Note: The below article is adapted from the Earth Day Talk Nate Hagens presented in Salina, Kansas, 23 April 2018. Watch a
recording of the talk. View the
PDF version.
The Human Predicament
In the 19th century painting shown above, Paul Gaugin takes a species level view, asking
“where did we come from, who are we, where are we going”. We are the first generation of
our species (of any species on this planet) to scientifically know the answers to these
questions. We have arrived at a species level conversation. With planet level implications.
Around 11,000 years ago, as the last ice age ended, our ancestors –in no fewer than 5
locations around the world – took advantage of the new conditions and tried an agricultural
way of life. Fast forward through two momentous phase shifts in human history (agricultural
and industrial revolutions), and here we are: approaching 8 billion, seeking freedom,
experiences, and material wealth all derived from physical surplus. As many are aware, the
procuring of this ‘surplus’ is also impacting the larger sphere outside our homes, (we call it
“Earth”) in increasingly deleterious ways. Yet, at an annual global growth rate of 3%, which
most governments and institutions expect, we would nearly double the size of energy and
materials it took us 11,000 years to amass, in the next 25 years.
Under current trends, a college student today would see over 2 such doublings in her lifetime.
(yes, 2X→4X in size by the time they’re 70). Is this possible? Is this desirable? What are the
variables that will influence this trajectory? What would be the impacts if it happens? And the
impacts if it doesn’t?
If you ask a hundred experts to opine on these issues you’ll get at least a hundred answers,
because while economy is composed of systems, it is not explained using systems but by simple,
(usually popular) narratives. But only a synthesis integrating aspects of energy, the
environment, the economy and particularly human behavior will inform what is unlikely,
what is possible, what’s at stake, and ultimately what to strive for and work towards.
Below is a condensation of many of the big themes relevant to coming decades of the human
enterprise. Despite our desire for simple, clear-cut answers, most of the central issues bearing
on our situation do not neatly fall into ‘black or white’ binaries– but lie in the liminal space
between. On some of the “40 shades of grey” spectrums presented below, our institutions and
societal plans are currently far from our biophysical reality– suggesting tectonic cultural
shifts are now likely on the near to intermediate term horizon. (NB: this is the horizontal story
– there is ‘vertical’ depth available on each of these points).
Energy/Economy
Energy vs Everything Else – Human wealth and productivity is commonly attributed
to our own cleverness (technology), existing wealth (capital) and hard work (labor). These
inputs are important but in turn are all dependent – on energy. Modern economies eat
power like animals eat food – every object and service in human economies first requires
an energy input to convert it into something useful. Ergo, $1 of petroleum has orders of
magnitude more value than $1 worth of pencils, paperclips or pastries. But energy, other
than perhaps its dollar cost, is invisible to our society.
Flows vs Stocks – The human economy runs on natural resources like copper, iron and
phosphorous. Globally $1 of GDP results in ~1KG of extracted minerals, energy and
materials. We are particularly dependent on high density energy resources like oil and
natural gas and from a long term perspective we are living during what might be called ‘the
Carbon Pulse’ –a one-time bolus of fossil productivity injected into the human ecosystem.
Ninety-eight percent of physical labor in the modern world is done by machines, which in
turn are 85% powered by energy-dense carbon compounds. Few think about it, but 1
barrel of crude oil, at 5.8 million BTUs (British Thermal Units), for which we currently pay
$70, contains the work equivalent of 4.5 years of human labor, for which we pay (in the
USA) $140,000. The average American uses 54 of these ‘barrels’ per year directly, with an
additional 10-20 via imported goods, equating to ~300 ‘fossil slaves’ supporting our
lifestyles. In effect, though we eat ~2,500 calories via food, we each ‘consume’ over 200,000
calories per day overall. Our culture effectively treats all these geological inputs as ‘flows’
(like rivers, rain, sunlight, tree growth) but they are depletable stocks. No natural resource
stocks are renewable on human time scales. Drilling holes is not sustainable. Our cultural
stories conflate stocks with flows.
