I wish more people would connect the dots between war and environmental destruction. I'd love to see. more environmentalists protesting this. The silos that keep environmentalists becoming anti-war activists as well -- even just by showing up to these kinds of demonstrations and offering support -- has never made sense to me.
The environmental damage to Gaza (which of course goes beyond borders) is being noted by some. A few years ago I read that the US military would be the 47th largest polluter on the planet if it was a country. Pretty sure I put that in one of my articles. I agree, connecting war and environmental destruction is an important subject that should be addressed.
I hope you are right and that indeed this system will self-implode. The problem is that it will be kept on life support by the powers-that-be at all cost, unless they are brought down by either the natural cycle or a deliberate effort on our part.
I think we may know the answer to the Fermi Paradox. Perhaps all advanced civilizations destroy themselves. There's no one to visit or signal us because civilizations either go extinct or knock themselves down to a permanent subsistence level.
I think you are exactly correct. There could be a few extremely rare civilizations that succeed in warding off self-destruction. But due to the speed of light and vast time differences, these rare few will never know about each other and will most likely exist at very different time frames. It’s possible that if they did some archaeology space journeys out of curiosity, they might discover the ancient remains of some long, dead civilization, that couldn’t control their consumption.
Perhaps this is best, because if this succeeding was more commonplace, then that alone could present problems in the universe.
When I was a little kid I was incredibly excited by Star Trek. The idea of that level of space travel was fuel for the imagination. Now, I understand the insurmountable challenges of such endeavors, and the harm it causes to humanity in both physical harm to the planet, and resources stolen from humans in need.
I have little doubt civilizations exist on other worlds. It seems to me that any reaching a certain stage of technological achievement likely ends up with similar problems to ours, but of course I am limited by my experience as a human on one planet.
Perhaps on a world that limited their population and had no frivolous consumption more could be achieved, but the distances are incomprehensibly vast, requiring hundreds or thousands of generations to get from point A to point B unless we can travel at the speed of light or theories about jumping space time are possible, but once again, the energy required exceeds what's available on Earth.
Projects like the James Webb Telescope are amazing, and even Earth observatories yield amazing information. Unmanned probes are relatively cheap as well. Manned missions are ridiculous hubris and add unnecessary immense expense to projects. For the most part, all of this adds up to misplaced priorities. We have unexplored unknown life on THIS planet, enough to learn from for a thousand years.
We need to get our act together down here to earn the right to go further, if there is ANY chance that is possible.
The energy required for an alien civilization to visit us alone makes it highly improbable, IMO. And if a signal through space makes it here it's likely there will be no one to answer, should we return it. The nearest star to ours, Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away. If there are any astrophysicists here, please weigh in. This is hardly my area.
Also evidence of the mad idea we're going to mine other planets and asteroids. The math doesn't add up. And that's ignoring the pollution and devastation to the Earth in such endeavors.
Isn’t it so that the power to depose Trump lies with the Republicans in Congress? An occasional madman is understandable, but half our legislators? That’s not to endorse the Democrats who also are bought, but at least we’d be able to talk about what matters, where we would be familiarizing everyone with the issue. Even getting attention on this post, that is so comprehensive, could do it. That virtually all the carrying on about the future is as if there’s no overshoot is very frightening. What to do? That’s why I thought a Zoom with people as savvy as you are would be a good idea.
Depose Trump, and we have Peter Thiel financed JD Vance to step in. Thiel of Palantir fame has sold his AI technology to Israel, aiding the Gaza genocide. Palantir is now gathering into a master database of every detail of me and you. The Democrats for the most part are gravy train cowards as you say, bought. AIPAC money is particularly hideous.
Writing here and Zooming are fine, but I suspect our days of being able to do these things are numbered. Like Margi Prideaux and Justin McAffee, I agree organizing and building a strong local community are the best bet for survival. Quietly, privately with no digital footprint. If I was younger and healthier, I would probably be focusing on that.
The Constitution makes Vance #2 and Mike Johnson #3. I am unaware of any way around that. Plus, the Dems tried to impeach Trump twice and lost, such is the corruption of the system now. This is coming down to people in the street risking their lives and freedom IMO.
I appreciate it Sue, but I process best reading. It's faster. It's hard for me to devote hours to podcasts. I'll try to watch a bit, I am well aware of Nate.
I promise I am not saying what I'm about to say to plug my novel. I'm saying it because you wrote this:
"They wish to kill most of us. I mean this in the most literal sense," and it made me think of the novel's premise. So here goes:
My novel MagicLand occurs 2000 years after they do just that. The novel doesn't go into it much because it's not central to the story, but it's a key part of the background. Faced with a world full of hungry, water-starved, and angry climate refugees, the .01%, who turn to expensive augmentation, just say, "Fuck it, let's just exterminate the unwashed masses, and do it in a way they can't fight, through CRISPR and DNA-based pathogens."
