Sunday, February 3, 2019

Howard Odum, 1974: Energy, Ecology and Economics

Energy, Ecology, & Economics

Howard T. Odum*
May 1974



As long-predicted energy shortages appear, as questions about the interaction of energy and environment are raised in legislatures and parliaments, and as energy-related inflation dominates public concern, many are beginning to see that there is a unity of the single system of energy, ecology, and economics. The world's leadership, however, is mainly advised by specialists who study only a part of the system at a time.

Instead of a single system's understanding, we have adversary arguments dangerous to the welfare of nations and the role of man as the earth's information bearer and programmatic custodian. Many economic models ignore the changing force of energy, regarding effects of energy sources as an external constant; ecoactivists cause governments to waste energy in unnecessary technology; and the false gods of growth and medical ethics make famine, disease, and catalytic collapse more and more likely for much of the world. Some energy specialists consider the environment as an antagonist instead of a major energy ally in supporting the biosphere.



Figure 1 A. Generalized world model of man and nature based on one-shot fossil fuel usages and steady solar work. Pathways are flows of energy from outside source (circle) through interactions (pointed blocks marked 'X' to show multiplier action) to final dispersion of dispersed heat. The tank symbol refers to storage. Here world fuel reserve storage helps build a storage of structure of man's buildings, information, population, and culture.





Figure 1 B. Graphs resulting from simulation of the model in Figure 1 A. Available world fuel reserve was taken as 5 X 1019 kilocalories and energy converted from the solar input and converged into man's productive system of growth and maintenance was 5 X 1016 kilocalories when structure was 1018 kilocalories. Peak of structural growth was variable over a 50-year period depending on amounts diverted into waste pathways. 


Figure 1 C. The steady state observed in some simulations of Figure 1 A was an oscillating one as in the graph shown here.


Instead of the confusion that comes from the western civilization's characteristic educational approach of isolating variables in tunnel-vision thinking, let us here seek common sense overview which comes from overall energetics. Very simple overall energy diagrams clarify issues quantitatively, indicating what is possible. The diagrams and symbols are explained further in a recent book (see Ref. 1).

For example, Figure 1 shows the basis of production in interaction of fuel reserves, steady energies of solar origin and feedback of work from the system's structure. Figure 1 is the computer simulation of this model for our existence, showing a steady state after our current growing period. As the fuel tank is drained, we return to a lower solar base of simpler agriculture. Simple macroscopic minimodels based on overview of world energy provides the same kind of trend curves as the detailed models of Forrester and Meadows (see Ref. 2). With major changes confronting us, let us consider here some of the main points that we must comprehend so we may be prepared for the future.

1. The true value of energy to society is the net energy, which is what's left after the energy costs of getting and concentrating that energy are subtracted.


Many forms of energy are low grade because they have to be concentrated, transported, dug from deep in the earth or pumped from far at sea. Much energy has to be used directly and indirectly to support the machinery, people, supply systems, etc., to deliver the energy. If it takes ten units of energy to bring ten units of energy to the point of use, then there is no net energy. Right now we dig further and further, deeper and deeper, and go for energies that are more and more dilute in the rocks. Sunlight is also a dilute energy that requires work to harness.

We are still expanding our rate of consumption of gross energy, but since we are feeding a higher and higher percentage back into the energy seeking process, we are decreasing our percentage of net energy production. Many of our proposed alternative energy sources take more energy feedback than present processes. Figure 2 shows net energy emerging beyond the work and structural maintenance costs of energy processing.

2. Worldwide inflation is driven in part by the increasing fraction of our fossil fuels that have to be used in getting more fossil and other fuels.



Figure 2. Energy flow diagram illustrating energy laws, and the difference between net and gross energy flows.


If the money circulating is the same or increasing, and if the quality energy reaching society for its general work is less because so much energy has to go immediately into the energy-getting process, then the real work to society per unit money circulated is less. Money buys less real work of other types and thus money is worth less. Because the economy and total energy utilization are still expanding, we are misled to think the total value is expanding and we allow more money to circulate which makes the money-to-work ratio even larger. Figure 3 shows the circulation of money that constitutes the GNP in a counter-current to the energy flow.

3. Many calculations of energy reserves which are supposed to offer years of supply are as gross energy rather than net energy and thus may be of much shorter duration than often stated.


Suppose for every ten units of some quality of oil shale proposed as an energy source there were required nine units of energy to mine, process, concentrate, transport, and meet environmental requirements. Such a reserve would deliver 1/10 as much net energy and last 1/10 as long as was calculated. Leaders should demand of our estimators of energy reserves that they make their energy calculations in units of net energy. The net reserves of fossil fuels are mainly unknown but they are much smaller than the gross reserves which have been the basis of public discussions and decisions that imply that growth can continue.

4. Societies compete for economic survival by Lotka's principle (see Ref. 3), which says that systems win and dominate that maximize their useful total power from all sources and flexibly distribute this power toward needs affecting survival.


The programs of forests, seas, cities, and-countries survive that maximize their system's power for useful purposes. The first requirement is that opportunities to gain inflowing power be maximized, and the second requirement is that energy utilization be effective and not wasteful as compared to competitors or alternatives. For further discussion see Lotka (Ref. 3) and Odum (Ref. 1).

5. During times when there are opportunities to expand one's power inflows, the survival premium by Lotka's principle is on rapid growth even though there may be waste.


We observe dog-eat-dog growth competition every time a new vegetation colonizes a bare field where the immediate survival premium is first placed on rapid expansion to cover the available energy receiving surfaces. The early growth ecosystems put out weeds of poor structure and quality, which are wasteful in their energy-capturing efficiencies, but effective in getting growth even though the structures are not long lasting. Most recently, modern communities of man have experienced two hundred years of colonizing growth, expanding to new energy sources such as fossil fuels, new agricultural lands, and other special energy sources. Western culture, and more recently, Eastern and Third World cultures, are locked into a mode of belief in growth as necessary to survival. "Grow or perish" is what Lotka's principle requires, but only during periods when there are energy sources that are not yet tapped. Figure 3 shows the structure that must be built in order to be competitive in processing energy.


Figure 3. Relationships of money cycles to the energy circuit loops.

6. During times when energy flows have been tapped and there are no new sources, Lotka's principle requires that those systems win that do not attempt fruitless growth but instead use all available energies in long-staying, high-diversity, steady-state works.


Whenever an ecosystem reaches its steady state after periods of succession, the rapid-net-growth specialists are replaced by a new team of higher-diversity, higher-quality, longer-living, better-controlled, and stable components. Collectively, through division of labor and specialization, the climax team gets more energy out of the steady flow of available source energy than those specialized in fast growth could.

Our system of man and nature will soon be shifting from rapid growth as the criterion of economic survival to steady-state non-growth as the criterion of maximizing one's work for economic survival (Figure 1). The timing depends only on the reality of one or two possibly high-yielding nuclear energy processes (fusion and breeder reactions) which may or may not be very yielding,

Ecologists are familiar with both growth states and steady state, and observe both in natural systems in their work routinely, but economists were all trained in their subject during rapid growth and most don't even know there is such a thing as steady state. Most economic advisors have never seen a steady state even though most of man's million year history was close to steady state. Only the last two centuries have seen a burst of temporary growth because of temporary use of special energy supplies that accumulated over long periods of geologic time.

7. High quality of life for humans and equitable economic distribution are more closely approximated in steady-state than in growth periods.


During growth, emphasis is on competition, and large differences in economic and energetic welfare develop; competitive exclusion, instability, poverty, and unequal wealth are characteristic. During steady state, competition is controlled and eliminated, being replaced with regulatory systems, high division and diversity of labor, uniform energy distributions, little change, and growth only for replacement purposes. Love of stable-system quality replaces love of net gain. Religious ethics adopt something closer to that of those primitive peoples that were formerly dominant in zones of the world with cultures based on the steady energy flows from the sun. Socialistic ideals about distribution are more consistent with steady state than growth.

