Thanks everyone for all the thoughtful comments you've shared about this essay.
I write about collapse as a system process, not an event - one that impacts us every day of our lives.
If this piece landed for you, the rest of my work goes deeper into how this plays out over time. You are very welcome to subscribe to see where these ideas go next.
Gibson right. System collapse already here, just unevenly distributed.
I like Luke Kemp’s take, that in long run collapse is worst for elites, but can be a relief for the downtrodden, people and ecosystems ravaged by the terminal catabolic phase.
Beautifully communicated crucial ideas - thank you. Please write a follow-up about how you see the new renewable energy technologies are/will mediate collapse.
American sociologist Stanley Milgram (1933-1984), of Obedience Experiments fame/infamy, said: “It may be that we are puppets — puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception [and] awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first step to our liberation.”
At least as individuals, we can try to resist flawed human nature thus behavior, however societally normalized it may be, once we become aware of its potential within ourselves. Once cognizant of it, perhaps enough of us could instead perform truly humane acts in sufficient quantity to initiate positive change on a large(r) scale.
Then again, perhaps the human race actually needs a unifying existential/fate-determining common cause; so much so that an Earth-impacting asteroid threat or, better yet, a vicious extraterrestrial attack launched from our moon's dark side may be what we have to collectively brutally endure together in order to survive the longer term from ourselves.
Humanity would unite for the first time and defend against, attack and eventually defeat the humanicidal multi-tentacled ETs, the latter needing to be an even greater nemesis than our own formidably divisive politics and (mis)perceptions of irreconcilable differences — especially those involving religion, nationality and race.
Yet, maybe a half-century later when all traces of the nightmarish ET invasion are gone, we’ll inevitably revert to those same politics to which we humans seem so collectively hopelessly prone — including the politics of scale. And, yet once again, we slide downwards.
... In the meantime, everybody panic — there's no reason to stay calm!
P.S. Interestingly yet disturbingly enough, before people of color became the primary source of newcomers to the U.S. and Canada, thick-accented Eastern Europeans were targeted with meanspirited Anglo-Saxon bigotry. As a broken-English, 1950s Eastern-European immigrant to Canada, my (now deceased) father experienced such maltreatment. Hypothetically, if Canada and the U.S. were to revert back to a primarily Caucasian populace, I wouldn’t be surprised if Eastern Europeans with a thick Slavic accent would eventually again become the main target of bigotry within the dominant Euro-Canadian/American ethnicity/populace.
ALSO: In the past but apparently now more than ever, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has seen undeniably widespread partisanship via Internet and news commentary. The politics of polarization outside of Israel and even the Middle East, perhaps in part for its own sake, has gotten quite disturbing. Within social media especially, the angry and thoughtless two-dimensional views have been especially amplified, including the majority posted by non-Jews and non-Palestinians. It all arouses a spectator-sport effect or mentality, with many contemptible trolls residing well outside the region yet actively supporting the ‘side’ [via politicized commentary posts] that they hate less. I anticipate many actually kept/keep track of the bloody match by checking the day’s-end death-toll score, however extremely lopsided those numbers.
I know of people who are developing what Steven Newbury calls 'lifeboats' - working at living within the local constraints. And do we have to wait for visible system collapse to visit us before welcoming rationing?
Beautifully explained Adrian. I can see similar principles in the way in which single cell organisms evolved into multicellular organisms and tried to grow into unmanageable sizes, before settling back down to one that is maintainable and in balance within their surroundings.
Soy to biofuel looks to beimpproved by higher diesel prices, corn to ethanol has higher fertilizer costs that soy doesn’t and we don’t need ethanol / but diesel is precious . End corn to ethanol programs , redirect corn to bridge food gaps that will develop soon worldwide. Concentrated feeding operations are dependent upon cheap feed byproducts of biofuel production so expect protein costs to rise.
Excellent essay, as many others of yours I have seen.
I would like to query with my very limited knowledge about the per capita energy used in modern civilisation.
From Nate Hagens I have learned how the oil consumed today plus machines equates to energy availability of x100 additional human workers per human on the planet = 800billion human worker equivalents. (Based on x5 years human labour per barrel oil (1700kWh ~ 1-20 years human labour depending))
Much higher per capita expenditure in wealthy nations I think...
Which makes your fig of 75-80 seem low? Am I missing something here?
The point you touch a little but I think rewards greater focus to modern audience is how incredibly inefficient modern complex systems are, even compared to complex systems of the past civs. Precisely because of the vast and cheap energy source available.
And how that makes them vulnerable to very mild disruption in supply, price shocks and narrative change. In essence we build systems based on energy more than material.