When I look at the behavior of oligarchs and the current regime, it's easy for me to wonder if that nightmare is not a lot closer than we understand it to be. Before the election, I asked folks in various forums, "Do we really want these people overseeing the emergence of AI and Quantum Computing?"
The answer was, apparently, yes. Yes we do. I say this in recognition that there is some emerging data that hints at a stolen election, but it's an election that never should have been close.
I do think that late-stage capitalism's self-destruction is possible, but I'm not terribly optimistic. We seem very far away from the notion that we all have more in common with the Iranian or Palestinian or Nigerian people than we do the people who "govern" (lord over) us.
The current consensus on global warming by 2100 seems to stand at 2.7° C and the damage will be exponential, not linear. There are so many concerns now from ocean acidification and running out of heat absorbing capability to almost complete loss of land carbon sinks in 2024. Much of this is taking climate science by surprise, the models being behind what we are witnessing.
Those models will only be more challenged by the fools running the country now.
AI and quantum computing are only as good as those who put the technology to use, and those in power are sociopaths or worse for the most part. AI is already having a profound environmental impact, and claims it will be used to solve climate change are pure conjecture at best, and more likely gaslighting. I don't use it in my research or writing, and resent it when it shows up in my research searches on duckduckgo. I avoid google like the plague.
This is late stage capitalism, and capitalism can only exist on consumption. Our ability to consume depends on energy, still primarily oil and coal. The day is coming when only the elite and military will have access to what's left. As economies fail under the weight of inflation, desperation will grow and continue to breed strong man environments. What's left of capitalism will be near or actual slavery in service of the oligarchs IF we don't simply nuke ourselves as the hole deepens.
I am made aware of how "elite" you and In are in our knowledge and thinking every time I am forced to grocery shop. Engaging and witnessing the ignorance of the public drains me. The ignorance isn't just the top of the food chain. Elon and the like can only exist with his stupid admirers. The stupidity, while based in the failure of education, is made virulent by sycophant media.
No problem with you mentioning your work. I welcome all who write and possess knowledge and wisdom to promote here. The more voices, the better.
Is 2.7 degrees by 2100 based on IPCC report?- because that is wildly understated.
'as recently as 2015, the Paris Climate Agreement, relying on the IPCC’s summary of the science, claimed we could stay under +1.5°C by 2100 - if we hit ‘net-zero carbon emissions’ by 2050 (a strategy still endorsed by the IPCC).
You might want to read those numbers again. What they tell us is, in 2025 we’ve blasted past a dangerous temperature limit, set for the end of the century only 9 years ago. They also reveal we are still relying on obviously-redundant solutions like ‘the transition to renewables’, ‘carbon capture/removal’ and ‘EVs’, to prevent us getting to a dangerous point we’ve already passed.'
'One of the few scientists willing to make ‘live’ projections in public, the marine biologist and IPCC contributor Greta Pecl, gives us less than five years before loss of agricultural yields and extreme events become unmanageable.'
Easily at least 2.7 degrees by 2050, or earlier, but the effects are more important than the numbers.
I agree, that 2.7° could be quite conservative. Climate scientists are in disagreement. In a survey on the Guardian, some were talking about 3.5° a year ago. With Trump's unleashing of any faint attempts to mitigate warming, projections could be far worse soon. I have an article in the works on agriculture, but the more I dig, the more I have to dig. Certainly, it's of immediate, profound concern.
Talk of staying under 1.5° is ridiculous. That horse is out of the barn, and five miles down the road.
EVs were gaslighting as is carbon capture to pacify the public. It's tragic that EROI on oil hasn't collapsed before an inhabitable planet will. Going to look up Greta Peci, thank you.
They may say 3.5 by 2100 in public but I think it's more like 4-6 in private. 2100 is irrelevant- agricultural collapse will come by 2050 at the latest.
Thank you for the link. Solid article that makes many great points about the problems with the IPCC and misguidedly shirked responsibility of the climate scientists to speak out. Peter Kalmus stands out as an exception. Michael Mann on the other hand who I despise not so much. There was a lot of interesting commentary as well. I'll be reading that and the article again.
I always appreciate it when readers steer me to sources of information I may have otherwise missed. Thanks.