8. The successfully competing economy must use its net output of richer-quality energy flows to subsidize the poorer-quality energy flow so that the total power is maximized.


In ecosystems, diversity of species develop that allow more of the energies to be tapped. Many of the species that are specialists in getting lesser and residual energies receive subsidies from the richer components. For example, the sun leaves on top of trees transport fuels that help the shaded leaves so they can get some additional energy from the last rays of dim light reaching the forest floor. The system that uses its excess energies in getting a little more energy, even from sources that would not be net yielding alone, develops more total work and more resources for total survival. In similar ways, we now use our rich fossil fuels to keep all kinds of goods and services of our economy cheap so that the marginal kinds of energies may receive the subsidy benefit that makes them yielders, whereas they would not be able to generate much without the subsidy. Figure 4 shows the role of diversity in tapping auxiliary energies and maintaining flexibility to changing sources.


Figure 4. Relationship of general structural maintenance to diversity and secondary energy sources.

9. Energy sources which are now marginal, being supported by hidden subsidies based on fossil fuel, become less economic when the hidden subsidy is removed.


A corollary of the previous principle of using rich energies to subsidize marginal ones is that the marginal energy sources will not be as net yielding later, since there will be no subsidy. This truth is often stated backwards in economists' concepts because there is inadequate recognition of external changes in energy quality. Often they propose that marginal energy sources will be economic later when the rich sources are gone. An energy source is not a source unless it is contributing yields, and ability of marginal sources to yield goes down as the other sources of subsidy become poorer. Figure 4 shows these relationships.

10. Increasing energy efficiency with new technology is not an energy solution, since most technological innovations are really diversions of cheap energy into hidden subsidies in the form of fancy, energy-expensive structures.


Most of our century of progress with increasing efficiencies of engines has really been spent developing mechanisms to subsidize a process with a second energy source. Many calculations of efficiency omit these energy inputs. We build better engines by putting more energy into the complex factories for manufacturing the equipment. The percentage of energy yield in terms of all the energies incoming may be less, not greater. Making energy net yielding is the only process not amenable to high energy-based technology.

11. Even in urban areas more than half of the useful work on which our society is based comes from the natural flows of sun, wind, waters, waves, etc., that act through the broad areas of seas and landscapes without money payment. An economy, to compete and survive, must maximize its use of these energies, not destroying their enormous free subsidies. The necessity of environmental inputs is often not realized until they are displaced.


When an area first grows, it may add some new energy sources in fuels and electric power, but when it gets to about 50 percent of the area developed it begins to destroy and diminish as much necessary life-support work that was free and unnoticed as it adds. At this point, further growth may produce a poor ability in economic competition because the area now has higher energy drains. For example, areas that grow too dense with urban developments may pave over the areas that formerly accepted and reprocessed waste waters. As a consequence, special tertiary waste treatments become necessary and monetary and energy drains are diverted from useful works to works that were formerly supplied free.

12. Environmental technology which duplicates the work available from the ecological sector is an economic handicap.


As growth of urban areas has become concentrated, much of our energies and research and development work has been going into developing energy-costing technology to protect the environment from wastes, whereas most wastes are themselves rich energy sources for which there are, in most cases, ecosystems capable of using and recycling wastes as a partner of the city without drain on the scarce fossil fuels. Soils take up carbon monoxide, forests absorb nutrients, swamps accept and regulate floodwaters. If growth is so dense that environmental technology is required, then it is too dense to be economically vital for the combined system of man and nature there. The growth needs to be arrested or it will arrest itself with depressed, poorly competing economy of man and of his environs. For example, there is rarely excuse for tertiary treatment because there is no excuse for such dense packing of growth that the natural buffer lands cannot be a good cheap recycling partner. Man as a partner of nature must use nature well and this does not mean crowd it, out and pave it over; nor does it mean developing industries that compete with nature for the waters and wastes that would be an energy contributor to the survival of both.

13. Solar energy is very dilute and the inherent energy cost of concentrating solar energy into form for human use has already been maximized by forests and food-producing plants. Without energy subsidy there is no yield from the sun possible beyond the familiar yields from forestry and agriculture.


Figure 5. Diagrams of three systems of solar energy use.

Figure 5 A. Man a minor part of the complex forest ecosystem.

Figure 5 B. Man a major partner in agricultural system on light alone.

Figure 5 C. Fossil-fuel-subsidized agriculture as a colonial member of a technological society of man with maximum possible solar conversion.


Advocates of major new energies available from the sun don't understand that the concentrations quality of solar energy is very low, being only 10—16 kilocalories per cubic centimeter. Much of this has to be used up in upgrading to food quality. Plants build tiny microscopic semiconductor photon receptors that are the same in principle as the solar cells advocated at vastly greater expense by some solar advocates. The plants have already maximized use of sunlight, by which they support an ecosystem whose diverse work helps maximize this conversion as shown in Figure 5 A. If man and his work are substituted for much of the ecosystem so that he and his farm animals do the recycling and management, higher yield results as in sacred cow agriculture (Figure 5 B). Higher yields require large fossil fuel subsidies in doing some of the work. For example, making the solar receiving structures (Figure 5 C), whereas the plants and ecosystem make their equipment out of the energy budget they process. Since man has already learned how to subsidize agriculture and forestry with fossil fuels when he has them, solar technology becomes a duplication. The reason major solar technology has not and will not be a major contributor or substitute for fossil fuels is that it will not compete without energy subsidy from the fossil fuel economy. Some energy savings are possible in house heating on a minor scale.

14. Energy is measured by calories, Btu's, kilowatt hours, and other intraconvertible units, but energy has a scale of quality which is not indicated by these measures. The ability to do work for man depends on the energy quality and quantity, and this is measurable by the amount of energy of a lower-quality grade required to develop the higher grade. The scale of energy goes from dilute sunlight up to plant matter to coal, from coal to oil to electricity and up to the high-quality efforts of computer and human information processing.


15. Nuclear energy is now mainly subsidized with fossil fuels and barely yields net energy.


High costs of mining, processing fuels, developing costly plants, storing wastes, operating complex safety systems, and operating government agencies make present nuclear energy one of the marginal sources which add some energy now, while they are subsidized by a rich economy. A self-contained, isolated nuclear energy does not now exist. Since the present nuclear energy is marginal while it uses the cream of rich fuels accumulated during times of rich fossil fuel excess, and because the present rich reserves of nuclear fuel will last no longer than fossil fuels, there may not be a major long-range effect of present nuclear technology on economic survival. High energy cost of nuclear construction may be a factor accelerating the exhaustion of the richer fuels. Figure 4 illustrates the principle.

Breeder Process: The Breeder Process is now being given its first tests of economic effectiveness and we don't yet know how net yielding it will be. The present nuclear plants are using up the rich fuels that could support the breeder reactors if these turn out to be net yielders over and beyond the expected high energy costs in safety costs, occasional accidents, reprocessing plants, etc. Should we use the last of our rich fossil fuel wealth for the high research and development costs and high capital investments of processes too late to develop a net yield?

Fusion: The big question is will fusion be a major net yield? The feasibility of pilot plants with the fusion process is unknown. There is no knowledge yet as to the net energy in fusion or the amounts of energy subsidy fusion may require. Because of this uncertainty, we cannot be sure about the otherwise sure-leveling and decline in total energy flows that may soon be the pattern for our world.

16. Substantial energy storages are required for stability of an economy against fluctuations of economies, or of natural causes, and of military threats.


The frantic rush to use the last of the rich oils and gas that are easy to harvest for a little more growth and tourism is not the way to maintain power stability or political and military security for the world community of nations as a whole. World stability requires a de-energizing of capabilities of vast war, and an evenly distributed power base for regular defense establishments, which need to be evenly balanced without great power gradients that encourage change of military boundaries. A two-year storage is required for stability of a component.

17. The total tendency for net favorable balance of payments of a country relative to others depends on the relative net energy of that country including its natural and fuel-based energies minus its wastes and nonproductive energy uses.