Eg: average of 10cal energy needed to make every 1cal of food on the planet. That’s Insane.
I Don’t think you don’t know this! But think that greater emphasis helpful for people to understand the sound conclusions you arrive at.
Correct. The world isn’t ending, but the environment is collapsing. The planet is super heating. If we don't change our ways, there won't be anything here in 10, if not five years. If anybody's lucky it might get to mid century, but it's going to be a complete Mad Max hellscape.
I completely agree with this analysis. I would only add - there is a chance for a “soft landing”, in which humanity is able to preserve some of the elements (hopefully the good ones) of our modern society in the long run as we shift to a more sustainable, local, and “energy rhythm” based model - and that chance is renewable energy. If we successfully implement renewables at scale, then it is likely that going forward, the complexity floor at which our society will land will be noticeably higher than it was in the past. Otherwise, we will likely be forced to a return to an energetically baseline society
So called "renewables" rely on fossil fuels throughout their manufacture and maintenance so at best can slow energy descent decline a tiny bit. Plus low energy density intermittent electricity can't replace high energy density hydrocarbons, in high process heat and transport applications, and as feedstock for fertilizers, plastics, even helium needed for microchip manufacture is entirely reliant on natural gas.
Thanks Natasha this is a good point. Renewables are dependent on fossil fuels for their production because we currently use fossil fuels as our main source of power, as we move towards a more electrified grid there will by definition be less fossil fuels in the mix. For the non energy uses of fossil fuels, we definitely need to keep using them or find an alternative. Otherwise we really are f*cked!
Thanks Patrick for your response. Unfortunately "by definition" Jevons paradox forces us to observe that when technological improvements increase the efficiency of a resource's use, it leads to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource. In other words the more intermittent so called "renewables" forced onto electric grids, the more fossil fuels will be needed to build and maintain those grids. Like more mining refining and transport of copper and rare earths and other essential ingredients demanded by intermittent low energy density harvesting infrastructure - NONE of which can be electrified at scale. Yes a few demonstration plants here and there where geography allows, but not at global scales.
Also, there will not be "a move towards a more electrified grid" - because by definition grids only supply electricity!
Indeed there has NEVER been an "energy transition" we've simply added new sources, and kept using the old ones at growing rates too e.g. traditional biomass consumption was 5,556 TWh in 1800 and 11,111 TWh in 2024 !!
Natasha thank you for your informative comment. Your point is correct of course, but I would challenge the increased reliance on fossil fuels - yes more “work” will have to be done to extract, refine, etc, but as more of our energy comes from electrified sources, as in my previous comment, less fossil inputs will be required. To be clear I’m not suggesting this is an easy or simple transition, or that fossil fuels will in our lifetimes be eliminated from our energy mix, but based on the article we are both commenting on it appears clear that we either find a way to wean our societies off of fossil fuels for energy or we are simply f*cked. I also disagree that there has never been an energy transition - how many people do you know in the west still heating their homes with wood?
Since no electrical infrastructure can be built with electricity, it must all be built with fossil fuels, there is no way it can be true that "less fossil inputs will be required" in any proposed electric dominated future (currently only 20% of global energy is electricity).
Re: energy transition. Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, a French historian of science and technology, challenges our understanding of energy history. In this episode, he unravels the myth of energy transitions, revealing the symbiotic relationships between coal, wood, and oil that have shaped our world in unexpected ways.
Given that everything we do is based upon fossil fuels, and global populations have shot up exponentially in the last century, in direct response to abundant high energy density fossil fuels, and that so called "renewables" it's clear to me we are, as you put "f*cked"! Our only option is to grow up and have a global conversation about planing for de-growth.
Thanks so much for sharing this information. I started having a read and found it fascinating. I want to make it clear that my position is not that we can live out the fantasy of “infinite growth” by transitioning to renewable energy. I think the coming century will force everyone to have a lifestyle reckoning where we will inevitably return, willingly or not, to a way of living closer to our grandparents way. While this future is inevitable, I suspect that it will be possible to preserve a bit more of the complexity that our society has developed if we become able to unlock more direct access to the sun’s energy. The implementation will no doubt be long, laborious, costly and difficult, but in my eyes it is better than the alternative
Thanks everyone for all the thoughtful comments you've shared about this essay.
I write about collapse as a system process, not an event - one that impacts us every day of our lives.
If this piece landed for you, the rest of my work goes deeper into how this plays out over time. You are very welcome to subscribe to see where these ideas go next.
Gibson right. System collapse already here, just unevenly distributed.
I like Luke Kemp’s take, that in long run collapse is worst for elites, but can be a relief for the downtrodden, people and ecosystems ravaged by the terminal catabolic phase.