Agreed on all points. It’s a systemic problem, of course. The Dems weren’t taking us down a better path. It’s just that the current owners of the levers of power are accelerating us along that path. And, hey, who knows? Maybe by facing this current regime we will be forced to make the changes necessary to change direction. Perhaps if the Dems had taken power, we’d be on this quieter road to the end, and then, suddenly, upon us, the carnage was too intense and there would have been no way out. I say that with the obvious caveat that it would be a lot easier dealing with a government whose door was open on climate change, rather than closed, even if the door was only ajar, and even if it was mostly performative.
Yes, climate change and overshoot are supposed to be my main subjects. Unfortunately, they have to be tied to a bigger picture, particularly with this “administration.” BTW, we just bombed Iran.
My parent's boosted themselves, too through homeownership. Eight or nine houses bought improved, and sold. However, we're at the end of that road. Every bit of wealth and capitalism originates with fossil fuels, which are running out, that's why fracking and tar sand oil came about. They are causing climate change and displacing millions. Did you happen to notice the Los Angeles fires a few months ago or Hurricane Helene that wiped out the Asheville, NC area last year? They also enabled overpopulation. The cobalt in your phone comes from mines in the Congo that use slave labor. Every transaction in capitalism stands on someone's neck. Nothing like a mindless insult to win an argument, lol. Educate yourself dipshit.
I wish more people would connect the dots between war and environmental destruction. I'd love to see. more environmentalists protesting this. The silos that keep environmentalists becoming anti-war activists as well -- even just by showing up to these kinds of demonstrations and offering support -- has never made sense to me.
The environmental damage to Gaza (which of course goes beyond borders) is being noted by some. A few years ago I read that the US military would be the 47th largest polluter on the planet if it was a country. Pretty sure I put that in one of my articles. I agree, connecting war and environmental destruction is an important subject that should be addressed.
And # 1 in killing children
I hope you are right and that indeed this system will self-implode. The problem is that it will be kept on life support by the powers-that-be at all cost, unless they are brought down by either the natural cycle or a deliberate effort on our part.
It's imploding, a house of cards now. Sadly, rather than plan for the end of the oil age we partied. It's going to be a hard crash now.
I think we may know the answer to the Fermi Paradox. Perhaps all advanced civilizations destroy themselves. There's no one to visit or signal us because civilizations either go extinct or knock themselves down to a permanent subsistence level.
I think you are exactly correct. There could be a few extremely rare civilizations that succeed in warding off self-destruction. But due to the speed of light and vast time differences, these rare few will never know about each other and will most likely exist at very different time frames. It’s possible that if they did some archaeology space journeys out of curiosity, they might discover the ancient remains of some long, dead civilization, that couldn’t control their consumption.
Perhaps this is best, because if this succeeding was more commonplace, then that alone could present problems in the universe.
When I was a little kid I was incredibly excited by Star Trek. The idea of that level of space travel was fuel for the imagination. Now, I understand the insurmountable challenges of such endeavors, and the harm it causes to humanity in both physical harm to the planet, and resources stolen from humans in need.
I have little doubt civilizations exist on other worlds. It seems to me that any reaching a certain stage of technological achievement likely ends up with similar problems to ours, but of course I am limited by my experience as a human on one planet.
Perhaps on a world that limited their population and had no frivolous consumption more could be achieved, but the distances are incomprehensibly vast, requiring hundreds or thousands of generations to get from point A to point B unless we can travel at the speed of light or theories about jumping space time are possible, but once again, the energy required exceeds what's available on Earth.
Projects like the James Webb Telescope are amazing, and even Earth observatories yield amazing information. Unmanned probes are relatively cheap as well. Manned missions are ridiculous hubris and add unnecessary immense expense to projects. For the most part, all of this adds up to misplaced priorities. We have unexplored unknown life on THIS planet, enough to learn from for a thousand years.
We need to get our act together down here to earn the right to go further, if there is ANY chance that is possible.
The energy required for an alien civilization to visit us alone makes it highly improbable, IMO. And if a signal through space makes it here it's likely there will be no one to answer, should we return it. The nearest star to ours, Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away. If there are any astrophysicists here, please weigh in. This is hardly my area.
Also evidence of the mad idea we're going to mine other planets and asteroids. The math doesn't add up. And that's ignoring the pollution and devastation to the Earth in such endeavors.
Isn’t it so that the power to depose Trump lies with the Republicans in Congress? An occasional madman is understandable, but half our legislators? That’s not to endorse the Democrats who also are bought, but at least we’d be able to talk about what matters, where we would be familiarizing everyone with the issue. Even getting attention on this post, that is so comprehensive, could do it. That virtually all the carrying on about the future is as if there’s no overshoot is very frightening. What to do? That’s why I thought a Zoom with people as savvy as you are would be a good idea.
