I hear what you say, and for sure there is truth in it. Fossil fuels are the source of Western wealth and our economies will collapse without the energy intensity of fossil. So it is inevitable that corporations, governments, wealthy people will all work to hide the truth of the coming collapse. And that must be called out and they should be condemned for it.
That said, everyone is complicit. My fossil fuel use means I am to blame. Your fossil fuel use means you are to blame too. I don't mean just filling your car or taking a flight, but also the food you and I eat, and the homes we inhabit, the companies we work for, the heating we turn up, the clothes we wear, the technologies we crave........ the whole of our lives and our children's lives are fossil fuel powered. Heck, the computers and servers and internet you and I are using right now are a product of that same fossil wealth! We are all complicit.
So I am loathe to pick out and victimise this or that company or group or individual and say, 'This is all their fault!' Or 'We have all been duped! We didn't know what was going on!'
We all knew what was going on, we just chose to get on with out lives and pretend it wasn't happening.
Substack seems full of people blaming other people for something, trying to drum up some anger and outrage. Us and Them. To me that is exactly the opposite of a solution to anything.
For me it seems obvious; if we have more than tripled our human population three-fold in my lifetime (which we have) based on fossil fuel use, and that fossil fuel use is going to be severely constrained in the near future (which it will be), then that population of 8 billion plus will surely collapse. That will certainly solve many of our problems, though will be messy and full of violence and anger and horror. And I think it has already started, and is on the news channels right now.
But please, don't just blame the actors of the day; those wicked leaders and evil rich people and manipulative demagogues and craven media tycoons and corrupted politicians. It is lazy and inaccurate because we have all created these people and they are in our own image.
I can't disagree, except to say that people are heavily propagandized to think as they do. If an honest discussion were had, would most go along with the elite money-for-lives scheme?
As to collapse, yes, in my view inevitable as well. The question for me has always been: Will we manage the decline, or will collapse manage itself. I'd infinitely prefer the former, though none of us has the power, except in mass resistance, to change that course.
We haven't managed the ascent except for selfish personal interests, so I really, really doubt anyone will be managing the more rapid descent, except selfishly, each of us trying to protect our own interests. As I am doing already.
For me the question is how much of the technology of our civilisation will we still be able to keep working and fixed. Cars and trucks will become useless once the fuel is too expensive. Planes too. So we all become 'local' and the world becomes bigger again. But how will we work? How will we heat our homes? How will we even eat?
Will we lose the ability to fix computers, for example, or will they become 'cargo cult' objects? Might we even lose access to the last 50 years of record keeping, such as land ownership and citizenship and birth certificates, and even money and wealth?
There are technological solutions to problems of class warfare, I don't see why this wouldn't be the case. As Orwell put it,
"And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons."
Now, this doesn't have to be weaponry, necessarily. Any move toward open source technology and energy generation is inherently democratic. Leftists would do well to focus education regarding agriculture, electrical generation through simple means (i.e. wind or water, sterling engines, etc.), ham radio communications, medical care, 3D printing, etc. We simply must reduce our dependence on our would-be murderers.
On a grander scale, we need to buy time to make this switch. I don't really understand Leftist opposition to solar radiation management experiments, iron fertilization, etc.
Agreed, in every respect, except climate breakdown is not a 'technological' problem. It's an earth system that we have f**ked up. The climate movement has been duped into believing in technological solutions, though. That is spot on.
Your second sentence, right on. Not sure about omnicide. The Permian extinction still left a lot behind to fill the empty niches. My suspicion is, that will be the case again. Not sure if *we'll* be left behind or taken away though.
I was duped. The argument used to get me to switch from saying "global warming" to "climate change" was that the know-nothings always pointed to record snowfalls and snow in warm places as proof there was no global warming.
Going back to using "global warming" after reading this and listening to Roger Halam.
I hear what you say, and for sure there is truth in it. Fossil fuels are the source of Western wealth and our economies will collapse without the energy intensity of fossil. So it is inevitable that corporations, governments, wealthy people will all work to hide the truth of the coming collapse. And that must be called out and they should be condemned for it.