Beautifully communicated crucial ideas - thank you. Please write a follow-up about how you see the new renewable energy technologies are/will mediate collapse.
I would be really interested too, given how reliant 'renewable' energy systems are on fossil fuels and finite mineral resources.
Excellent essay.
American sociologist Stanley Milgram (1933-1984), of Obedience Experiments fame/infamy, said: “It may be that we are puppets — puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception [and] awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first step to our liberation.”
At least as individuals, we can try to resist flawed human nature thus behavior, however societally normalized it may be, once we become aware of its potential within ourselves. Once cognizant of it, perhaps enough of us could instead perform truly humane acts in sufficient quantity to initiate positive change on a large(r) scale.
Then again, perhaps the human race actually needs a unifying existential/fate-determining common cause; so much so that an Earth-impacting asteroid threat or, better yet, a vicious extraterrestrial attack launched from our moon's dark side may be what we have to collectively brutally endure together in order to survive the longer term from ourselves.
Humanity would unite for the first time and defend against, attack and eventually defeat the humanicidal multi-tentacled ETs, the latter needing to be an even greater nemesis than our own formidably divisive politics and (mis)perceptions of irreconcilable differences — especially those involving religion, nationality and race.
Yet, maybe a half-century later when all traces of the nightmarish ET invasion are gone, we’ll inevitably revert to those same politics to which we humans seem so collectively hopelessly prone — including the politics of scale. And, yet once again, we slide downwards.
... In the meantime, everybody panic — there's no reason to stay calm!
P.S. Interestingly yet disturbingly enough, before people of color became the primary source of newcomers to the U.S. and Canada, thick-accented Eastern Europeans were targeted with meanspirited Anglo-Saxon bigotry. As a broken-English, 1950s Eastern-European immigrant to Canada, my (now deceased) father experienced such maltreatment. Hypothetically, if Canada and the U.S. were to revert back to a primarily Caucasian populace, I wouldn’t be surprised if Eastern Europeans with a thick Slavic accent would eventually again become the main target of bigotry within the dominant Euro-Canadian/American ethnicity/populace.
ALSO: In the past but apparently now more than ever, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has seen undeniably widespread partisanship via Internet and news commentary. The politics of polarization outside of Israel and even the Middle East, perhaps in part for its own sake, has gotten quite disturbing. Within social media especially, the angry and thoughtless two-dimensional views have been especially amplified, including the majority posted by non-Jews and non-Palestinians. It all arouses a spectator-sport effect or mentality, with many contemptible trolls residing well outside the region yet actively supporting the ‘side’ [via politicized commentary posts] that they hate less. I anticipate many actually kept/keep track of the bloody match by checking the day’s-end death-toll score, however extremely lopsided those numbers.
Brilliant. And what to do?
I know of people who are developing what Steven Newbury calls 'lifeboats' - working at living within the local constraints. And do we have to wait for visible system collapse to visit us before welcoming rationing?
They are wasting their time https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-coup-de-grace-for-humans-and
Beautifully explained Adrian. I can see similar principles in the way in which single cell organisms evolved into multicellular organisms and tried to grow into unmanageable sizes, before settling back down to one that is maintainable and in balance within their surroundings.
Thank you for sharing your work, Adrian. I find your writing to be very supportive.
Highly recommended:
https://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
Short read.
Soy to biofuel looks to beimpproved by higher diesel prices, corn to ethanol has higher fertilizer costs that soy doesn’t and we don’t need ethanol / but diesel is precious . End corn to ethanol programs , redirect corn to bridge food gaps that will develop soon worldwide. Concentrated feeding operations are dependent upon cheap feed byproducts of biofuel production so expect protein costs to rise.
This is an Extinction Event...
When the lights go off and there is no food this is what will happen
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/collapse-and-cannibalism
Then....
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-coup-de-grace-for-humans-and
Sharing this added to the que on my polycrisis curation substack EcoDharmaKarma
https://ecodharmakarma.substack.com/
Excellent essay, as many others of yours I have seen.
I would like to query with my very limited knowledge about the per capita energy used in modern civilisation.
From Nate Hagens I have learned how the oil consumed today plus machines equates to energy availability of x100 additional human workers per human on the planet = 800billion human worker equivalents. (Based on x5 years human labour per barrel oil (1700kWh ~ 1-20 years human labour depending))
Much higher per capita expenditure in wealthy nations I think...
Which makes your fig of 75-80 seem low? Am I missing something here?
The point you touch a little but I think rewards greater focus to modern audience is how incredibly inefficient modern complex systems are, even compared to complex systems of the past civs. Precisely because of the vast and cheap energy source available.