Stocks vs Abstractions – Stocks (oil, copper, phosphorous) typically follow predictable
(gaussian) curves that rise, peak and decline. The amount of these ‘stocks’ we access has
generally been increasing for over a century but has now started to decline in many cases
(oil quality, iron ore grade, copper overburden, etc.). But our supply of money and credit
continues to increase with no reference to the area of the curve remaining for these one-
time natural stock endowments. (Globally it took over $4 of new debt to add $1 of
additional GDP in 2017). We can print money, but we cannot print energy, only extract it
faster with borrowed money.
Gross vs Net – We commonly count on the absolute amount of a resource, stock or
reservoir available without considering the amount of it that can be technically or
economically extracted. As we access the deeper, harder to find and more environmentally
damaging resources, we spend an increasing amount of the key resources to get at the key
resources. (E.g. static field decline for US shale oil is 30-40% per year, so production will
now largely be a function of how many new wells are drilled). We have now left the era
where our culture spent ~5% of our energy on finding and delivering energy, to one where
we will be spending ~10% or even ~15% to 20%. This all manifests in higher costs and
lower benefits for people and economies. As more energy is redirected to the energy sector,
which sectors will get less/none? The net is ultimately what we are able to spend.
Joules vs Work – Energy can only be substituted by other energy. Conventional
economic thinking on most depletable resources considers substitution possibilities as
essentially infinite. But not all joules perform equally. There is a large difference between
potential and kinetic energy. Energy properties such as: intermittence, variability, energy
density, power density, spatial distribution, energy return on energy invested, scalability,
transportability, etc. make energy substitution a complex prospect. The ability of a
technology to provide ‘joules’ is different than its ability to contribute to ‘work’ for society.
All joules do not contribute equally to human economies.
Economy vs Economics – The modern human ecosystem can be simply described. We
use technology to convert energy and materials into products measured in dollars. We turn
the dollars/products into neurotransmitters (feelings) + waste/impact. Repeat at larger scale.
We often mistake a trend for a reality and a short-term pattern for an axiom of nature. In a
modern (and relevant) case, we have constructed rules and ‘economic laws’ around a long-
by-human-lifespan, but short-by-human-history unique period of time during which,
because of one-time inputs on geologic time scales, we’ve experienced continual economic
growth for over a century. The constant growth we’ve experienced was correlated with
human inventions and economic theories, but the cause was finding a bolus of fossil
sunlight. We behave like squirrels living in a forest where a truck full of hazelnuts crashed,
living off the freight and thinking it will last forever. Economic theories have –until recently–
been right about describing our trajectory but for the wrong reasons –they largely ignore the
physical and biological underpinnings of the human endeavor and will have to be reworked.
Behavioral
Human vs Animal – Humans are clever, unique, adaptable and very capable. Yes, we
are special, but we are part of the animal kingdom –part of the mammal and ape lineage.
Our behavioral repertoire is amazing, yet still constrained and informed by our heritage.
Proximate vs Ultimate – Why do we want that job? Why do we waste time on
Facebook? Why do we love stock market returns? Why do we dislike that person? Why do
we want to play with puppies? Why do we go to war? There are proximate – or ‘surface’
explanations for all these behaviors, but there are also ‘ultimate’ explanations based on our
ancestral past. These ‘ultimate’ explanations can predict and make sense of much of
modern human behavior. Ultimately, we go through our daily lives seeking ‘brain services’
– activities, experiences and behaviors in the modern world that provide the same ‘feelings’
that our successful ancestors got in a different environment.