Countries with their own rich energies can export goods and services with less requirement for money than those that have to use their money to buy their fuels. Those countries with, inferior energy flows into useful work become subordinate energy dependents to other countries. A country that sells oil but does not use it within its boundaries to develop useful work is equally subordinate since a major flow of necessary high-quality energy in the form of technical goods and services is external in this case. The country with the strongest position is the one with a combination of internal sources of rich energies and internal sources of developed structure and information based on the energy. The relations of energy sources to payment balances are given in Figure 6.



Figure 6 A. Diagram showing how energy sources and energy loss pathways affect the balance of payments and general economic competition position of single country. Better balance results when one's own energy sources are better, and one's waste less.

18. During periods of expanding energy availabilities, many kinds of growth-priming activities may favor economic vitality and the economy's ability to compete. Institutions, customs, and economic policies aid by accelerating energy consumption in an autocatalytic way.


Many pump-priming properties of fast-growing economies have been naturally selected and remain in procedures of government and culture. Urban concentrations, high use of cars, economic subsidy to growth, oil depletion allowances, subsidies to population growth, advertising, high-rise building, etc., are costly in energy for their operation and maintenance, but favor economic vitality as long as their role as pump primers is successful in increasing the flow of energy over and beyond their special cost. Intensely concentrated densities of power use have been economic in the past because their activities have accelerated the system's growth during a period when there were new energy sources to encompass.

19. During periods when expansion of energy sources is not possible, then the many high-density and growth-promoting policies and structures become an energy liability because their high energy cost is no longer accelerating energy yield.


The pattern of urban concentration and the policies of economic growth stimulation that were necessary and successful in energy growth competition periods are soon to shift. There will be a premium against the use of pump-priming characteristics since there will be no more unpumped energy to prime. What did work before will no longer work and the opposite becomes the pattern that is economically successful. All this makes sense and is commonplace to those who study various kinds of ecosystems, but the economic advisors will be sorely pressed and lose some confidence until they learn about the steady state and its criteria for economic success. Countries with great, costly investments in concentrated economic activity, excessive transportation customs, and subsidies to industrial expansion will have severe stresses. Even now the countries who have not gone so far in rapid successional growth are setting out to do so at the very time when their former more steady state culture is about to begin to become a more favored economic state comparatively.

20. Systems in nature are known that shift from fast growth to steady state gradually with programmatic substitution, but other instances are known in which, the shift is marked by total crash and destruction of the growth system before the emergence of the succeeding steady-state regime.


Because energies and monies for research, development, and thinking are abundant only during growth and not during energy leveling or decline, there is a great danger that means for developing the steady state will not be ready when they are needed, which may be no more than 5 years away but probably more like 20 years. (If fusion energy is a large net energy yielder, there may be a later growth period when the intensity of human power development begins to affect and reduce the main life support systems of the oceans, atmospheres, and general biosphere.)

The humanitarian customs of the earth's countries now in regard to medical aid, famine, and epidemic are such that no country is allowed to develop major food and other critical energy shortage because the others rush in their reserves. This practice has insured that no country will starve in a major way until we all starve together when the reserves are no longer there.

Chronic disease was evolved with man as his regulator, being normally as a device for infant mortality and merciful old-age death. It provided, on the average, an impersonal and accurate energy testing of body vitalities, adjusting the survival rate to the energy resources. Even in the modem period of high-energy medical miracles, the energy for total medical care systems is a function of the total country's energies, and as energies per capita fall again so will the energy for medicine per capita, and the role of disease will again develop its larger role in the population regulation system. Chronic disease at its best was and is a very energy-inexpensive regulator.

Epidemic disease is something else. Nature's systems normally use the principle of diversity to eliminate epidemics. Vice versa, epidemic disease is nature's device to eliminate monoculture, which may be inherently unstable. Man is presently allowed the special high yields of various monocultures including his own high density population, his paper source in pine trees, and his miracle rice only so long as he has special energies to protect these artificial ways and substitute them for disease which would restore the high diversity system, ultimately the more stable flow of energy.

The terrible possibility that is before us is that there will be the continued insistence on growth with our last energies by the economic advisors that don't understand, so that there are no reserves with which to make a change, to hold order, and to cushion a period when populations must drop. Disease reduction of man and of his plant production systems could be planetary and sudden if the ratio of population to food and medical systems is pushed to the maximum at a time of falling net energy.

At some point the great gaunt towers of nuclear energy installations, oil drilling, and urban cluster will stand empty in the wind for lack of enough fuel technology to keep them running. A new cycle of dinosaurs will have passed its way. Man will survive as he reprograms readily to that which the ecosystem needs of him so long as he does not forget who is serving who. What is done well for the ecosystem is good for man. However, the cultures that say only what is good for man is good for nature may pass and be forgotten like the rest.

There was a famous theory in paleoecology called orthogenesis which suggested that some of the great animals of the past were part of systems that were locked into evolutionary mechanisms by which the larger ones took over from smaller ones. The mechanisms then became so fixed that they carried the size trend beyond the point of survival, whereupon the species went extinct. Perhaps this -is the main question of ecology, economics, and energy. Has the human system frozen its direction into an orthogenetic path toward cultural crash, or is the great creative activity of the current energy-rich world already sensing the need for change? Are alternatives already being tested by our youth so they will be ready for the gradual transition to a fine steady state that carries the best of our recent cultural evolution into new, more miniaturized, more dilute, and more delicate ways of man-nature?

In looking ahead, the United States and some other countries may be lucky to be forced by changing energy availabilities to examine themselves, level their, growth, and change their culture towards the steady state early enough so as to be ready with some tested designs before the world as a whole is forced to this. A most fearful sight is the behavior of Germany and Japan who have little native energies and rush crazily into boom-and-bust economy on temporary and borrowed pipelines and tankers, throwing out what was stable and safe to become rich for a short period; monkey see, monkey do. Consider also Sweden that once before boomed and busted in its age of Baltic Ships while cutting its virgin timber. Later it was completely stable on water power and agriculture, but then after a few years of growth became like the rest, another bunch of engines on another set of oil flows, a culture that may not be long for this world.

What is the general answer? Eject economic expansionism, stop growth, use available energies for cultural conversion to steady state, seek out the condition now that will come anyway, but by our service be our biosphere's handmaiden anew.


References and Notes:

  1. H.T. Odum, Environment Power and Society (John Wiley) 336 pp.
  2. D. H. Meadows, D. L. Meadows, J. Randry and W.W. Behrens III, The Limits to Growth (Universe Books, New York, 1972).
  3. A.J. Lotka, Contribution to the Energetics of Evolution in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 8, 147—188 (1922).
  4. I am grateful for stimulation and collaboration of many in our common effort including especially C. Kylstra, Pong Lem, and our keen graduate student group in the United States, and Jan Zeilon and Bengt-Owe Jansson in Sweden. Simulation work was supported by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission on Contract At-(40-10-4398).
  5. Energy systems symbols used for showing mathematical and energetic relationships between the parts of our system of energy, economics and ecology. 



All outside energy sources flow in from sources indicated with the circular symbol and these sources deliver causal forcing actions. All storages of energy, structure, money, information, value, etc., are represented by the tank-shaped symbol and these tanks are called state variables. All energies leave systems as dispersed heat that has no more potential for doing useful work. In the diagrams the dispersal of unusable heat energy is called a heat sink.



When two different kinds of flows of energy (or materials, information, or services that carry energy) interact in processes where both are necessary, we draw a work gate symbol. The system has an X if the action of one flow so facilitates the flow of the other and vice versa so that the process is a multiplier action. As in all processes, useful energy that drives the processes emerges as degraded, no longer reusable dispersed energy leaving the earth through the heat sink. (Heat on earth ultimately is reradiated out to space from the top of the atmosphere.)

Self-maintaining entities such as populations, cities, industries, and other organizations that feed energy from storage back into multiplicative pumping actions are shown with the hexagonal symbol. The energy dispersed in maintaining the system, its growth, and its work services is shown passing out the bottom in a heat sink.

