, acquired through Google searches, social gatherings, travel, and trade. 

All these activities that form our judgments require a continual consumption of food and fuel. Going a step further, we could hypothesize that there is some connection between total market value and energy. Indeed, quantitative analysis reveals that in any given year, the historical accumulation of past global economic production has had a fixed ratio to the current rate of global energy consumption, give or take a couple of percent. In each year between 1970 and 2016, each additional one thousand U.S. dollars of net worth that we collectively added to civilization through the global inflation-adjusted GDP has required an additional 5.6 Watts of continuous power production capacity.

This existence of a mathematical “constant” tying society to physics offers a critical piece of the human puzzle: economic wealth is inseparable from energy consumption; any diminished capacity to recover the energy necessary to maintain the steady hive of civilization must lead to economic collapse. If for whatever reason we fail to adequately fuel ourselves, we can expect the cyclic motions of our machines and ourselves to slowly grind to a halt. Our interest in crypto-currency or the auction price of a self-destructing Banksy will be replaced by more primal values like having a tool for opening a can of Spam. In the logical extreme, with an absence of food, we will wither and die, with all our perceptions of economic worth buried along with us. 

Of course, macro-economists would call linking wealth to energy through a constant absurd, even those that acknowledge the key role of energy in economic production. They would likely point out that the global GDP has been rising faster than energy consumption, and offer the utopian dream of “decoupling”  the economy from its basic environmental needs. 

Dream on. How much is your home worth in an uninhabitable city where there the fuel supply and electrical power are shut off for the foreseeable future? GDP represents the accumulated production of worth over an arbitrary period of just one year; meanwhile, energy is required to sustain the activities of a healthy civilization that has been steadfastly built up over all of history. Current energy consumption is far more tied to maintaining the fruits of centuries of collective effort than to the national vagaries of a single prior year. We cannot erase the past; it is always with us, and it must be fed. 

So if we want growth over and above repairing decay of everything we have previously built, requires us to extract and transform wood, copper, iron, and crops sufficiently fast. Rust never sleeps. Only when energy is sufficiently plentiful that the material balance between extraction and decay can be tipped in our favour is it possible for civilization to gain weight

Admittedly, we're pretty good at this! Recently, total net worth and energy consumption, the size of civilization, has been expanding by up to 2.3% each year and the GDP slightly faster. Ever since the end of the last ice age with the innovation of agriculture, we have collectively grown by leaps and bounds, from global populations of millions to billions, and from comparative poverty to extraordinary total wealth. It took 10,000 years to learn how to achieve 200 Quadrillion Btu’s of annual energy consumption in 1970s; we doubled that rate just 30 years later.

Feats of innovation have enabled us to accomplish not just exponential growth – e.g. growth at a fixed rate of 1% per year -- but the incredible mathematical feat of super-exponential growth: a growth rate that has increased with time. Humanity has been uncovering and exploiting ever newer and richer fuel resources – from wood, to coal, to oil – and ever more exotic raw materials – from wood, to copper, to niobium – and each has done its part to amplify the pace of expansion into the terrestrial buffet.

Unfortunately, we have become so consumptive that our future success is competing with the ongoing resource demands of a growing unchangeable past. The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require simply to sustain ourselves, forcing us to deplete the finite resource larder faster than ever before.

In the two decades following World War II, a remarkable period of rapid gas and oil discovery created an epoch of super-exponential growth. More recently, new extraction technologies and discoveries of fossil fuel reserves have only barely kept up with previously created demand. GDP growth is stagnating and individuals, professions, and nations are increasingly competing for their share.

Inevitably, there will come a point where collectively we can no longer access sufficient resources to sustain the current period of expansion. The question is not whether civilization is ultimately in trouble, but instead whether we will gradually subside or crash like a wave on the beach.

The negative impacts of past growth are already clear with accelerating climate change and environmental degradation. They will become particularly pronounced when resource depletion makes it challenging to self-repair, as flooded cities and drought-stricken farmland is abandoned. In biological and physical systems, when growth stagnates, fragility sets in. Following even small crises, recovery times slow, and there arrives a tendency for larger-scale collapse.