Beliefs vs Facts – The human brain can imagine and speak many more word
combinations representing reality than exist in reality. As such the virtual world in our
minds seems more real to us even in the face of science, logic and common sense. And since
we construct our own individual virtual worlds, we prefer them over the virtual worlds in
others’ minds. Which is why ‘beliefs’ are far more powerful than facts. Beliefs usually
precede the reasons used to explain them. Which is why fake news works and why we find
it extremely difficult to convince people about climate change, energy descent, the limits of
technology, etc.
Now vs Future – We are biological creatures with finite lifespans. For good evolutionary
reasons we disproportionately care about the present more than the future. But most of
our modern challenges are ‘in the future’.
Supernormal vs Normal – Modern technology provides stimuli orders of magnitude
higher than our ancestors seeking similar feelings experienced. For them, a berry found on
their path was a rare sweet surprise, while we buy sweets by the pound at the grocery
store, or shipped via Amazon. We can easily become hijacked/addicted to things that ‘feel’
important but are just ephemeral action-potentials in the brain, not in the real world.
Relative vs Absolute – Fitness in nature is correlated with caloric intake per unit of
effort. We each follow this simple ‘foraging algorithm’, mediated by the neurotransmitter
dopamine, to get more for less. But after basic needs are met, this algorithm shifts to caring
significantly more about our comparative performance, income, status, ranking vs others
than we do about absolute measures of the same. Ergo we don’t care about good or bad so
much as better or worse (than our neighbors, or relative to the day before).
Wants vs Haves – Our impulses to want something – a pair of shoes, a new car, a toy –
feel more intense to us than the satisfaction we get from the possessing of that thing on
ongoing basis. Which is why our basements and storage units are full of the ghosts of
dopamine past. While our physical world is based on stocks, our brain and behavior is
based on flows, which need to be continually experienced each and every day.
Wants vs Needs – Once our basic needs (food, water, basic services, social respect) are
met, we get very little additional life satisfaction from increased consumption. The best
things in life are free, but ‘yearning’ is a strong human driver.
Me vs Us – We are a biological species, and as such on the spectrum of competition vs
cooperation, we are generally looking out for #1 – ourselves and our family–relative to
others.
Us vs Them – But our formative years (millennia actually) were in small nomadic tribes
on the African savannah. The success of our tribe –in hunting, resource acquisition, and
defense against other tribes, dictated – and often trumped – our own individual success.
This intense favoring of ingroups and ostracizing of outgroups – be they different religions,
different political groups, different sports teams or even just different opinions about the
future – remains with us today.
Genes vs Culture – Human nature does not change in the short term– our great-great+
grandchildren living in 200 years will be subject to all the same drives and constraints I just
mentioned. But culture can manifest emergent behaviors –both positive and negative – that
can happen on much shorter timelines, even less than a decade in some cases. Our genes
tell us what we need, but culture dictates how we get it. We can get at least a good portion
of ‘what we want and need’ using less stuff with less damage.
Environmental
Internal vs External – In the modern formulation of the market system, we internalize
profits and externalize costs. The costs –of pollution and negative social impacts– are born
by the commons and the public, which includes other generations and other species. No
industry in the world would be profitable if full cost pricing were to include all externalized
costs (e.g. damaging impacts of coal $0.38 kWh full cost instead of $0.04). But most other
species don’t care at all about externalities, and as we become socially aware of our
downstream effects, we have done more to respond to the costs. Relevant examples include
DDT, chlorofluorocarbons, polluted rivers, and unleaded gasoline. But CO2 remains an
impact that can’t easily be ‘internalized’.
Treasure vs Riches – The vast ecological riches of our natural world: mineral deposits,
millions of species, vibrant ecosystems, lush rainforests, etc. are only counted as having
value to human economies once they are converted. In our quest for treasure, we have
plundered our riches, and the default plan is to continue to.
Civilization vs Community – Humans now appropriate between 30-40% of the
annual productivity from sunlight interacting with soil/land on our planet. Additionally, we
(and our cows, pigs, goats, dogs, sheep, etc.) outweigh the sum total of all other terrestrial
vertebrates by a ratio of over 50:1. The continuum between human civilization and Earth
community – at least so far – has been solely headed in one direction.
