More Myths - This Time With Some Reality

 

Nate Hagens recently produced a new video here regarding myths and reality and it is very well done. The video goes into precise detail about many core myths and beliefs, and I have the video queued up to the part about the myth of "technology solving it" for anyone who still thinks solar panels and wind turbines help reduce emissions in any way (spoiler alert; they actually INCREASE emissions). Once you've seen this part, I recommend going to the beginning and watching the entire video from the start.

The entire video is excellent with regard to eliminating commonly held false beliefs generally encouraged by industry and governments in an effort to continue BAU (Business As Usual) and industrial civilization as long as possible.

I actually wrote out a detailed critique of the video in the groups I manage, but think that this video deserves a much wider audience, which is why I wrote this post. The video is excellent in explaining why technology can not and will not save us nor will it solve climate change, and it correctly dispels the overwhelming nonsense (such as "green" or "clean" or "renewable" energy, net-zero PR marketing, EVs and other transportation ideas based on electric motors, "smart" grids, etc.) which is constantly hyped about climate change, ecological overshoot, and energy and resource decline. 

The Myth #1 that Nate has listed; the "We Are Doomed" one actually ISN'T a myth. This is an existential FACT. ALL species go extinct sooner or later and we are no exception to this rule. So, from this angle, Hagens is simply suffering from denial of reality (no big surprise there, as MOST of society is suffering from this as well; and increasingly so).

His thought process regarding our future appears to discount the overall effects from the predicaments that he already highlighted earlier in the video. Despite the fact that he clearly pointed out how NONE of the technology we have now or in the future will solve climate change, and he has even explained that climate change won't be solved (which we already all knew here anyway); he still has fantasies about our future? This demonstrates a rather serious disconnect with the reality of the scenario.

Immediately following this, he asks if we are going to enter a 6th mass extinction. HELLO! We're ALREADY in at least the EIGHTH mass extinction (see here and here)! Extinctions don't go backwards!

Next up on my critique of this part (the last 32 minutes of the video) of the presentation, I am laughing right now at his suggestion of creating yet another holiday; this time, Energy Appreciation Day. There are already so many lame-brained holidays and other named days that I highly doubt anybody will take this very seriously to begin with. Even if this DID become a holiday, the chances it would turn into the same type of holiday as Earth Day (where much of the focus is on nonsense and ideas that actually go in the wrong direction) are exceedingly high.  

Pro-future exponential information tech - I don't see this gaining much of a foothold. I can't even get folks to look at scientific proof of concepts; how does he think people are going to be interested in SHARING the info if they won't even look at it to begin with? This is one of the most frustrating impacts of having this knowledge; that most people won't pay attention or flat out ignore the implications.

Sensemaking...oh boy...where to go with this one? Sadly, getting people to believe the science is not easy and so far, most people are still into fantasies, myths, and fairy tales. Calling the issue a problem when in reality it is a predicament means that there is no solution to this particular issue. So far, this particular section could definitely use some cleaning up.

He DOES claim (2:29:30 in the video) that if we don't make sense of sensemaking diplomacy and "solve this" that "many of the other interventions he is going to suggest are going to have short runways". Sadly, since this is a predicament with an outcome and not a problem with a solution, I can already guarantee that all his other suggestions are therefore most likely probably fairly useless.

Council of Elders and Council of Contrarians - this is one idea and good concept that I could get behind. MAYBE at some point this could be utilized, although at this point it reeks of pure unadulterated hopium.

His idea about creating new taxes for non-renewable, finite resources can pretty much be moved to the dustbin here in the USA. People don't want new or more taxes, especially ones that will make everything more expensive. Many people are just scraping by as it is, so adding more cost to everyday living will cause most to require government support in an environment where government spending is ALREADY over the top. Rome (and many other civilizations) collapsed in this way attempting to solve predicaments that only had outcomes. Guess where we end up?

His support for electrical production despite what he explained earlier in the presentation about Jevons Paradox is really confusing. Electricity needs to be done away with if we want to be sustainable, PERIOD. There is no way to produce electricity AND be sustainable, so here is yet another disconnect from reality in these ideas.

Perhaps the most damning about all his ideas are that they are based upon the false assumption that society will be anything like it is today. This is dangerous because we are in collapse. Everything we currently take for granted is going to change, so these ideas aren't taking into consideration the dynamics of the collapse we are already in, no differently than his not taking the current mass extinction we're in into proper consideration (the very ecosystem services currently provided by the biodiversity which is being erased as this is being read means that one must not make the assumption that what is possible today will also be possible tomorrow. This seems to be a common myth that many people don't take into consideration, and one Nate should know better about.

Bold new moves? LOL, I suppose throwing some hype around is good...time for BOLD ACTION!!! Yep, that'll fix it! If we just start RIGHT NOW! This part is full of tripe - imagining ideas that most likely simply are not to be because they depend upon the climate of yesteryear and a biosphere NOT in a mass extinction. The Civilian Land Corp sounds like a fancy term for the conservation ideas that ALREADY don't work.

I just covered in the last section precisely WHY a "LifeBrigade" is unworkable. Nate veers into complete fantasy here.

Still, overall, most of the presentation was very good and informative. The last 32 minutes were mostly a complete waste of time as far as I'm concerned because it is based upon false premises and assumptions that simply cannot be. It is a nice bedtime story but doesn't have much relevance to reality. My real hope is that in the future, some of these ideas become more viable; because right now, I see most of them as unattainable.

Despite the negative tone I give to the ending infused with the typical mandatory hopium, I applaud Nate for bringing some MUCH needed reality to the forefront and for attempting to get this knowledge out to the public. Way too many people have been afraid to divulge the truth and I accuse many scientists for doling out rosy stories when they know all too well that those stories have little chance of ever becoming reality.