When new storages are developed, energy laws require that much of the energy be dispersed into unusable heat in order to make the process of storing go fast enough to be most competitive. The symbol for Potential generating work shows the necessary heat dispersal that is required for any storing Process.



When two energy flows may be substituted for each other, we show their junction as the convergence of lines. This means that the flows add (in contrast to the work gate where other kinds of interactions are the result).

Because money flows as a countercurrent to the flow of energy, goods, and services (the latter two also carrying energy), we represent pathways that involve economic transactions with the diamond shaped symbol and two counter diagrams pathways. The energy cost of doing economic business is shown as the energy lost into the heat sink.

The diagrams may be examined as if they were a series of water tanks and pipes with water flowing between the tanks, being driven by the pressures of the storages or outside pressures and the energy of the water pressure, ultimately leaving the system in the various frictional heat dispersions. The diagrams can thus be visualized to help see the complexity of systems and recognize just from the configurations what kinds of responses might follow proposed manipulations. As further given in Ref. 1 the diagrams are also ways of writing mathematical differential equations for making precise mathematical descriptions of relationships.

Jared Diamond, 1987: Agriculture, World's Worst Mistake

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

Jared Diamond*
May 1987


To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn’t the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly bodies. From biology we learned that we weren’t specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence.

At first, the evidence against this revisionist interpretation will strike twentieth century Americans as irrefutable. We’re better off in almost every respect than people of the Middle Ages, who in turn had it easier than cavemen, who in turn were better off than apes. Just count our advantages. We enjoy the most abundant and varied foods, the best tools and material goods, some of the longest and healthiest lives, in history. Most of us are safe from starvation and predators. We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat. What neo-Luddite among us would trade his life for that of a medieval peasant, a caveman, or an ape?



For most of our history we supported ourselves by hunting and gathering: we hunted wild animals and foraged for wild plants. It’s a life that philosophers have traditionally regarded as nasty, brutish, and short. Since no food is grown and little is stored, there is (in this view) no respite from the struggle that starts anew each day to find wild foods and avoid starving. Our escape from this misery was facilitated only 10,000 years ago, when in different parts of the world people began to domesticate plants and animals. The agricultural revolution spread until today it’s nearly universal and few tribes of hunter-gatherers survive.

From the progressivist perspective on which I was brought up, to ask “Why did almost all our hunter-gatherer ancestors adopt agriculture?” is silly. Of course they adopted it because agriculture is an efficient way to get more food for less work. Planted crops yield far more tons per acre than roots and berries. Just imagine a band of savages, exhausted from searching for nuts or chasing wild animals, suddenly grazing for the first time at a fruit-laden orchard or a pasture full of sheep. How many milliseconds do you think it would take them to appreciate the advantages of agriculture?

The progressivist party line sometimes even goes so far as to credit agriculture with the remarkable flowering of art that has taken place over the past few thousand years. Since crops can be stored, and since it takes less time to pick food from a garden than to find it in the wild, agriculture gave us free time that hunter-gatherers never had. Thus it was agriculture that enabled us to build the Parthenon and compose the B-minor Mass.

While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it’s hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming?

Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here’s one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn’t emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, “Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?”

While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a better balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen’s average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It’s almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.

So the lives of at least the surviving hunter-gatherers aren’t nasty and brutish, even though farms have pushed them into some of the world’s worst real estate. But modern hunter-gatherer societies that have rubbed shoulders with farming societies for thousands of years don’t tell us about conditions before the agricultural revolution. The progressivist view is really making a claim about the distant past: that the lives of primitive people improved when they switched from gathering to farming. Archaeologists can date that switch by distinguishing remains of wild plants and animals from those of domesticated ones in prehistoric garbage dumps.

How can one deduce the health of the prehistoric garbage makers, and thereby directly test the progressivist view? That question has become answerable only in recent years, in part through the newly emerging techniques of paleopathology, the study of signs of disease in the remains of ancient peoples.

In some lucky situations, the paleopathologist has almost as much material to study as a pathologist today. For example, archaeologists in the Chilean deserts found well preserved mummies whose medical conditions at time of death could be determined by autopsy (Discover, October). And feces of long-dead Indians who lived in dry caves in Nevada remain sufficiently well preserved to be examined for hookworm and other parasites.

Usually the only human remains available for study are skeletons, but they permit a surprising number of deductions. To begin with, a skeleton reveals its owner’s sex, weight, and approximate age. In the few cases where there are many skeletons, one can construct mortality tables like the ones life insurance companies use to calculate expected life span and risk of death at any given age. Paleopathologists can also calculate growth rates by measuring bones of people of different ages, examine teeth for enamel defects (signs of childhood malnutrition), and recognize scars left on bones by anemia, tuberculosis, leprosy, and other diseases.

One straight forward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5’ 9" for men, 5’ 5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5’ 3" for men, 5’ for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.

Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from burial mounds in the Illinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and Illinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A. D. 1150. Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the hunter-gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly 50 per cent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a threefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. “Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years,” says Armelagos, “but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive.”

The evidence suggests that the Indians at Dickson Mounds, like many other primitive peoples, took up farming not by choice but from necessity in order to feed their constantly growing numbers. “I don’t think most hunger-gatherers farmed until they had to, and when they switched to farming they traded quality for quantity,” says Mark Cohen of the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, co-editor with Armelagos, of one of the seminal books in the field, Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. “When I first started making that argument ten years ago, not many people agreed with me. Now it’s become a respectable, albeit controversial, side of the debate.”

There are at least three sets of reasons to explain the findings that agriculture was bad for health. First, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition. (Today just three high-carbohydrate plants –wheat, rice, and corn– provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease. (Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg argument, because crowding encourages agriculture and vice versa.) Epidemics couldn’t take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearance of large cities.



Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing élite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae c. 1500 B. C. suggest that royals enjoyed a better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on the average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth). Among Chilean mummies from c. A. D. 1000, the élite were distinguished not only by ornaments and gold hair clips but also by a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease.

Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U. S., it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an élite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be imported from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?

Farming may have encouraged inequality between the sexes, as well. Freed from the need to transport their babies during a nomadic existence, and under pressure to produce more hands to till the fields, farming women tended to have more frequent pregnancies than their hunter-gatherer counterparts–with consequent drains on their health. Among the Chilean mummies for example, more women than men had bone lesions from infectious disease.

Women in agricultural societies were sometimes made beasts of burden. In New Guinea farming communities today I often see women staggering under loads of vegetables and firewood while the men walk empty-handed. Once while on a field trip there studying birds, I offered to pay some villagers to carry supplies from an airstrip to my mountain camp. The heaviest item was a 110-pound bag of rice, which I lashed to a pole and assigned to a team of four men to shoulder together. When I eventually caught up with the villagers, the men were carrying light loads, while one small woman weighing less than the bag of rice was bent under it, supporting its weight by a cord across her temples.

As for the claim that agriculture encouraged the flowering of art by providing us with leisure time, modern hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers. The whole emphasis on leisure time as a critical factor seems to me misguided. Gorillas have had ample free time to build their own Parthenon, had they wanted to. While post-agricultural technological advances did make new art forms possible and preservation of art easier, great paintings and sculptures were already being produced by hunter-gatherers 15,000 years ago, and were still being produced as recently as the last century by such hunter-gatherers as some Eskimos and the Indians of the Pacific Northwest.

Thus with the advent of agriculture and élite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.
One answer boils down to the adage “Might makes right.” Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. (Population densities of hunter-gatherers are rarely over one person per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 times that.) Partly, this is because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants. Partly, too, it’s because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it’s old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don’t have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years.




As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbreed and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It’s not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn’t want.

At this point it’s instructive to recall the common complaint that archaeology is a luxury, concerned with the remote past, and offering no lessons for the present. Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.

Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we’re still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it’s unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture’s glittering façade, and that have so far eluded us?