Of course, predicting the future is hard. But there are always going to be basic physical limits to what can and cannot happen. We can say with confidence that if civilization maintains current rates of economic growth over the next 30 years, within just one generation sustenance will mean doubling the current rate of energy consumption, extracting as much total energy from the environment as it has since the beginnings of the industrial revolution.

Can we really do this? Perhaps. Maybe we will continue to find the energy and raw materials on our finite planet to accomplish this extraordinary feat, but with the trade-off that sustaining “economic health” now means more potentially catastrophic consequences of global climate change later. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away from carbon based fuels, persistence of growth implies that we will face a likely 4 °C to 9 °C temperature rise within the lifetimes of those born today.

To all but Nobel Prize winning climate economists, such warming seems impossible to survive. Smaller civilizations have succumbed to much less. Looking to history may provide lessons for what actions are required to avoid the worst of what is to come.

War and Empire Links: December 2019 #2

The Art of Doublespeak: Bellingcat and Mind Control. Edward Curtin, off-Guardian. Dec. 15, 2019.
Today most people are, as is said, “wired,” and they get their information from the electronic media that is mostly controlled by giant corporations in cahoots with government propagandists. 
Ask yourself: Has the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks increased or decreased over your lifetime?

The “Afghanistan Papers”: Deep State narrative management. Kit Knightly, off-Guardian. Dec. 15, 2019.
Let’s be honest, most modern “leaks” do nothing but prop-up the Establishment

The News Churn Memory Hole: How The MSM Lies Even When Telling The Truth. Caitlin Johnstone. Dec. 18, 2020.
“This goofy ass Trump letter is gonna get more outraged coverage than the bombshell report on the entire Afghanistan war being a lie and frankly I don’t know if I can handle that right now,” popular Youtube commentator Kyle Kulinski tweeted today. 
The post was just one of the many observations that Kulinski tosses into the Twitterverse every day, presented in his typical casual, offhand way without any self-significance. But if you actually pause and think about what he’s saying here, how true it is and what it says about the mass media institutions which people rely upon to form their worldviews, it’s actually a damning indictment of our entire society. 
It is a fact that far more news media energy is going into one trivial aspect of an impeachment agenda that will with absolute certainty fail to remove Trump from office than there is for the known fact that the US government fought to suppress indisputable proof that American officials have been consistently lying about an 18-year military occupation which continues to this day. This fact should, by itself, be sufficient to completely discredit the mainstream press. This one tiny piece of information, that there’s vastly more buzz about an irrelevant impeachment sideshow than there is over the Afghanistan Papers, should in and of itself cause everyone to regard the entire establishment media complex with the same amount of respect as it gives the Flat Earth Society.



The Bee Explains: Impeachment. Babylon Bee. Dec. 17 2019.
Impeachment can be confusing. But The Babylon Bee is here with an explainer so you will know how the process works and what it takes for Dems to snap their fingers together and make Trump disappear in a cloud of dust.

What is impeachment?
It's the official, constitutional method for screaming at the sky because Trump is president. 
Why is Trump being impeached?
Trump has committed some very serious offenses, from not being a Democrat to being a Republican. He also won the 2016 election, which rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. He also restored the celebration of Christmas after eight years of winter with no Christmas under Obama. This drove Dems up a wall so they drummed up some charges against him. 
Why didn't Democrats include any criminal offenses in the articles of impeachment?
There were just so many of them, it was hard to pick one. So, instead of laying out actually impeachable offenses, the Democrats summarized it all with two main articles of impeachment: 1.) Trump is president. 2.) TRUMP IS PRESIDENT. 
What does it take to remove the president from office?
Faith, trust, and pixie dust. 
Will Trump be removed from office?
Lol. 
If we believe in ourselves and try hard, and Trump is removed, Hillary Clinton becomes president, right?
Actually, Mike Pence would become president, basically making the United States into a Handmaid's Tale-style dystopia. 
What happens if Trump is impeached in the House but acquitted in the Senate?
Democrats don't get the big prize, but they each get a complimentary copy of Impeachment: The Board Game. 
Once the House votes to officially impeach President Trump, what happens next?
Trump wins the 2020 election.

Obama And The War On Yemen. Daniel Larison. The American Conservative. Dec. 12, 2019.