Seen vs Unseen – Many of the ‘externalities’ of human commerce we can only read
about. Today looks very similar to yesterday. Yet, France (and other countries) has lost 1/3
of its bird population in the last 15 years across the board due to fewer insects
(presumably due to pesticides), sea creatures 10 km-deep are found to have more toxic
chemical concentration than in polluted Chinese rivers, we have lost 50% of animal
populations since the 1970s, etc. Human sperm count among people in developed countries
has dropped ~50% in past generation. The ocean has lost 2% of its oxygen in the last 50
years, etc. We focus (naturally) on the seen – but the unseen currently tells a worrying
story.
(The preceding 21 points can be (and will be in an interactive website) supported by
modern science. The points below are logical implications from the above synthesis,
but as presented are more my own conclusions.
Cultural
Game vs Plan – In modern human culture we cooperate at various scales (individuals,
corporations, nations) to maximize representations of surplus (monetary profits). Once we
understand that 1) all goods and services leading to economic output first require a
primary resource conversion, 2) GDP is highly correlated with energy, and 3) to provide
‘brain services’ to as many people as possible, governments and institutions do whatever
they can to keep access to energy growing (credit creation, rule changes, guarantees, etc.)
the common economic statistic Gross Domestic Product takes on a different connotation. To
a reasonable approximation, GDP could be renamed as GDB – Gross Domestic Burning, as
underpinning every economic transaction a small fire happened somewhere on Earth.
From a birds-eye view, modern human society is thus functioning akin to an energy
dissipating structure. With a collective focus on short term profits, we tacitly assume the
best futures will naturally arrive. But viewed from a perspective of GDB, the market itself
cannot use intelligent foresight. It can only march forward, 3 months at a time. The game –
at least so far – is also the plan.
Narrow vs Wide – Each issue we encounter has different correct answers depending on
how wide a perspective is used. We can look at the impact of a policy on the taxi driver, on
the taxi company, on the New York City transport system, on New York City itself, on the
USA, on the world today, on future generations, on ecosystems, etc. Most current
predicaments are viewed from a wider boundary perspective, but most cultural decisions
are made using narrow boundaries.
Finance vs Natural Science – In the 20th century we constructed societal
infrastructure and expectations on rules from finance and economics, but the rules from
natural sciences and ecology: primary productivity, trophic cascades, carrying capacity,
overshoot, bottlenecks, phase shifts, succession, pulses, etc. are going to be much more
pertinent in the 21st.
Unlimited vs Limits – Imagine a world with 7.6 billion humans and no laws. No speed
limits, no taxes for public infrastructure, no rules, no courts of law. Humans instinctually
have problems to self-impose limits. So, via social contracts and reciprocity, we have
learned to recognize the importance of such institutions, and as a result, society is better
off. Though we have recognized the importance of rules and constraint on personal
behavior and impact, we have not yet matured to recognize limits for society and culture at
large. But we live on a finite planet.
War vs Peace – Historically in times of fewer resources per capita, earlier human
societies (and tribes before them) went to war. But this continuum is so often avoided in
discussions that it needs to be mentioned. We will go to war again if we don't manage to
cooperate to solve the future constraints in a constructive way, and there are ways. This
time, war would be much more devastating than ever before in human history. We have
had anti-war movements in the past and hopefully will again in the future – what % of our
‘carbon windfall’ is directed to military spending? In a peaceful world where might it better
be directed?