Saturday, February 2, 2019

Jack Alpert

SKIL notes use a current event to focus the reader's attention on cognition based solutions to global problems.

The notes show scarcity, conflict, and environmental destruction are caused by the collection of 6 billion sets of personal behaviors.
Current institutional or technological efforts to prevent global problems cannot be successful in the face of these collective behaviours.

Efforts, powerful enough to solve these problems, must create a future generation, consisting of individuals who are able to gather, process, and value present information better then we do and thus behave better than we do.

Note Archives 
Brief description
April 2004
Making a peace is more than stopping existing hostilities. It requires reversing the forces toward conflict that are created by the benign behaviors of 6 billion people just creating and taking care of their families. 
When we change the human footprint we change our freedoms. The connection seems to be missing from calculations that control footprint-determining behaviors.
Six billion sets of personal family creating and supporting behaviors have more power to determine the future than any leader. 
All efforts to reverse our trend toward human conflict are impotent in the face of demographics driven by the temporally blind. 
Many of us have expectations of a bad future. Can we use them to get a clearer view of the present and to find behaviors to create a new destination?
If you were offered a peaceful nation based on one child per family would you pay this price to live there?
Note 7==> Social Vectors and Individual BehaviorSocial trends have destinations. What if the collection of individual behaviors controls social trends?
Note 8 ==> Sustainability - Doublings, Halvings, and FootprintWhile rapid increases in per capita consumption facilitate social stability rapid population declines facilitate reduced footprint and sustainability
Note 9 ==> Terrorism and the OstrichGrowing terrorism is a much bigger problem than we realize. This is caused by a defect in our cognition, that we should strive to fix.
Note 10 ==> Temporal Social FundamentalsTemporal social fundamentals predict the destination no one wants == a social conflict greased slide to subsistence.
Note 11 ==> Bush and Kerry Have No Plan for Graceful SurvivalWhile each of us can see benefits to either Bush or Kerry, neither man has a plan to address the biggest problem facing humankind - graceful survival. 
Note 12 ==> Indians did not see their destination - do we?The destination of our society does not seem to be clear to us. At least it is not influencing the behaviors that could change it.
Note 13 ==> Cognitive Evolution and the Human Predicament The human predicament can be resolved by an upgrade in cognitive abilities which change procreative behavior. We know enough about the limitations of our cognitive abilities and the cognitive evolutionary process,to be pushing for an advance that would would accomplish this change in behavior.
Note 14 ==> Graceful Survival RevisitedEach of us has a partial view of human craziness. Incomplete as it is, we have to work to understand and fix it. 
Note 15 ==> Social Fundamentals RevisitedOur animal instincts, combined with our existing cognitive abilities, are a deadly mix. We have to universally enhance human cognition or suffer a terrible end game.
Note 16 ==> National Problem ReferendumIf we create a way for the constituency to understand and elect a future, they can be more than spectators in their institution's struggle with the present.
Note 17 ==> Do you like to give Flowers?When normal benign behavior creates scarcity, conflict, and environmental destruction, it's time to find out how to keep the system in balance.
Note 18 ==> Who controls Humankind's future?We have great faith that powerful leaders control our future. However, this may be a cultural myth. Creation of our global problems maybe distributed among 6 billion people.
Note 19 ==> "Just Muddling Through" -- Still doesn't workHow SKIL sees the human condition - our assumptions and the situation that follows from them. 
Note 20 ==> Thinking About the UnthinkableIf we fully appreciated the tragedy of our present conditions, we might think again about accepting behaviors we have always rejected.
Note 21 ==> Is "population down" the opposite of "population up?"If the upward trend in population appears to create problems, why does the downward trend not appear as their resolution?
Note 22 ==> The "Overlap trend" Controls the "Conflict Trend"The hidden linkage that makes benevolent parents into warmongers.
Note 23 ==> Huntsville Rocket ScientistsEven rocket scientists haven't figured out how to get humankind to fly right.
Note 24 ==> We must be on SOMAIn Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" the population all took a drug called "Soma," It made each person think everything was just fine. Is this generation on such a drug?
Note 25 ==> Our Next Round of InsanityPeople are focusing on China's rising military power. But they still don't have a clear picture of the human journey. 
Note 26 ==> "The Alpert Alternative"  A believable prediction of the future and a behavior to change it.
Note 27 ==> "What Can I Do? "If you concur with" the Alpert alternative" that the human destination is unwanted and rapid population decline is the only way to change it, you have to break peoples' fantasy that RPD is unnecessary.
Note 28 ==> For Peace -- Rapid Population Decline Now -- Not LaterWe should not wait until all other solutions fail to produce peace before we implement "rapid population decline."
SKIL Note 29 ==> Implementation of Rapid Population DeclineMost people think that RPD is unnecessary, how are you going to get them to change their minds. 
SKIL Note 30==> Distractions Cause Civilizations to failOur immediate problems distract us from seeing and solving the problems that cause civilizations to fail. 
SKIL Note 31==> A Mechanism of Civilization CollapseWhen a civilization approaches its environmental constraints, and a block of its citizens realize their downward movement from their attained “wellbeing,” this block’s behavior causes the civilization’s collapse 
SKIL Note 32==> Experienced at Burning Man -- Life without scarcityA little artificially created taste of life without scarcity. 
SKIL Note 33 ==> Should We Strike Weapons of Mass Destruction Builders - From Dilemma to Solution:When both "Strike" and "Not Strike" are bad choices, then it is time to find and change what's causing the builders to build. 
Alan Kay said, "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." SKIL invents ways to create ever-increasing peace. SKIL for Nobel Peace Prize. 
SKIL Note 35 ==>  Sustainability  -- When Everyone Affected Gets a Vote:Giving the unborn the vote might produce a sustainable society.
SKIL Note 36 ==> Your View Shapes Your BehaviorA father and son view the same conditions, see different problems and thus differ on resolving behaviors.
SKIL Note 37 ==> Elevated Intellect RequiredThe wellbeing of our global community requires constituents that can both understand what behavior has to be taken and motivate themselves to take it. 
SKIL Note 38 ==> Higher Intellect Required (a movie) The wellbeing of our global community requires billions of constituents that can understand the human predicament enough to behave differently than today's common man. Our goal should be to create a whole generation of these more capable thinkers. 
SKIL Note 39 ==>Think Better or Perform GenocideOur current thinking processes lead to a place where we will have to choose between survival and genocide. 
SKIL Note 40 ==>Sustainability --- One-child-per-family or genocide Sustainability will require one-child-per-family or genocide behaviors and maybe both.
SKIL Note 41 ==> Humankind's Viability Is Preceded by Rapid Population DeclineHow do we know this? How do we implement it? This is the introduction to the "SKIL Rapid Population Decline Contagion Project." 
SKIL Note 42 ==> Belief Consensus" Makes Rapid Population Decline PossibleAn individual's act of restraint, personally choosing one child per family, is not as powerful in creating rapid population decline as an act to build an RPD "belief consensus."
SKIL Note 43 ==> Civilization's Perfect Storm Global problems that we see are big. However, their integration is bigger than anything we can imagine. 
SKIL Note 44 ==> Will having a second child become Taboo?As humankind expands filling every space and sharing every resource, some acceptable behaviors will become taboo. 
SKIL Note 45 ==> Ethical Coercion and OCPF Implementation Is it ethical for a democracy to coerce one child per family behaviors. 
SKIL Note 46 ==> What's a SKIL Dinner?The introduction to a SKIL Dinner 1/18/08
SKIL Note 47 ==> How Many People Will I KILL?Who is responsible for global starvation and civilization collapse?