That said, everyone is complicit. My fossil fuel use means I am to blame. Your fossil fuel use means you are to blame too. I don't mean just filling your car or taking a flight, but also the food you and I eat, and the homes we inhabit, the companies we work for, the heating we turn up, the clothes we wear, the technologies we crave........ the whole of our lives and our children's lives are fossil fuel powered. Heck, the computers and servers and internet you and I are using right now are a product of that same fossil wealth! We are all complicit.
So I am loathe to pick out and victimise this or that company or group or individual and say, 'This is all their fault!' Or 'We have all been duped! We didn't know what was going on!'
We all knew what was going on, we just chose to get on with out lives and pretend it wasn't happening.
Substack seems full of people blaming other people for something, trying to drum up some anger and outrage. Us and Them. To me that is exactly the opposite of a solution to anything.
For me it seems obvious; if we have more than tripled our human population three-fold in my lifetime (which we have) based on fossil fuel use, and that fossil fuel use is going to be severely constrained in the near future (which it will be), then that population of 8 billion plus will surely collapse. That will certainly solve many of our problems, though will be messy and full of violence and anger and horror. And I think it has already started, and is on the news channels right now.
But please, don't just blame the actors of the day; those wicked leaders and evil rich people and manipulative demagogues and craven media tycoons and corrupted politicians. It is lazy and inaccurate because we have all created these people and they are in our own image.
Thanks for adding this.
> That said, everyone is complicit.
I can't disagree, except to say that people are heavily propagandized to think as they do. If an honest discussion were had, would most go along with the elite money-for-lives scheme?
As to collapse, yes, in my view inevitable as well. The question for me has always been: Will we manage the decline, or will collapse manage itself. I'd infinitely prefer the former, though none of us has the power, except in mass resistance, to change that course.
Appreciate the thoughts!
Thomas
We haven't managed the ascent except for selfish personal interests, so I really, really doubt anyone will be managing the more rapid descent, except selfishly, each of us trying to protect our own interests. As I am doing already.
For me the question is how much of the technology of our civilisation will we still be able to keep working and fixed. Cars and trucks will become useless once the fuel is too expensive. Planes too. So we all become 'local' and the world becomes bigger again. But how will we work? How will we heat our homes? How will we even eat?
Will we lose the ability to fix computers, for example, or will they become 'cargo cult' objects? Might we even lose access to the last 50 years of record keeping, such as land ownership and citizenship and birth certificates, and even money and wealth?
Interesting times.
It is not either/or, it is both/and.
There are technological solutions to problems of class warfare, I don't see why this wouldn't be the case. As Orwell put it,
"And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons."
Now, this doesn't have to be weaponry, necessarily. Any move toward open source technology and energy generation is inherently democratic. Leftists would do well to focus education regarding agriculture, electrical generation through simple means (i.e. wind or water, sterling engines, etc.), ham radio communications, medical care, 3D printing, etc. We simply must reduce our dependence on our would-be murderers.
On a grander scale, we need to buy time to make this switch. I don't really understand Leftist opposition to solar radiation management experiments, iron fertilization, etc.
Thank you for naming this so succinctly, a sick feeling of heartlessness in obvious pervasive proportions.
Agreed, in every respect, except climate breakdown is not a 'technological' problem. It's an earth system that we have f**ked up. The climate movement has been duped into believing in technological solutions, though. That is spot on.
Thanks, Margi. And yes, you're right.
Thomas
This isn't genocide, though -- this is *omnicide*-- this will potentially end all life on Earth. What use is money if you and everyone else are dead?
Your second sentence, right on. Not sure about omnicide. The Permian extinction still left a lot behind to fill the empty niches. My suspicion is, that will be the case again. Not sure if *we'll* be left behind or taken away though.
Thomas
I was duped. The argument used to get me to switch from saying "global warming" to "climate change" was that the know-nothings always pointed to record snowfalls and snow in warm places as proof there was no global warming.
Going back to using "global warming" after reading this and listening to Roger Halam.