Depose Trump, and we have Peter Thiel financed JD Vance to step in. Thiel of Palantir fame has sold his AI technology to Israel, aiding the Gaza genocide. Palantir is now gathering into a master database of every detail of me and you. The Democrats for the most part are gravy train cowards as you say, bought. AIPAC money is particularly hideous.
Writing here and Zooming are fine, but I suspect our days of being able to do these things are numbered. Like Margi Prideaux and Justin McAffee, I agree organizing and building a strong local community are the best bet for survival. Quietly, privately with no digital footprint. If I was younger and healthier, I would probably be focusing on that.
Have you seen anything about a way to depose Trump and not get Vance?
The Constitution makes Vance #2 and Mike Johnson #3. I am unaware of any way around that. Plus, the Dems tried to impeach Trump twice and lost, such is the corruption of the system now. This is coming down to people in the street risking their lives and freedom IMO.
I don't know what happened to my reply that I guess was on one of the restacks, but in case it didn't get to you:
Nate Hagens and Roman Krznaric are on the frontline for inspiring us!
There's an evolution going on
Trump is a symptom of utter cultural decay
https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/theres-an-evolution-going-on
The whole podcast is worth a listen, but in addition to what I have it cued up for in my post, especially listen to what’s at 17: 21.
What a family, with Roman being married to Kate Raworth.
I wish I could get them Roman, Kate, and Nate into a conversation too.
I appreciate it Sue, but I process best reading. It's faster. It's hard for me to devote hours to podcasts. I'll try to watch a bit, I am well aware of Nate.
I found you through Nate! It’s a very rich podcast in relation to what you said. Even click on 17:21 for just a couple of minutes.
I promise I am not saying what I'm about to say to plug my novel. I'm saying it because you wrote this:
"They wish to kill most of us. I mean this in the most literal sense," and it made me think of the novel's premise. So here goes:
My novel MagicLand occurs 2000 years after they do just that. The novel doesn't go into it much because it's not central to the story, but it's a key part of the background. Faced with a world full of hungry, water-starved, and angry climate refugees, the .01%, who turn to expensive augmentation, just say, "Fuck it, let's just exterminate the unwashed masses, and do it in a way they can't fight, through CRISPR and DNA-based pathogens."
When I look at the behavior of oligarchs and the current regime, it's easy for me to wonder if that nightmare is not a lot closer than we understand it to be. Before the election, I asked folks in various forums, "Do we really want these people overseeing the emergence of AI and Quantum Computing?"
The answer was, apparently, yes. Yes we do. I say this in recognition that there is some emerging data that hints at a stolen election, but it's an election that never should have been close.
I do think that late-stage capitalism's self-destruction is possible, but I'm not terribly optimistic. We seem very far away from the notion that we all have more in common with the Iranian or Palestinian or Nigerian people than we do the people who "govern" (lord over) us.
The current consensus on global warming by 2100 seems to stand at 2.7° C and the damage will be exponential, not linear. There are so many concerns now from ocean acidification and running out of heat absorbing capability to almost complete loss of land carbon sinks in 2024. Much of this is taking climate science by surprise, the models being behind what we are witnessing.
Those models will only be more challenged by the fools running the country now.
AI and quantum computing are only as good as those who put the technology to use, and those in power are sociopaths or worse for the most part. AI is already having a profound environmental impact, and claims it will be used to solve climate change are pure conjecture at best, and more likely gaslighting. I don't use it in my research or writing, and resent it when it shows up in my research searches on duckduckgo. I avoid google like the plague.
This is late stage capitalism, and capitalism can only exist on consumption. Our ability to consume depends on energy, still primarily oil and coal. The day is coming when only the elite and military will have access to what's left. As economies fail under the weight of inflation, desperation will grow and continue to breed strong man environments. What's left of capitalism will be near or actual slavery in service of the oligarchs IF we don't simply nuke ourselves as the hole deepens.
I am made aware of how "elite" you and In are in our knowledge and thinking every time I am forced to grocery shop. Engaging and witnessing the ignorance of the public drains me. The ignorance isn't just the top of the food chain. Elon and the like can only exist with his stupid admirers. The stupidity, while based in the failure of education, is made virulent by sycophant media.
No problem with you mentioning your work. I welcome all who write and possess knowledge and wisdom to promote here. The more voices, the better.
Is 2.7 degrees by 2100 based on IPCC report?- because that is wildly understated.
'as recently as 2015, the Paris Climate Agreement, relying on the IPCC’s summary of the science, claimed we could stay under +1.5°C by 2100 - if we hit ‘net-zero carbon emissions’ by 2050 (a strategy still endorsed by the IPCC).