And how that makes them vulnerable to very mild disruption in supply, price shocks and narrative change. In essence we build systems based on energy more than material.
Eg: average of 10cal energy needed to make every 1cal of food on the planet. That’s Insane.
I Don’t think you don’t know this! But think that greater emphasis helpful for people to understand the sound conclusions you arrive at.
Enjoying the work, thank you🙏
A must read. So well explained in a brilliantly written way for anyone to understand and make sense of our situation.
Correct. The world isn’t ending, but the environment is collapsing. The planet is super heating. If we don't change our ways, there won't be anything here in 10, if not five years. If anybody's lucky it might get to mid century, but it's going to be a complete Mad Max hellscape.
I completely agree with this analysis. I would only add - there is a chance for a “soft landing”, in which humanity is able to preserve some of the elements (hopefully the good ones) of our modern society in the long run as we shift to a more sustainable, local, and “energy rhythm” based model - and that chance is renewable energy. If we successfully implement renewables at scale, then it is likely that going forward, the complexity floor at which our society will land will be noticeably higher than it was in the past. Otherwise, we will likely be forced to a return to an energetically baseline society
So called "renewables" rely on fossil fuels throughout their manufacture and maintenance so at best can slow energy descent decline a tiny bit. Plus low energy density intermittent electricity can't replace high energy density hydrocarbons, in high process heat and transport applications, and as feedstock for fertilizers, plastics, even helium needed for microchip manufacture is entirely reliant on natural gas.
Thanks Natasha this is a good point. Renewables are dependent on fossil fuels for their production because we currently use fossil fuels as our main source of power, as we move towards a more electrified grid there will by definition be less fossil fuels in the mix. For the non energy uses of fossil fuels, we definitely need to keep using them or find an alternative. Otherwise we really are f*cked!
Thanks Patrick for your response. Unfortunately "by definition" Jevons paradox forces us to observe that when technological improvements increase the efficiency of a resource's use, it leads to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource. In other words the more intermittent so called "renewables" forced onto electric grids, the more fossil fuels will be needed to build and maintain those grids. Like more mining refining and transport of copper and rare earths and other essential ingredients demanded by intermittent low energy density harvesting infrastructure - NONE of which can be electrified at scale. Yes a few demonstration plants here and there where geography allows, but not at global scales.
Also, there will not be "a move towards a more electrified grid" - because by definition grids only supply electricity!
Indeed there has NEVER been an "energy transition" we've simply added new sources, and kept using the old ones at growing rates too e.g. traditional biomass consumption was 5,556 TWh in 1800 and 11,111 TWh in 2024 !!
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution
Natasha thank you for your informative comment. Your point is correct of course, but I would challenge the increased reliance on fossil fuels - yes more “work” will have to be done to extract, refine, etc, but as more of our energy comes from electrified sources, as in my previous comment, less fossil inputs will be required. To be clear I’m not suggesting this is an easy or simple transition, or that fossil fuels will in our lifetimes be eliminated from our energy mix, but based on the article we are both commenting on it appears clear that we either find a way to wean our societies off of fossil fuels for energy or we are simply f*cked. I also disagree that there has never been an energy transition - how many people do you know in the west still heating their homes with wood?
And thank you Patrick nice to have a discussion!
Since no electrical infrastructure can be built with electricity, it must all be built with fossil fuels, there is no way it can be true that "less fossil inputs will be required" in any proposed electric dominated future (currently only 20% of global energy is electricity).
Re: energy transition. Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, a French historian of science and technology, challenges our understanding of energy history. In this episode, he unravels the myth of energy transitions, revealing the symbiotic relationships between coal, wood, and oil that have shaped our world in unexpected ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxsZtwIhFw
Given that everything we do is based upon fossil fuels, and global populations have shot up exponentially in the last century, in direct response to abundant high energy density fossil fuels, and that so called "renewables" it's clear to me we are, as you put "f*cked"! Our only option is to grow up and have a global conversation about planing for de-growth.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WPNwj85HWNY1equ22CcSO4e8zfHehhtk
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution
Or as Nate Hagens more elegantly puts it:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kEwDNlNwF0
Thanks so much for sharing this information. I started having a read and found it fascinating. I want to make it clear that my position is not that we can live out the fantasy of “infinite growth” by transitioning to renewable energy. I think the coming century will force everyone to have a lifestyle reckoning where we will inevitably return, willingly or not, to a way of living closer to our grandparents way. While this future is inevitable, I suspect that it will be possible to preserve a bit more of the complexity that our society has developed if we become able to unlock more direct access to the sun’s energy. The implementation will no doubt be long, laborious, costly and difficult, but in my eyes it is better than the alternative