In my last article, I spent a considerable amount of time describing how a large part of society today is still mired in mainstream thinking and I pointed out how I don't see or expect the possibility that much will change in the future based upon a general lack of interest in the subject of ecological overshoot and collapse along with the myriad symptom predicaments that overshoot produces. Much of the material is subject matter that I have covered here before, although some of that (subject matter) was covered a considerable while back.
It's just that I see so much material consistently which is based on what amounts to unicorn magic pixie dust rather than actual science or even common sense once one understands the basics of overshoot. Take for instance this approach from Simon Michaux, which has already been attempted in many different forms in the past, most famously as The Venus Project. Attempting such projects entirely ignores ecological overshoot and the simple fact that civilization itself is unsustainable. Michaux made himself widely known for his telling the "Captains of Industry" that their plan to replace fossil fuels with non-renewable "renewable" energy harvesting devices, simply stated, would not work. So, his plan now has replaced these devices with thorium modular nuclear reactors and he is embarking on a project to build a "radical tomorrow." Unfortunately, this project is destined for failure. It isn't how civilization is powered that is the issue, it is the fact that civilization is built on the platform of technology use, making BOTH of those systems unsustainable. It is precisely the power of technology to remove or reduce negative feedbacks allowing for population growth which then feeds back into a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop of more people, more technology use, and increasing overshoot. Powering it differently won't change anything - the systems themselves will remain unsustainable.
This seems to be precisely where practically every idea fails the sniff test of sustainability. Technology use reduces both sustainability and resilience by increasing complexity. One is simply working to destroy the future by trading it for more of something today. This is precisely what makes both civilization and technology use self-terminating. Some technology will remain after industrial civilization collapses, but only sustainable technology use powered by natural systems (think of water wheels powering grain mills) and used in consideration of sustainable limits will continue. Much of the infrastructure which surrounds us today will disappear or become obsolete as I pointed out in these articles here and here and here. Despite this fact, many people are still busy promoting ideas (such as these contained here and here) that don't actually help but instead increase overshoot.
For another view of the unicorn magic pixie dust, take a look at this idea. Understanding why this is an unfolding disaster in progress and seeing exactly what we are losing as a result of these activities points out yet another idea that fails the sniff test of sustainability.
There are ideas which stress sustainability and resilience and ways of living which don't entail worshiping modernity, but these ideas get little recognition in the media or society because they aren't popular. These ways of living focus on re-localization and developing more resilience through regeneration and a reduction of dependence of technology use and civilization. Some of this is achieved first and foremost by understanding wetiko (a brief introduction is here and a much more indepth description is here) and that modernity traps us in the predicaments we find ourselves enmeshed within as Bruce Meder points out in his book review of Hospicing Modernity. It is the constant attempts at innovation and the obsession with solutions which beset modernity with ridiculous ideas like those above (unicorn magic pixie dust) and quite literally chain us to the unsustainable systems most all of us are now embedded within. If there is to be any voluntary reduction of technology use and therefore ecological overshoot, I am certain the way to accomplish it is included in this paragraph (mostly within the links provided and the links those links provide). Unmasking wetiko is absolutely required in order for society to be able to make the behavioral changes necessary to voluntarily reduce overshoot and its concomitant symptom predicaments. As can be seen in the article linked in the previous sentence (I posted the study itself earlier last fall), everything I have been pointing out in these articles over the last three years is true.
My last dozen or so articles all point to this same set of sociological delusions that continue to exacerbate the overshoot predicament that we are ALL a part of. Very few Indigenous tribes still exist who reject modern advanced technology use, and these people and their cultures are our last link to an example of a community which can actually be truly sustainable for the long term. Bargaining to maintain civilization in an attempt to prolong our level of comfort will most likely end in extinction. Even experts who understand extinction have an aversion to looking at the predicament of extinction as if it includes us, as evidenced from this recent interview with Peter Brannen by Nate Hagens.
So, to wrap things up, I'm going to post the poignant part of the abstract from the study I posted last fall that I mentioned above, quote:
"Previously, anthropogenic ecological overshoot has been identified as a fundamental cause of the myriad symptoms we see around the globe today from biodiversity loss and ocean acidification to the disturbing rise in novel entities and climate change. In the present paper, we have examined this more deeply, and explore the behavioural drivers of overshoot, providing evidence that overshoot is itself a symptom of a deeper, more subversive modern crisis of human behaviour. We work to name and frame this crisis as ‘the Human Behavioural Crisis’ and propose the crisis be recognised globally as a critical intervention point for tackling ecological overshoot. We demonstrate how current interventions are largely physical, resource intensive, slow-moving and focused on addressing the symptoms of ecological overshoot (such as climate change) rather than the distal cause (maladaptive behaviours). We argue that even in the best-case scenarios, symptom-level interventions are unlikely to avoid catastrophe or achieve more than ephemeral progress."
It is ironic that they don't come right out and say what the maladaptive human behaviors are in the abstract, but more research indicates that technology use is that actual behavior. The word consumption is frequently used, but all forms of consumption today involve technology use. Sadly, their paper is still focused on bargaining, attempting to "make civilization more sustainable," which, as I have pointed out above, means that the system itself is still unsustainable. Gail Tverberg posted a new article that discusses the narratives that I pointed out in my article at the beginning of this month, quote:
"The popular narrative tends to see ourselves as having a great deal of power to manage problems with our current economy, but I don’t think that we have very much power to influence the system we find ourselves embedded in. The economic system behaves on its own, based on market forces, just as a child grows up, matures, and eventually dies. The system within which we live is very much guided by what we call self-organization, which is outside our power to control."
One must read the full article to appreciate what it discloses, but suffice it to say that it reiterates much of what I explain in my articles about our lack of agency (here and here and here and here and here and here). So many people actually believe that we have the means to control consumption, but this is an illusion that in reality doesn't exist as I've pointed out countless times now. Unless and until society comprehends the difference between a problem and a predicament and how technology use fits into these predicaments, society will be unable to accomplish much more than to exacerbate the issues.
Until next time, Live Now!
Simon Michaux is being true to himself and "living now!"
I don't think he's attached to a mainstream outcome - by his own admission, his research is not finished. He accepts that most of the world's population will perish. He doesn't accept that burning stuff will have been the pinnacle of human technological achievement.
Simon is wearing his Superman shirt in his conversation with the Promethian Project, and he made reference to the Arcadians. So this exemplifies how Arcadians respond to predicaments.