Population vs Consumption – We are 7.6 billion en route to 9-10 billion. UN (and
other international institutions) misunderstand the energy primacy underlying human
economies. Does a carbon pulse informed synthesis imply substantially lower populations
this century? No. Unless some of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse show up, by far the
more likely scenario is a maintained high population level, with less resources per capita
(maybe considerably less). Malthus was "right" but missed the 'vertical revolution' of fossil
carbon. Ehrlich was "right" but missed globalization and the birth of credit markets, pulling
resources forward in time. Perhaps someone today hearing this story immediately
expecting large population die-offs based on resource constraints will also be “right” but
miss the more obvious trajectory of consumption decline rather than population decline. In
the developed world, where people consume 50-100x their food consumption for other
things, there is a lot of room to go down without affecting wellbeing. So less consumption is
still viable, and even desirable. With 350,000 new babies born each day globally but
350,000 people/families per day also entering the global middle class, with ~5:1 higher
throughput than the average, the ‘population’ issue takes on a different flavor.
Intelligence vs Wisdom – Human history is replete with quite intelligent and
otherwise successful cultures that simply got something about the big picture crucially
wrong. Easter Islanders believed that resources flowed from the good will of their
ancestors, so it was only logical to cut down all the trees to aid in the construction of ever-
bigger stone heads. Their behavior was clever but not wise. Our culture similarly rewards
reductionist viewpoints and expertise in solving problems. But as we increasingly reward
vertical expertise within a discipline, we lose the wisdom that comes from crossing
disciplines. Simply put, intelligence and wisdom work best in synergy. Modern humans,
with ample intelligence but a dearth of wisdom risk becoming idiot-savants, metaphorically
pushing levers in increasingly clever ways, for building modern versions of the stone heads
on Rapa Nui.
Trivia vs Relevance – Our education system is becoming less relevant for the future
we are facing. Primary and secondary education are a product of energy surplus.
Paradoxically, they also are one of the few investments that can contribute to ‘future
surplus’. Education from a lens of intelligent foresight would focus on science synthesis,
understanding our own minds, on ecological principles, dealing with uncertainty, and on
the problem-solving skills that will be increasingly needed in a lower-energy-throughput
society. Less specialization and more systemic understanding would be the order of the
present day.
Dollars vs Humanity – Of all the supernormal stimuli in modern culture: social media,
twitter, Overwatch, slot machines and meat lovers pizza, perhaps the largest and most
pernicious is ‘dollars’. We have managed to parse the entire inventory of what made us
function in tribal conditions over tens of thousands of decades into one variable:
digital/linen markers of status and success. We certainly need currency for transacting and
storing wealth, but our culture has taken it to an extreme, gradually but almost completely
financializing the human experience. One can hope that a vast pool of expressions of
humanity lies dormant beneath the stacks of electronic digits.
Good vs Evil – Humans are not evil, not any more than wolves or wildebeest. However,
at 8 billion strong, pursuing surplus correlated with finite source and sink capacity, our
actions have ‘evil outcomes’. It is important to not conflate our collective impact with who
we are as individual life forms. What is happening is no one’s fault, but we are all complicit.
Should vs Will – Many people are promoting campaigns for what our society ‘should’ do
to solve our myriad of economic and environmental problems. But most of these recipes, –
with albeit laudable goals – are either incompatible with our physical reality or with
behavioral patterns evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. Banking on ‘sudden
insight’ into the greater good by a majority of people is something environmental activists
have done since the 1960s, and climate activists for almost 2 decades, yet we’re still
emitting more CO2 every year. It is unlikely we will en masse prepare for the Great
Simplification ahead –the cultural, behavioral and systemic barriers are too large. Relative
to planned “change”, we will instead “react and respond”. Instead of advocating for
unrealistic outcomes, we can put effort towards changing the initial conditions that will
result in better outcomes and then make new moves – currently not on the gameboard,
possible.
Popular vs Realistic – Similarly, a full accounting of the severity of our predicament –
on radio, television and in papers, will never be popular. It’s much more comfortable (and
profitable) to be entertained, marketed and promised various contrived solutions, usually
with some unproven or physically unscalable technology, or based on hard-to-detect
fantasy ignoring natural science. We should recognize that glib solutions, typically aren’t
solutions. But acknowledging that would be… distressing, and unpopular.
