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. 

Comments

  1. Kevin HesterJune 18, 2021 at 11:04 PM

    Wow, he really is delusional.
    Suffering from 'Cognitive dissonance at the edge of extinction".

    https://kevinhester.live/2020/02/28/cognitive-dissonance-and-outright-lies-at-the-edge-of-extinction/



    Mark Brimblecombe has done brilliant work in this space
    https://markbrimblecombeblog.wordpress.com/2021/01/18/climate-change-and-the-mitigation-myth/?fbclid=IwAR3mK_ctEqGraDVVeP56hvg3qLs_9XL23ZlzU1gubdfVdmyiIB_lpBa2_t4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erik MichaelsJune 19, 2021 at 8:16 AM

      Kevin, I don't think he's delusional; but he does seem to be suffering from denial of reality and most likely from compartmentalization, which I think a broad portion of society also suffers from. This is all part of the result of industrial civilization and technology divorcing us from the reality that we are a PART of nature, not separate from it.

      Yes, Mark (like you) has pointed to the realities, which are indeed stark. More people are beginning to take notice of these facts as time moves forward.

      Delete
    2. Michael DowdJune 19, 2021 at 1:27 PM

      I know Nate and he's hardly delusional.

      His main audience (and his life's work) is primarily communicating with 18-22 year old college and university students.

      Need I say more? :-)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome to Problems, Predicaments, and Technology

Image
Welcome to my new blog - titled Problems, Predicaments, and Technology -  because that is the title to a short article I wrote over a year ago to point out the difference between problems and predicaments (often called dilemmas ) and explain the role technology use (and the culture surrounding it) has had in creating most of the predicaments we face today. While this blog is mainly focused on Ecological Overshoot, Abrupt Climate Disruption ( ACD ) and Energy and Resource Decline (generally associated with peak oil and collapse), there are a myriad of other predicaments closely associated with these three that will also be covered. Many scientists focus a large amount of their lives trying to figure out how to solve these predicaments as if they are problems in the hopes of coming up with a way to at least mitigate some of the harm society is doing to life on this planet. My efforts here are to point out that in a very real sense, this has been rooted in denial of reality  and opti
Read more

What Would it Take for Humanity to Experience Radical Transformation?

Image
Today we shall investigate this question: What would it take for humanity to experience radical transformation of individual and collective consciousness within the next decade? This picture looks inviting, doesn't it? But does it realistically represent the world we collectively live in today? In one word, NO. One look at the news stories of today can easily show how individuals, groups, corporations, and nations of all stripes are arguing and fighting for attention, for purposes, and for goals and strategies. Look at social media and it is ripe with every flavor of disagreement known to society. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there are few things everyone can agree on, and even when one IS found, nobody can agree on the ways to solve what everyone agreed the problems are. Now, throw in a PREDICAMENT instead of a problem and guess what happens? From my experience, when a predicament is put into the mix, most people still look at it from the same standpoint the
Read more

Denial of Reality

Image
  In my last written post (to clarify the difference between the files, which contain only links to outside material), I mentioned denial of reality. You might wonder what this has to do with climate change and extinction. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most powerful mental issues that affects humans. Rob Mielcarski explains the evolution of how this came to be, quote: " The singular emergence of human intelligence, and its ability to write and read this paragraph, evolved in a gene controlled machine with an unusually powerful computer, that was created by an improbable simultaneous adaptation for an extended theory of mind with denial of reality, and whose complexity was enabled by the increased energy per gene provided by mitochondria, that resulted from an accidental endosymbiosis of two prokaryotes, powered by an unintuitive chemiosmotic proton pump, that originated in an alkaline hydrothermal vent, on 1 of 40 billion planets, in 1 of 100 billion galaxies, and that plane
Read more

More Cognitive Dissonance

Image
  In my last post , I expressed my concerns regarding methane emissions along with the growing speed which our collective predicaments appear to be gaining. Then I explained precisely why we have thus far not made any real progress on these predicaments based upon our collective denial , which has a considerable amount to do with our basic human psychology. In conclusion, the reality is that very few people are actually paying an ounce of real attention. What they are paying attention to are all the distractions - the hype, advertising, marketing, and propaganda. Today I bring more evidence of the increasing speed of these predicaments as I recall some of my articles which I had privately hoped might be a long way off into the future. I'm not one to try to evade uncomforting news. If I was, I most certainly wouldn't be reading and watching these articles, reports, studies, videos, and other media to try to understand and comprehend fully where we are and where we're heade
Read more

Fantasies, Myths, and Fairy Tales

Image
  Advertisement from the mid-20th century I have often used this expression (the title) to describe many things people tend to think of as solutions for one thing or another that either are not solutions or are unrealistic at best in terms of actually solving something. For anyone just joining these articles, this post  will help get you started so as to be able to comprehend what this article is about.  As I have expressed before, my deep passion is to help explain where we are (as a species), how we got here, why we are in this mess, and what can and/or cannot be done to "solve" these predicaments. My very first post explained the difference between problems with answers or solutions and predicaments (or dilemmas) with outcomes. In it, we discovered that predicaments don't have solutions, and that every solution proffered for a predicament winds up causing new problems and/or predicaments or comes with unacceptable costs or just simply doesn't solve anything. The re
Read more

What is NTHE and How "near" is Near Term?

Image
I distinctly remember my first introduction to the initialism (or abbreviation or acronym) "NTHE" which ushered me into a whole new set of exploration. I was a member of a climate change group on Facebook at the time (which I had been a member of for quite some time) and I saw a post which was discussing it. I hadn't seen this abbreviation before and wondered what it meant, so I did a search and a whole list of links was presented (as usual) along with the spelled out version, Near Term Human Extinction. I clicked on one which took me to a website blog by Dave Pollard . I started reading and was introduced to another person, Carolyn Baker, with whom Dave had a video interview with. Through this video, I was introduced to another person, a professor by the name of Guy McPherson. A video of him presenting information at an Indiana university, DePauw, where my grandmother attended, was available; so I watched it. The information was stark and I noticed the looks on the ki
Read more

So, What Should We Do?

Image
  Pictures of wildfire damage at Glacier National Park in Montana 2016 What type of activities will help in reducing the effects of ecological overshoot? I'm often asked this question when I point out that solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear energy, hydroelectric dams, EVs, and all other technological devices will not help climate change, pollution loading, or any other predicament under the parent predicament of ecological overshoot: "Well, what are your solutions?" Sadly, this question assumes that I am pointing out a PROBLEM, not a predicament. Predicaments don't have solutions. So, I don't have a solution (and nobody else does either, despite claims to the contrary - more on that in a couple of paragraphs). But I can tell them what WON'T help. Buying more stuff, REGARDLESS of what it is, WILL NOT HELP. Because ecological overshoot is a predicament with an outcome and not a problem with a solution , people need to adjust their expectations accordingly.
Read more