SKIL Note 48 ==> Finding and Implementing "Course-changing-Behavior."The people who understand the future have to explain it to the people who can behave to change it.
SKIL Note 49 ==> Converting Involuntary Manslaughter to Murderhelp individuals change their view of births from benign acts, to involuntary manslaughter, to murder.
SKIL Note 50 ==> Which Information Describes the Human Predicament?Saving your kids from a nasty future starts with using the most important information to describe our predicament.
SKIL Note 51 ==> Converting Involuntary Manslaughter to Murder -- RevisitedThis change in perception of one's personal procreative acts is the first step in addressing the human predicament.
SKIL Note 52 ==> What is NOT too little too late?Helping people see "THE" personal behavior that changes humankind's course from progressively worse to progressively better. 
SKIL Note 53 ==> Forming a constituency is a solution to our predicamentThe human predicament addressed rather than defined.
SKIL Note 54 ==> While we were sleeping the correct behavior changed From 2 to "none or one" children per family - rapidly decreasing (rather than constant) population makes us more viable
SKIL Note 55 ==>. Does Your Addition See the Future Clearly?Simple addition should show that billions of people will starve to death in the next century because their labor value will not exceed the cost of food, and all alternative means of producing food will be beyond their reach. 
SKIL Note 56 ==> Technology Can Save Us If We Can Keep Civilization TogetherTechnological miracles happen only as long as civilization facilitates them.
SKIL Note 57 ==> Rapid population decline --- Not an Impossible dream Helping recruiters create a constituency of people who think rapid population decline is necessary to solve the human predicament. 
SKIL Note 58 ==> Morality of implementing RPD lawsRPD laws sound immoral until you include all the impacts of not having RPD laws 
SKIL Note 59 == Implementing Rapid Population Decline with a VoteThe path humankind is on creates genocide. RPD laws are an alternative. The next step is to create a constituency that implements RPD laws. 
SKIL Note 60 ==> Happy New Year Wishes -- SKIL Plan for 2009Year end summary-- new objectives -- and plan for 2009
SKIL Note 61 ==> The path forward What do we do to resolve the human predicament.
SKIL Note 62 ==> Why do we need rapid population decline Only rapid population decline can handle the large increases in total human footprint caused by increases in wellbeing. 
SKIL Note 63 ==> How Fast Can Lower Birthrates Reduce Population?Model shows population vs time of birthrates below 1 
SKIL Note 64 ==> How To Implement Birthrates Below One Child Per Woman?Economic process to generate very low birthrates. 
SKIL Note 65 ==> Survival -- Eagles and HumansHard times are ahead for both -- or neither 
SKIL Note 66 ==> Social conflict trips civilization collapseWe are focused on smaller problems because ever increasing "social conflict" and its impact on our global civilization remains invisible
SKIL Note 67 ==> The earth's sustainable population is below 100 millionHow to calculate a sustainable population. Based on social justice, resources, and opportunity to advance wellbeing.
SKIL Note 68 ==> The earth's sustainable population is below 100 million The movie How to calculate a sustainable population. Based on social justice, resources, and opportunity to advance wellbeing.
SKIL Note 69 ==> What does IQ have to do with human viability?Even the way we evaluate an individuals thinking interferes with our ability to create a viable human experiment. 
SKIL Note 70 ==>  Half Truths of Overpopulation View 1More aggressive solutions to the human predicament depend on a view of a bigger problem. 
SKIL Note 71 ==> Half Truths of Overpopulation View 2What is being left out?
SKIL Note 72 ==> Half Truths of Overpopulation View 3Mechanics of missing truth. 
SKIL Note 73 ==> Half Truths of Overpopulation View 4The whole truth is too painful to talk about.
SKIL Note 80 ==> 100 times Too Many People Too many people and what can be done about it.
SKIL Note 81 ==> Today's "Dropping Fertility" is Meaningless and Harmful in Establishing Sustainability.It is futile to adjust human nature up or down on number of children. Let civil law determine the population that is sustainable. 
SKIL Note 82 ==> When people have rain coats they are not afraid of the rainThe liabilities of the human predicament just don't seem very significant.
SKIL Note 83 ==> Sustainability-- Crawling Back Into Our NicheThe solutions to the human predicament have little to do with stopping growth and everything to do with contraction of footprint.
SKIL Note 84 ==> Unwinding the human predicament - not that complicated There are some behaviors that unwind the human predicament. But they cut into personal freedoms. They are probably worth it. 
SKIL Note 85 ==> Overshoot Liability Determines BehaviorThe overshoot liability is measured using sustainable civilization as a reference. 
SKIL Note 86 ==> Plans for a Sustainable PopulationGetting to a desirable population destination before tragedy overtakes us, while not overshooting the goal.
SKIL Note 87 ==> What is a Sustainable Global Population?    50 to 100 million Show your calculations.
SKIL Note 88 ==>Two Forms of Overconsumption1) collective consumption too big for the niche
2) one individual's consumption creates conflict. 
SKIL Note 89 ==> Communication that makes a differenceLearning enough to advocate and vote differently 
SKIL Note 90 ==> Fundamental Concepts for Changing our Kid's FuturePathway to a good future 
SKIL Note 91 ==> Spatial Temporal Boundaries in decision-makingShouldn’t we be using temporal elements in any discussion?
SKIL Note 92 ==> 21st Century Injury - Our Choice or Nature'sThere will be injures from population reduction in the 21st century. What process minimizes them.
SKIL Note 93 ==> Humankind's Option - Crawling Back Into Our NicheHumankind has a chance to prevent civilization collapse if it can reduce its size to fit into a contracting niche. 
SKIL Note 94 ==> Unwinding The Human PredicamentThe collective is in control of the future -- not the 1%
SKIL Note 95 ==> Wisdom's role in "Change the Course" wisdom's role in unwinding the human predicament.
SKIL Note 96 ==> Changing the Course - Government's Role public will cause governments to make civil laws to implement change
SKIL Note 97 ==> Fundraising letter - SKIL works to prevent Civilization Collapse sHelp us keep you kids from being cannibals or worse eaten.
SKIL Note 98 ==> Change the Course Check listHow do you know if you convinced another person to help change the course?
SKIL Note 99 ==> The Social Contract Needs an UpgradeNice social behavior is now dysfunctional and needs to be changed.
SKIL Note 100 ==> A Sustainable CivilizationWhat does a sustainable civilization look like. 
SKIL Note 101 ==> Morality 101Describing immorality at the fringes is a distraction for the immorality at our core.
SKIL Note 102 ==> Unwinding Our Predicament Implementing mutual coercion mutually agreed upon
SKIL Note 103 ==> Sustainability -- Overshoot -- and CollapseOvershoot - the parameter that determines collapse
SKIL Note 104 ==> Stopping growth is not a solution to the world's problemsResolution to the world's problems begins with knowing what is a sustainable population.
SKIL Note 105 ==> What is the human PredicamentMaybe it is the biggest injury we can think of this century
SKIL Note 106 ==> What Will the Renewable Future Look Like50 million people global using only hydro electric power until 2400
SKIL Note 107 ==> Obtaining and Maintaining a Sustainable PopulationDerivation of actions to reduce population to sustainable and then maintain it there.
SKIL Note 108 ==> Submissions to BioPhysical Economics US society of Ecological economics 2015New agendas for sustainability research 
SKIL Note 109 ==> Injuries exist on our civilization's path that are worth avoiding Part 1 of Unwinding the human predicament 
SKIL Note 110 ==> Injuries exist on our civilization's path that are worth avoiding Part 2 of Unwinding the human predicament
SKIL Note 113 ==> Forces exist that produce and maintain a sustainable civilization Part 3 of Unwinding the human predicament
SKIL Note 114 ==> Energy use per average American96,000 Kwh per person or 318 million BTU
SKIL Note 115 ==> Energy delivered in US 21002.53 quadrillion BTU's per year
SKIL Note 116 ==> Earth’s Sustainable Population 2100 50 million
SKIL Note 117 ==> 98% of Earth natural because of energy limitsEnergy Density causes 98% of earth's land area to revert to natural environment



Cognitive Dissonance

Perhaps It’s Time to Believe the Impossible
Cognitive Dissonance



"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Alice in Wonderland.



