💾 Archived View for sdf.org › mmeta4 › Phlog › phlog-2021-12-12.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:30:15.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-01-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
December 12 2021
P.L.A.N. for Collapse
Still working my way through William Catton's 1982 book 'Overshoot'[0].
Got distracted when I picked up "Peruvian Plunge"[1], Sam Mitchell's
self-published travel memoir/gringo spirit quest from his time in Peru.
Sam Mitchell is better known as Hambone Littletail, the cantankerous
doomsday prophet and chieftain of the HumptyDumptyTribe[2] Youtube
channel. He can be a real bonehead but is a natural-born storyteller
and I found his book quite engaging.
Anyway, the PLAN. PLAN stands for Planetary Limits Academic Network[3],
the brainchild of Tom Murphy[4], professor of Physics at UC, San Diego.
PLAN seeks to bring limits-aware academics together in a multi-disciplinary
fashion for the purpose of engineering an actual plan to give humanity a
"soft landing" as it descends from the precarious peaks of a fossil-fueled
modernity that is looking increasingly poised for a hard collapse.
Since I'm back to reading 'Overshoot', which PLAN actually lists as one
of its foundational resources, my curiosity was piqued. The group has
already gotten a white paper published, an essay titled 'Modernity is
incompatible with planetary limits: Developing a PLAN for the future'
which garnered some media attention, specifically a NPR/Cincinnati
Edition interview; links to both are on the project's website under
"Resources>>PLAN in the Media". The radio interview is worth listening
to as it both references most of the paper's talking points and is
illustrative of how the mainstream media can cover and still dismiss
uncomfortable narratives.
So, no plan yet but they do have a list of "working hypotheses" also
on the project's website under "Principles>>Looking for More Detail?".
Curiously there is no mention of overpopulation as one of the primary
causes of humanity's predicament. Catton's book clearly points this
out as does the Limits to Growth, also listed as one of the project's
foundational resources. Tom Murphy seems well aware of this truth as
well as expressed on his blog so one has to conclude that other members
of PLAN felt it was still too taboo for inclusion.
Another working hypothesis states "The ERoEI of coal is now below that for
wind and equal or below that of solar PV." But is it really? Are they
even comparable given that coal-fired electricity is dispatchable[5],
somewhat portable, can be stored virtually forever, and can be burned
directly for heat or even turned into other forms such as oil or gas
if needed. Wind and solar PV are non-dispatchable without significant
battery storage capacity or the ability to shuffle electrons around
via a "smart grid", neither of which exist now and would require huge
investments of energy and finite resources to manifest. More importantly,
wind and solar PV affordability is significantly due to the use of still
relatively cheap fossil fuels in the manufacture and maintenance. This
has been illustrated many times by other academics so the inclusion of
this working hypothesis is odd and likely for political reasons.
On a positive note, the project acknowledges humanity faces a predicament
with no workable solutions that maintain our current paradigm of endless
growth. Further, they recognize several paradigm-shattering truths:
- the Industrial Revolution was really the Fossil Fuel Age
- becoming a "space-faring species" is a non-attainable goal
- neo-classical economics has no basis in bio-physical reality
- we have already left the climatic stability of the Holocene
- humans are part of and inextricably dependent on nature
- issues of collapse are now global and without precedence
The aforementioned white paper elaborates further on these and related
points but probably the most important addition is the acknowledgment
that evolution has ill-equipped humanity for dealing with such a massive
multi-faceted shitshow, even when there is awareness. And it sort of
makes the case for a lack of free will, that like every other life form
on Earth we instinctively strive for MORE as efficiently as possible for
as long as possible. Viewed in that light the neo-classical economics
of capitalism as just us optimizing the uptake from nature's juice box.
Catton actually goes further, pointing out that the surplus conditions
the New World provided underpinned America's democratic ideals until
it transitioned from surplus to drawdown which ushered in the rightward
shift towards authoritarianism that has been going on for decades now.
And the same thing is happening in Europe and elsewhere. The shift from
non-competitive/semi-cooperative to aggressive/selfish as resources become
scarce is fairly common and has been documented in various primates and
of course rats.
None of this bodes well for those hoping to sell humanity a road map
consisting largely of accepting LESS and being happy about it because
it's for the greater good. In a recent blog post Murphy laments that so
few of his colleagues, after perusing PLAN's working hypotheses, reach
similar conclusions. He shouldn't be surprised; as Ben McCall (one of
the white paper's authors) mentions in the NPR interview, academics are
now learning more and more about less and less. In a way they are just
another expression of the mega-machine's dissipative structure; the huge
energy and resource flows into the System give rise to ever-more complex
structures like hyper-specialization. Those earning a living from such
endeavors are unlikely to see a problem nor support efforts that would
ultimately curtail their livelihood. For such folks growth *is* good and
they are doing their part for Progress, from the caves to the stars.
As the NPR interviewer concluded, "Good luck with saving the world!".
A possibly more realistic take:
"Everyone has a PLAN until they get punched in the face."
-- Mike Tyson
But seriously, I do wish PLAN all the luck in the world as I do any
similar groups like The REAL Green New Deal Project[6] and Population
Balance[7]. It will be interesting to see if they succeed where others
have not. My guess is they will drift towards techno-solutionism which,
as the recent COP26 illustrated, can be monetized and doesn't question
dominant paradigms. The conference was literally a trade-show for the
green energy and geo-engineering industries.
- -
Refs:
[0] https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p009884
[1] https://www.lulu.com/shop/hambone-littletail/shop/\
hambone-littletail/peruvian-plunge/ebook/product-1w4mw664.html
[2] https://www.youtube.com/user/Humptydumptytribe
[3] https://planetarylimits.net
[4] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation
[6] https://www.realgnd.org/
[7] https://www.populationbalance.org/