What Are GeoDestinies?

 

Lover's Leap Overlook, Virginia

How are you doing? Are you feeling alright? If you answered in a positive fashion, then great! If not, then I'm sorry to hear that things aren't going so well for you and that you aren't feeling good right now. Why do I ask? Well, because I've been working on reading a greatly detailed book about our predicaments and combined with the general realities I outline in this blog, I'm feeling a bit down about how these trajectories are proceeding. So, if you are also not feeling great about these predicaments, I can safely bet that like me, you are just a tad bit too clear-eyed and you are seeing beyond all the hype and distraction currently filling mainstream media right now. I've never had any doubts about exponential change and that it will (and is doing so already) outpace any ability we might have to adjust, adapt, or mitigate the circumstances we find ourselves in the midst of. This book I mention is GeoDestinies by Walter Youngquist, and it is an experience in humility, literally.

New studies continue amassing the evidence I routinely post here regarding these predicaments, but when one looks at the actual historical evidence of where we've been and what we've done and how even when countless warnings have been issued, society has paid little, if any, attention to any of them. How many "final warnings" must be issued? I'm pretty sure I posted the study this article discusses already, but for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, there it is. I could look up more recent studies, but the one by James Hansen I published many months ago has now been peer-reviewed and represents a distinctive view of where we're headed. Even before Hansen's study, I posted material highlighting our trajectory and how the rate of change is what is most important and how this rate is much faster than any other mass extinction period in Earth's history. For those who don't want to take the time to read that article and watch the accompanying video, PLEASE spend the 5 minutes to watch this video of the late Will Steffen. Keep in mind that that video is from 2016. The video came from this article, a much longer version but thoroughly backed up with a rich array of evidence.

In my last article, I discussed the multitude of ideas that exist in an effort to respond to the predicaments we face and how none of them are truly fit for purpose since none of them actually solve said predicaments. As I mention time and again, these efforts are more or less denial of reality in an effort to reduce our cognitive dissonance and then our species has a tendency to buy into certain strategies and use optimism bias to double down on the ones that seem promising. As is often the case, once a promising strategy emerges, then the bargaining begins with determining ways to gain political acceptance of said promising strategy and to promote policies that would bring said promising strategy into existence. While I have pointed out time and again that these ways of accomplishing specific goals are too time-consuming and cannot achieve any specific goals in a timeframe suitable for reducing overshoot to an extent that would bring about mitigation of overshoot's symptom predicaments, Steve Bull points out the reality, quote:

"But as William Yeats reminded us in The Second Coming: “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold”. The fall/decline of complex societies is a recurrent theme in human pre/history regardless of the policies of the ruling caste and the best technologies of the time. Diminishing returns on investments in complexity along with the predicament of ecological overshoot is resulting in this cyclical phenomenon shifting from regional collapse to being global in nature.

How this proceeds exactly this time around is anyone’s guess, but the process cannot be avoided…and without recognising the actual predicament of overshoot and its inevitable consequences our approaches to what is unfolding will continue to be misguided and simply make Nature’s correction all the more devastating.

And our political systems and ruling caste members are likely the very last place we should be looking for guidance on all of this given their primary motivation/goal requires doing the exact opposite of what our species needs to be pursuing: rapid and significant degrowth."

It really is high time that folks accept the reality that there is no political solution. Yes, I've posted that song before in this space. I also posted an article about Dave Gardner, but the reality is that politics simply can't solve the issues we face because politics won't change the laws of physics and biology. In fact, practically everything in this article has been mentioned many times before on this blog. Originally, I was going to add a couple of articles in this article to my last article before I realized that even though this article rehashes the same theme from most of the articles in this blog, there was way too much material to simply add to that article - a new article was required.

Just as humorously, as I went off-topic in this article, I decided to cut that material out and use it to make yet another new article. Much of that portion was inspired by different posts online along with some new articles where I noticed a fault with the narrative they portray. Stay tuned...I hope to have that one finished for next week!

I actually appreciate all the posts I see routinely online, as they point out this aversion to acceptance of the conditions which will continue to worsen throughout the remainder of our lives. I see many who understand and accept our predicaments but suggest that we can still "do the next right thing" and re-wild our local areas and use regenerative techniques to "repair" the damage we've done collectively as a species. This is a lovely thought. While it is definitely a noble one, and I agree that the actions undertaken to achieve it are positive ones, it really can't make up for the actions by most of the 4-6 billion people living in industrial civilization who are, just by existing, causing further damages to a majority of land we live on and the systems which sustain us. Going back to GeoDestinies which I pointed out above, one of the things that is most pernicious about our predicament and often almost completely unseen by society is the soil underneath our feet. Air, water, and soil are absolute requirements for life, yet most of the focus is on everything BUT those three elements. From page 312 of GeoDestinies, quote:

"The weathering of rocks that breaks them down into small particles is a beneficial process. But if their subsequent removal is beyond the natural rate of erosion that nature replaces over time, the result is soil loss. The great enemy of soil and, therefore, civilization, is civilization itself as we know it - the human-induced accelerated rate of erosion. On a global scale, McNeill and Winiwarter (2004) identify three waves of erosion. The first was when farming expanded out of river basins to adjacent foothills, putting slopes under cultivation, and converting some forests to farmland. This began in the second millenium B.C. and continued for 3,000 years. The second wave of erosion started in the sixteenth century and continued into the nineteenth century when the Eurasian steppe, the South American pampas, and the North American prairies were put under cultivation.