It is often said, usually by those who wish to “educate”, control and manipulate us, that we are defined by what we believe. I submit it’s the other way around. We are defined, or more accurately confined, by what we disbelieve and think impossible, or at a minimum, improbable.

Once we consign something to the impossible, unbelievable, farfetched, unlikely, preposterous and unreal cognitive file, rarely, if ever, do we fish it back out of the garbage bin for reassessment and reconsideration. And why would we do so since it clearly belonged there to begin with, otherwise we never would have discarded it in the first place.

That right there is a perfect example of circular logic and emotionally comforting thinking.

From the point in time when non-religious standardized thinking was institutionalized, more commonly known as the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, we have been conditioned to believe everything and anything can (eventually) be cataloged, quantified, qualified and confirmed…or denied. More importantly, the scientific method insists “real” truth can only be verified by way of uniform methods that produce repeatable results.

When dancing on the fringe, this mindset requires the use of measuring instruments not yet invented or even conceived of when pushing the boundaries of accepted thought and “reality”. If one disbelieves something, or at best thinks it highly improbable, what real incentive does that person, entity or institution have to pursue that line of thought. The answer, of course, is little to none. This leaves cutting edge explorations to those who are both brave enough to swim against the consensus belief system while also somehow funding those explorations.

This hardening of the cognitive arteries extends far beyond scientific principals and findings. And from my own personal point of view, it’s just another form of collective cultural corruption designed to maintain the status quo for all involved, including every single person alive today. If we are conditioned to believe, we are conditioned to disbelieve as well. And eventually we will fight to remain safely within the cerebral confines of our sheltered minds.

For example, everyone in their right mind knows 2 + 2 = 4. This is a self-evident fact that can easily be proven. Just count the fingers on your hands if you wish to be affirmed in your thinking. But the mathematical tool we use to “count” those fingers is Base 10, which makes perfect sense because we all have ten fingers and ten toes, therefore counting via Base 10 is perfectly normal and natural. Though I might argue Base 5 would also make sense.

But believing 2 + 2 = 4 to be an irrefutable fact completely closes the intellectual door to using any other tool with which to count. For example, if we were to count using Base 3, then 2 + 2 would equal 11, only in this case “11” in Base 3 converts to “4” in Base 10. So, in a sense, 11 = 4 when the proper parameters and perspective are understood.

Of course, in the interest of clear and concise communication, it makes perfect sense for everyone to employ the same “language” (in this case Base 10) when “speaking” in mathematical terms. But 2 + 2 = 4 only applies when counting in Base 10 and is not “truth” in all senses of the word. Because we are trained to think in binary absolutes, of either right or wrong, because we are told 2 + 2 = 4 is empirical truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, our minds of shuttered of any and all other perspectives and realities.

Very little, if anything, of what we purport to “know” is learned firsthand through direct experience or inquiry. Nearly all we believe we know is taught to us by those who were also first taught what they believe they “know”. Meaning the present-day consensus reality is a shared “illusion” of unknown validity and is mostly based upon self-interested circular logic and self-reinforcing confirmation.

I think; therefore, I am…I think. Besides, my fellow insane asylum inmate tells me I am, therefore I must be real because I can clearly see she is real; therefore, she is thee and I am me.

When we are told (by experts and authorities who obviously “know” more than we do) that one person, place or thing is true and correct, all other explanations, versions, concepts and alternative realities become essentially immaterial, moot and thereby inherently and irrefutably wrong. While we are assured there are a billion paths to nirvana, like a rigged casino game, all outcomes are preordained to end within the cognitive corral of consensus reality.

To think, let alone act, outside the norm is heresy at best and social/career suicide at worst. While we will all excuse an occasional dalliance with perceived nonsensical thinking if properly buttressed with laughter and “just joking” disclaimers, those who dare dance with the dark sided of unchaperoned thought and action are scorned, shunned and isolated.

Such is the way of the hive mind.

Born into the hive mind, raised inside a self-reinforcing and self-affirming insanity, “educated” by those similarly afflicted and then mixed into the general population safely ensconced within the insane asylum, are we really surprised the consensus reality dominants our thoughts, speech, thinking and actions? So complete is the illusion, so confining the cognitive box, it becomes nearly impossible to escape the chains that bind. And why would we even try?

For thousands of years the prevailing belief was/is that humans are doomed to be nothing more than…well, human. That we are slaves to the human “condition”, with no hope of escape unless we subject ourselves to the will of others, be it God, Emperor, King or President. How convenient, at least for those who benefit from the controlling belief system by setting the narrative memes, that we are told the only way out is to dig deeper in. Are we really so brainwashed that we truly believe more conformity, compliance, cooperation and concession is the path to personal happiness, awareness and enlightenment?

For those who drink deeply of the hypnotic and narcissistic elixir so readily available as the price of admission, the answer is unequivocally yes. But others, in ever increasing numbers, are beginning to question reality as presented in ways large and small. Some are chipping away at political and religious dogmas and ideologies, asking basic questions of heretofore previously unchallenged fundamental “truths”. Others are traveling deeper down the rabbit hole and discovering there are more than just one or two layers to the deception.

But for those who wish to begin, a basic question presents. How does one break from the consensus reality when the only tools available are designed to circle us back into its domain? Or as I like to say, how does one gain sanity when the only perspective we have is insane?

The fundamental premise one must begin with is simple; humans are not naturally insane and the present-day consensus reality is not the only reality, just the oppressively dominant one. Therefore, our so-called human condition is artificially induced via conditioning, repetition and affirmation. This means the present consensus reality can be changed, if for now only on a personal level. In fact, our “own” reality is the only reality we can possibly change in our severely degraded cognitive state.

The key is to view the problem as one would/should view recovery from an addiction. For that is what we are, horribly addicted to a reality that is poisonous at best and terminal at worst. The first step in any recovery is acknowledging our condition, taking personal responsibility for our situation and recognizing we (alone if necessary) must push against the tide and enact fundamental changes in everything we do, think and say.

No big deal…right?

Instead of perceiving the task as impossible, meaning not believable, it helps to embody a few concepts. Breaking from the consensus reality is a long process, not a onetime event. Reversing a lifetime of rote conditioning and addictive behavior is difficult work that will consume the rest of our lives. There is no finish line to cross, if for no other reason than short of becoming a Buddhist monk and withdrawing to an isolated mountain top monastery, we are constantly assaulted by the consensus reality even as we attempt to understand it, then create and enter an alternative one.

But this doesn’t mean things will not get better. Far from it in fact. As with any new learning, experience builds as the basics are mastered and repeatedly practiced. How does one eat the proverbial elephant? One bite at a time is the only answer to this seemingly impossible elephantine task.

How does one think outside the box when the parameters of the box are the only way we know how to think? To start, question everything, especially our own personal belief system. This doesn’t mean all beliefs must be jettisoned simply because there are flaws embedded within. Our belief system acts as a stabilizer in an increasingly insane world. To merely cut loose is the cognitive equivalent of cutting our engines and letting the hurricane smash our boat upon the rocky shore just because we no longer trust the engine.

Strategic reassessment is necessary in order to avoid an existential crisis of epic proportions. Cognitive confusion and emotional breakdowns are not pretty. The object is to get better without getting significantly worse during our awakening, so baby steps are in order throughout the process. Progress, not perfection, is the standing order at all times.

I try to employ several techniques in order to become familiar and practiced with thinking and living outside the consensus. Or more accurately, exploring the frayed edges where the controlling memes lose their effectiveness. I started relatively late in life, a substantial impediment for much unlearning must take place to make room for alternative concepts and considerations. On the other hand, with age comes wisdom and a clearer understanding of the various tricks and cons used over and over again to keep the herd corralled.

One method is to create an alter ego with which I practice becoming someone I wish to be, but presently am not. Many people today have already created alter egos on various social media platforms, either in their own name or concealed behind a fictitious character or alternative name. The problem is they often use the alter ego to say (and sometimes do) things they wouldn’t ordinarily say or do if directly exposed to others. Since this behavior is encouraged within the insane asylum of modern-day consensus reality because it is unhealthy and destructive, those who do so are headed deeper into the insanity.