Left vs Right – Other than perhaps climate change, both Democrats and Republicans are
both sharply divorced from the realities of our coming challenges. Resource depletion,
credit overshoot and the accompanying systemic risks are absent from any political
conversations. Instead, substantial energy (and vitriol) are expended on the things an
increasing polarized society disagrees on. We will one day soon appreciate (and hopefully
engage with) the issues that most of us agree on: basic needs, family/friends, healthy food,
peace, respect, meaning, and a safe and clean environment for our grandchildren to grow
up in. As such the current arguments between Republicans and Democrats are akin to
arguing about which mosquito repellent is best to put on our arms, while a crocodile has
our leg in its mouth.
Masculine vs Feminine – We live in a male dominated culture. As a result, among
other things, testosterone and dopamine probably influence decisions more than oxytocin
and serotonin. Women –for obvious biological reasons – tend to have shallower discount
rates than men (things in the future carry more weight). Given that most of our societal
risks are not this quarter or this year, but in the future, perhaps we should
encourage/support/mandate a higher percent of leaders and decision makers dealing with
larger scale cultural issues with future outcomes be women. I don’t know how (but I’m
male).
Small Groups vs Large Groups – Humans join forces to cooperate on simple and
clear pursuits like profits or military defense. But, counterintuitively, intelligence and the
ability to be creative with reference to complex issues doesn’t increase with group size. As
groups become larger they become less and less able to grasp and convey complex
situations, let alone creatively respond to them. At the scale of hundreds or thousands in a
group or organization, the resulting behavior defaults to popular and simple responses.
(Think of any large environmental or social NGO). This has large implications for the
current plethora of risks we face. Forming movements with a lot of people caring about the
same thing is a good idea. But when it comes to getting things done –especially things that
are complex, nuanced, and perhaps unpopular, individuals and small groups have far more
power than they ‘feel’ they do to influence events.
Economy vs Environment – If you could create a list of the 10 best ways to improve
the environment, (e.g. carbon tax, protecting international fishing zones, driving curfews,
etc.) it would be likely all 10 would be bad for economic growth. Similarly, a list of 10 best
ways to grow the economy (e.g. baby subsidy, tax rebate) would all likely make either the
micro or macro environmental situation worse. This century, we are going to perpetually
make decisions (or not make decisions, just act) on a spectrum between what’s best for
economic growth, and what’s best for planetary ecosystems and our long-term wellbeing.
It’s probably good to realize (and care about) this upfront.
Rights vs Responsibilities – There have been many social contracts in recorded
human history. From the Code of Hammurabi 3500 years ago to the Magna Carta and U.S.
Constitution, humans have often created rules and guidelines to properly delineate the
needs and circumstances of the time. We now live on an ecologically full planet – and are
aware of what we are, where we came from, what we need, what we want and what we are
doing –to each other and to our surroundings. With this backdrop there is a distinction
between ‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’. This continuum will remain a back-burner item.
Until it moves to the front burner.
Individual
Certainty vs Probability – The future exists as a probability distribution of very bad,
bad, so-so, benign and very good futures. But people dislike uncertainty. When we hear
about the these energy and environmental scenarios we typically either a) reject or deny
the implications using rationalizations along the lines of ‘technology will solve it’ / ‘we’ll
think of something’ etc. or b) ‘it’s too late – there’s nothing we can do – might as well enjoy
the day’. These reactions seem the opposite on the surface but have two things in common:
1) they create dissonance resolving ‘certainty’ in our minds and in turn, 2) they obviate the
need for personal response and engagement (which would be uncomfortable emotionally
and physically). The reality is that the future is not yet determined and exists as a
constantly shifting probability distribution based on events, technology, wisdom, risk and
the actions of individuals and communities. We need more people to avoid the two poles of
denial and nihilism and stay in the center, own a bit of dissonance, and engage.