You might want to read those numbers again. What they tell us is, in 2025 we’ve blasted past a dangerous temperature limit, set for the end of the century only 9 years ago. They also reveal we are still relying on obviously-redundant solutions like ‘the transition to renewables’, ‘carbon capture/removal’ and ‘EVs’, to prevent us getting to a dangerous point we’ve already passed.'
'One of the few scientists willing to make ‘live’ projections in public, the marine biologist and IPCC contributor Greta Pecl, gives us less than five years before loss of agricultural yields and extreme events become unmanageable.'
Easily at least 2.7 degrees by 2050, or earlier, but the effects are more important than the numbers.
I agree, that 2.7° could be quite conservative. Climate scientists are in disagreement. In a survey on the Guardian, some were talking about 3.5° a year ago. With Trump's unleashing of any faint attempts to mitigate warming, projections could be far worse soon. I have an article in the works on agriculture, but the more I dig, the more I have to dig. Certainly, it's of immediate, profound concern.
Talk of staying under 1.5° is ridiculous. That horse is out of the barn, and five miles down the road.
EVs were gaslighting as is carbon capture to pacify the public. It's tragic that EROI on oil hasn't collapsed before an inhabitable planet will. Going to look up Greta Peci, thank you.
If it's the same Guardian article mentioned here it contradicts itself
https://jacksondamian.substack.com/p/madder-than-expected
They may say 3.5 by 2100 in public but I think it's more like 4-6 in private. 2100 is irrelevant- agricultural collapse will come by 2050 at the latest.
Thank you for the link. Solid article that makes many great points about the problems with the IPCC and misguidedly shirked responsibility of the climate scientists to speak out. Peter Kalmus stands out as an exception. Michael Mann on the other hand who I despise not so much. There was a lot of interesting commentary as well. I'll be reading that and the article again.
I always appreciate it when readers steer me to sources of information I may have otherwise missed. Thanks.
You’re very welcome.
Agreed on all points. It’s a systemic problem, of course. The Dems weren’t taking us down a better path. It’s just that the current owners of the levers of power are accelerating us along that path. And, hey, who knows? Maybe by facing this current regime we will be forced to make the changes necessary to change direction. Perhaps if the Dems had taken power, we’d be on this quieter road to the end, and then, suddenly, upon us, the carnage was too intense and there would have been no way out. I say that with the obvious caveat that it would be a lot easier dealing with a government whose door was open on climate change, rather than closed, even if the door was only ajar, and even if it was mostly performative.
That's a fair argument. The faster we face hard truths the better chance we have of salvaging something.
Thank you for this. It's terrifying and nessesary.
Thank you for having the grit and courage to read the article and respond. It's appreciated.
See https://www.project2025.observer/
Thanks. Looks worth paying attention to. Need to look at it harder for the sources of information. At a glance it's demoralizing to say the least.
You’re absolutely right, capitalism isn’t just failing, it’s actively cannibalizing people and the planet for short-term oligarchic gain.
Keep speaking truth, we need more of this 💪🏿
Hello, I agree. Cannibalizing could be the best term for what we are witnessing.
It is. There are many factors at the moment, but the biggest non-negotiable one is shrinking and ever more expensive to harvest fossil fuels.
Not 'just' capitalism, it's killing the living planet as well.
https://kevinhester.live/2016/04/24/the-pain-you-feel-is-capitalism-and-the-living-planet-dying/
Yes, climate change and overshoot are supposed to be my main subjects. Unfortunately, they have to be tied to a bigger picture, particularly with this “administration.” BTW, we just bombed Iran.
Thank you, Geoff- very sobering thoughts. I welcome degrowth.
PS) Sorry for the lapse in reading your posts. For some reason, I am not receiving the email alerts of your publications, which normally prompt me.
Hello Pam, hope you're well. I looked at my email list and for reasons I don't know, you weren't there. I've added you back in.
Yes, my posts are sobering. Thank you for having the fortitude to deal with them. We're getting little truth through mainstream media.
I hope so
My parent's boosted themselves, too through homeownership. Eight or nine houses bought improved, and sold. However, we're at the end of that road. Every bit of wealth and capitalism originates with fossil fuels, which are running out, that's why fracking and tar sand oil came about. They are causing climate change and displacing millions. Did you happen to notice the Los Angeles fires a few months ago or Hurricane Helene that wiped out the Asheville, NC area last year? They also enabled overpopulation. The cobalt in your phone comes from mines in the Congo that use slave labor. Every transaction in capitalism stands on someone's neck. Nothing like a mindless insult to win an argument, lol. Educate yourself dipshit.