My Cognitive Dissonance alter ego is a perfect example of my desire to practice that which I am not, but wish to be. And after a decade of practicing, I am closer than I was last week, month or year. The goal is not to become “Cognitive Dissonance”, for “he” is not me and I am not “him”, but to emulate those qualities I continuously imbue within the Cognitive Dissonance alter ego. Forward progress, not perfection, are my own personal marching orders.

The odd thing is this. By practicing the now possible as demonstrated by my alter ego, by devouring that elephant one bite at a time, the seemingly impossible soon becomes merely improbable, then impracticable, then very difficult, then problematic and soon enough actually possible. Managing personal expectations in order to gain perspective, rather than to self-deceive so we may apply temporarily soothing emotional and intellectual balms, is critical to forward progress.

This requires absolute personal accountability (I am solely responsible for all that I am and no one makes me do anything I don’t wish to do) self-honesty (all lies, at their root, begin with self-deception) and constant self (re)evaluation (the first signpost encountered is never the last).

But we need to do more if we are to begin to break consensus reality spell. And make no mistake about it, the hold it has upon us has all the characteristics of a spell cast upon us by powerful witches, overlords and demons. It is so commanding, in fact, that we know of no other way to live, work, speak and think. It is “reality” after all.

Michael Corleone said in ‘The Godfather Part 3’, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” While we would all like to believe it is “they” who pull us back into the consensus reality, often it is the other way around. While the overall beat of the narrative drum is set by powerful political, financial, military, corporate, religious and now social media entities, at least for now our cushy cages aren’t locked from the outside.

Endlessly conditioned via the carrot and the stick, nearly all of us tend to pull our cage doors shut and padlock them from inside. The tendency for the frightened or inflexible mind to seek closed cages and equally closed minds is well known and thoroughly documented. One of the ways we do this is to seek out and “consume” only information (notice I did not say “truth” or “facts”) which confirm our beliefs and cognitive bias.

To help combat my deeply ingrained bias I force myself to read (consume) things that are contrary to my perspective and point of view. This doesn’t necessarily mean just politics, though that is presently the favored method the meme makers use to divide and control, but also science, education, religion and so on. The primary purpose is not to change my mind, though that is sometimes the outcome, but simply to exercise my perceptive filters and expose them to the knowledge there is more than one perspective with which to view the insanity.

Essentially, I am attempting to pull myself out of a rut even if the result is simply to get stuck in the one next to it. I am exercising my imagination and creativity, my tolerance to disbelieve things I want to believe and to believe things I wish to disbelieve and don’t wish to challenge. I am exploring possibilities, not fact, truth or settled opinion. The value derived is in the process, not the immediate result.

But that still leaves the problem of speaking, and thereby thinking, in consensus reality words, concepts and beliefs. It is extremely difficult to think outside the box when the terms and concepts used to (critically) think require remaining safely within the box. In many respects we don’t know what we don’t know mostly because the unknown has not been described using new terms which introduce new imagined concepts. It’s sort of a chicken and egg thing. Which came first?

Regardless of what we do, think or say, we must first visualize or imagine “it” before the “reality” of what we are now doing, thinking or saying can be created. In practice, nearly all of the basic building blocks of the consensus reality are pre-formed and rapidly accessed by our minds, then combined to create a reality that closely conforms to the consensus. While we may believe we are being creative, the vast majority of imagination is “pre-imagined”. That, essentially, is what I mean when I speak of the consensus reality.

For example, we don’t actually “imagine” a chair, despite the fact there are millions of different designs and our “thought” or “idea” might incorporate slightly different elements. The word “chair” is already established in the consensus lexicon. And the word, when summoned from memory, recalls already imagined design elements, aka already experienced pre-imagined reality. While the element style may vary from region to region, basically it is a device made of sturdy material with four supports and a seat, often a back and sometimes arm rests.

There is little to no substantial creative thought required to conjure up the consensus reality, precisely the reason we are firmly cemented within this reality.

I often say I have no original thought, just original composition and arrangement of old concepts and ideas. I simply lack the capacity to plow new ground in my present state of conditioned cognitive paralysis. But there are people out there who do possess the imaginative capacity to venture off the beaten path to some degree or another. In a broad category sense, they are the artists of the world. More narrowly they are authors, in particular those who write fiction and specifically those who write science fiction.

While general fiction writers are most definitely creative, for the most part they are simply more fully utilizing consensus reality concepts and beliefs in more creative ways. But by no means am I denigrating fiction authors, just as I do not denigrate myself for saying I have no original ideas, only original composition. And there are certainly fiction genres, such as horror (Steven King et al.) or fantasy (Alice in Wonderland, Harry Potter etc.) which compel the reader to push the boundaries of consensus reality.

For me though, I find science fiction (and to a much lesser extent science fantasy) forces the mind to not only think, but imagine outside the box. Even though the science fiction author has already created the concepts while writing the story, because many of the concepts fall outside our consensus reality, we are forced to go beyond our known reality and visualize what we are reading as new or altered reality. Often, we must go where we have never gone before.

While the list of excellent science fiction, both old and new, is long and varied, I tend to seek out authors who force me out of my comfort zone by focusing not just on futuristic machines, by thought, concepts, language and thinking. While I prefer audio books, which allow me to listen while doing mundane chores, physical books work just fine.

For example,

The Three-Body Problem Trilogy by Cixin Liu and translated from Chinese. An excellent study in how alien memes and narratives are created, propagated and assimilated while set in China’s Cultural Revolution perspective.

Rosewater by new author Tade Thompson, who explores how the integration of an alien entity changes everything. Set in Nigeria, this alone brings a fresh perspective to western cultural points of view.

The Dispatcher by John Scalzi, a delightfully interesting story about how life works when death doesn’t.

Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A Heinlein, a classic that still resonates today for its eye opening perspective on ingrained cultural beliefs when “groked” from an alien point of view.

Again, the purpose of this activity is to exercise our mind and imagination, to push beyond our conditioned comfort zone, to teach our mind, body and soul the invisible fence line is just an illusion we are conditioned to believe is real. It’s sort of a “fake it until you make it” exercise, adding unfamiliar experiences to the mix that help create memories, which in turn begins to supplant conditioned cognitive reflex. Do it often enough and it enters long term memory from which the consensus reality is retrieved and realized.

The above are just a few suggestions on ways we can begin to pull out the deep roots of consensus reality perception and commence to create our own alternative reality. The key is to understand one simple idea. We are deeply immersed inside an all consuming and very convincing consensus reality. As Albert Einstein once said, “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”. To expect we can escape after performing a few Jedi mind tricks is naïve and self-delusional.

The one item not outlined above is probably the most important facet of this practice. If we remain as deeply immersed in the consensus reality as we presently are, no amount of expended effort in the opposite direction is going to move us very far off the starting line. When standing under a waterfall, a garden hose isn’t going to make much of a difference. We must begin to withdraw physically, mentally and emotionally from the hustle and bustle of everyday life inside the matrix of insanity.

For most this is the most difficult part of the journey. Many won’t even try, preferring the insanity they know to the unfamiliar and frightening reality of personal responsibility and sacrifice that can lead to greater self-understanding and enlightenment. To walk away, or even just distance ourselves from the hive mind, is to experience self-imposed isolation and a rejection of much of the external affirmation we have been conditioned to believe we need. It takes courage and perseverance to be contrary to the herd for any substantial period of time.

This is why I said earlier we cannot discard all our anchors at once, regardless of their flaws and entanglements. For to do so mostly assuredly will destabilize us to the point where we are falling back faster than we are moving forward. Two steps back with each step forward is not the way out, but deeper in.  Whatever we do to begin the withdrawal process, the most critical aspect is to move toward a goal with purpose and intelligence rather than run from ourselves in fear and haste.

Perhaps it’s time to begin to believe the impossible.