Less vs More – We have financialized the human experience, parsing everything of
substance, depth and meaning from our tribal past into electronic/linen markers. Once our
basic needs are met we don’t really want more, we just want more than the guy/gal next
door. We are now likely headed for a world with less physical throughput whether we
choose it or not. But this does not mean we have a world of ‘less’ experiences, happiness,
meaning and good lives. The average Guatemalan makes under $10,000 per year but has
life satisfaction and quality the same as countries with 5-10 times as much income.
Americans use 38 times the energy as people in the Philippines but are equally happy on
well-being metrics. Americans are far ‘richer’ in material terms than we were 50 years ago,
but are less satisfied/content. Less and more need to be unpacked beyond their monetary
labels and the gut reaction to hearing them. As individuals we can strive to be happier with
absolute wealth and focus less on relative. (this takes training and effort)
Crazy vs Sane – At 50 times the income of humans 200 years ago, it is no wonder the
average American is so distracted by convenience and lulled by false narratives as to be
asleep to the real issues. People aren’t idiots nor are (most of them) liars. But we are so
often seduced and misinformed by simple narratives that those warning about the
converging macro crises are generally considered crazy by the mainstream. But to be
‘woke’ to the issues of the day is perhaps the only route for sanity. Owning a bit of grief and
dissonance about what’s happening is eminently rational, even if it feels bad at times. If
worrying about the 6th mass extinction, energy descent, limits to growth and the coming
Great Simplification makes one crazy, well perhaps the world needs a whole lot more crazy.
We have temporarily confused crazy and sane.
Fun vs Meaning – At 80x more energy than our bodies need, possessing the metabolism
of 30-ton primates, even the median among us live material lifestyles above most kings and
queens from centuries ago. And yet many people are miserable, over-fed, over-medicated,
and unsatisfied. What we lack amidst this smorgasbord of riches is a feeling of community
and a true sense of purpose. Inferred by all the other points in this presentation is the
obvious fact that the future needs our help. Yet most people have no concept or even belief
in ‘the future’. Perhaps from awareness of our situation, the stakes, and the possibilities
there may emerge a (very large) tribe connected to Tomorrow.
Thinking vs Doing – In a world of inexpensive do-overs, we have become accustomed
to large wastes of time. We spend considerable time pondering esoteric theories or
distracted by gadgets without learning or understanding physical skills. As our fossil slaves
cease to be woken, we will increasingly have to resubstitute human labor for carbon – and
it would behoove each of us to learn a physical skill. Or three.
Grief vs Joy – We like happy, carefree stories with wonder and imagination, well,
because it’s comforting and nice to be happy and carefree. Part of us knows that things
aren’t right, and we strive to deny that fear in things that cocoon us in comfort. Alas, the
stage of our current world, approaching social limits to growth, while squeezing out the
natural world a species at a time does not lend itself to a happy and carefree demeanor. It is
acceptable – and even appropriate – to carry with us some grief and dissonance about our
situation – because it is a perilous one. Accompanying this grief perhaps will be resolve,
anger and creativity to direct towards future related goals. But we also need balance. While
holding the grief, we have to find time to refresh the white snow in the paths in our minds,
with, variously: music, Netflix, beer, golden retriever puppies, night skies, old growth
forests, and deep friendships. It is a wonderful and perilous time to be alive. Let’s not forget
the ‘wonderful’ parts.
Intrinsic vs Extrinsic – Human individuals have a wide spectrum of what sort of
values we choose and maintain. We evolved the capacity both for extrinsic values (imposed
from our environment) like power, wealth and social status, but also internally derived
values like compassion, humility, gratitude and empathy. Extrinsically based actions such
as winning an argument, gaining power over another individual or buying a gold plated
toilet each release a strong
pulse of dopamine, a very strong ‘high’ feeling, but one that lasts
only seconds to minutes. These externally derived methods of feeling good often lead to
withdrawal and habitual over-use and ‘seeking’. In contrast, intrinsic values are linked to
sustained release of oxytocin, one of the four ‘happiness’ chemicals our brain
releases. Research in social psychology increasingly is finding that practicing gratitude,
empathy, compassion and humility in our everyday lives results in sustained and
dependable feelings of happiness and joy. With some self-awareness and desire for change,
we can design our lives to get sustained doses of happiness and joy more based on intrinsic
values.
Hope vs Despair – Whether one feels hope or despair depends on one’s prior outlook. If
you expect 12 billion people living like the average American in the year 2100, with flying
cars and all climate and ocean issues solved via tech fixes, then the future painted here
might look on the dark side. If instead you envision 5-6 billion humans, living a low-tech
society with renewable systems, we’ve only lost 1,000 of our remaining 5,500 mammalian
species, climate has stabilized under 2C, and we’ve avoided nuclear wars, then there is a
great deal to be hopeful about as that future and many like it are still on the table.
Conclusions
We cannot know the future, but we can have increasing confidence of what it will not be.
And it is my own conclusion that The Next Doubling is now no longer likely to happen.
We will do whatever we can to keep the 'brain services' going to as many voters as
possible, for as long as possible. We are industrious and creative so this may continue for
some time – but there are physical limits. The downside is that because of decades of can–
kicking it will likely end with a recalibration of financial claims vs underlying physical
resources. Most of our research points to a potential reduction of advanced economies’
GDP by 25-40% within the next two decades. This outcome, akin to the “Great Depression”
in the 1930s, might sound shocking at first. However, when putting it into context, it also
means that GDP per capita would shrink to levels of the mid-1980s or early 1990s. Both
weren’t really depressed times. Compared to the 1930s where the 30% in output drop
meant true poverty for many, the major challenge with such an event today isn’t so much
the reduction of consumption (to still very high levels), but the ensuing consequences for
labor, income equality, future economic expectations, and societal cohesion.
These risks do not fall under the auspices of any institution or government – and to make
matters worse – they represent almost the perfect cognitive storm to ignore or reject – it is:
complex, abstract, distant (in time), threatening, with no easy answers, and certainly no
easy political answers.
All the ‘cultural’ and 'individual' observations above coalesce to a fine point: we are capable
of much more, but are unlikely to alter our current trajectory until we have to. And when we
add in the economy and environmental points: we will soon have to. Recognizing this, the
next step is urgently discussing and cataloguing what initiatives might be worked on by
small groups using intelligent foresight nationwide.
Given we have ~100:1 exosomatic surplus buffer, there remain a great deal of benign, and
even excellent futures still on the table. But they won’t arrive without effort. The world isn’t
irretrievably broken, the Great Simplification has barely started, and there are quite a few
people who are discovering exactly the shape of our predicaments, and the nature of the
things which could substantially change them.
NB: While I believe education itself is insufficient for major change, it is still a necessary first
step so that pro-social engaged citizens work towards feasible and desirable goals and react
to events in more rational ways. My own goal with this content is threefold:
1) Educate and inspire would-be catalysts and small groups working on better futures
to integrate a more systemic view of reality.
2) Empower individuals to make better personal choices on navigating and thriving
during the Great Simplification coming our way.
3) Change what is accepted in our cultural conversation to be more reality based.
Dear reader/citizen, I invite you to participate in the future.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nathan Hagens is a well-known speaker on the big picture issues facing human society and currently teaches a systems synthesis Honors seminar at the University of Minnesota ‘Reality 101 – A Survey of the Human Predicament’ Nate is on the Boards of Post Carbon Institute, Bottleneck Foundation, IIER and Institute for the Study of Energy and the Future. Previously, he was lead editor of The Oil Drum, one of the most popular and respected websites for analysis and discussion of global energy supplies and the future implications of the upcoming energy transition.
|