The third wave of erosion began after 1945 when rapid population growth and other factors propelled a new frontier into the world's thinly populated tropic rain forests. Heavy rains and steep slopes in, for example, Rwanda and Guatemala, have lately brought about some of the highest recorded rates of soil erosion. At the same time, however, effective soil conservation has spread since the 1930s, especially in North America and Europe. Nevertheless, in global terms, the past 60 years have brought human-induced soil erosion and destruction of soil ecosystems to unprecedented levels (McNeill and Winiwarter, 2004)."

Later, it adds this, quote:

"The very serious decline in world per capita cereal grain production is shown in Figure 14-1. This is due to a combination of several ongoing factors: growth of world population; decline of fertility of arable soils; and loss of total area of arable soils due to various causes including water-logging and salinization. Pimentel and Pimentel (2008) report that "Worldwide, more than 20 million hectares of agricultural land is abandoned annually because of soil erosion and salinization. During the past 40 years, about 30 percent of total world arable land has been abandoned because it was no longer productive."

Other factors include the declining amount of groundwater for irrigation because of worldwide overpumping, and having less surface water available for growing season irrigation due to loss of snowpacks in headwater mountainous regions such as the Rocky Mountains of the United States and the Himalayas of Asia.

All this means a much tougher challenge to feed a growing world population. The World Health Organization noted in 2004, that there are already 3.7 billion undernourished people, the largest number and proportion of need ever recorded. Figure 14-1 shows why there is serious doubt this challenge can be met."

Now, taken into context, one can easily see how ecological overshoot is causing these predicaments (especially the necessary elements of life; air, water, and soil) to worsen. This brings an article from Dave Pollard into the limelight, which despite sounding rather negative has so much truth to it that it ranks as one of the most honest articles I've read in quite some time, quote:

"There’s been a subtle shift in the tone of some prominent “collapsniks” over the last couple of years. It’s finally dawned on many that the polycrisis predicament of civilizational collapse (economic, political, social, ecological) cannot be prevented, “fixed” or even significantly mitigated.

So now we’re reading more about “acceptance”, “humility”, “hospicing modernity”, “making good ruins”, and other supposedly new and more modest ways of coping with the inevitability of collapse. This has been accompanied by several collapsniks retreating zealously into myth, mysticism, and religious orthodoxy.

But old habits die hard. Behind the new terms and sentiments, there remains a well-conditioned urge to “suggest” “what we might do” (that’s the new expression for telling us what we should do) — something, anything, that will make things somehow “better”. Inherent in all of these “suggestions” is the well-honed arrogance of our species, especially among those who have achieved a measure of fame or fortune, the arrogance to believe there is anything that one can “choose” to do, or that anything that anyone does will make a difference at other than an utterly local, temporary scale."

I think that it is rather important to point out just how accurate that last sentence really is. There are responses which can be made to the predicaments we face, however, it is extremely important to keep the limitations of those responses in mind. All responses will generally be local in nature (remembering that global unity is not possible) AND said responses either cannot be sustained or their effectiveness will become moot as time progresses. For an example of this waning effectiveness, take a look at popular conservation techniques. Can we really "save" species from extinction? Or is this more of an anthropocentric idea centered on us playing God? We don't realistically command and control nature - this is simply an illusion we have chosen to believe in. As such, any and all attempts at controlling nature, "fixing" or mitigating circumstances, or adapting to conditions are temporary at best. As the ecological collapse deepens and biodiversity declines through the mass extinction we are in, the very existence of most of the species that folks are busy trying to save will be wiped out by the loss of habitat caused by conditions beyond our control. Most ideas for conserving wildlife require technology use or energy use which cannot be sustained. An excellent example is this article which lists coral bleaching as a problem with a solution but fails to see that cooling the oceans down near coral reefs cannot be sustained, making it a predicament with an outcome, not a problem with a solution. Their so-called "solution" is only for today while we still have the power of fossil hydrocarbon energy in sufficient supply. 

Comprehending precisely what GeoDestinies are is rather important. They are the predetermined destiny of a region dependent upon the natural resources that region contains. For instance, desert regions don't naturally contain much surface water, so they are not suitable for large numbers of people to live in. Fossil hydrocarbon energy provides a way to pump water from other areas to supply desert areas, but again, this is only for today. 

This only for today theme extends pretty much across the board for most modernities that many of us take for granted. Food comes from the grocery store, water flows freely from the tap, flip the switch and the light comes on, and on and on - except that is just how it works today, and without the fossil fuel platform, none of that remains true for long. As is the case above about Geodestinies, many locations will be tapped out already in terms of clean water, clean air, and clean soil, if there is any productive soil left to be had in the first place. This means that there are a small number of responses that can be helpful and a huge number of responses which are maladaptive, as Dr. Kate Booth and Tristan Sykes discuss in this video.

GeoDestinies highlights intricate details such as the minerals contained in specific regions that can cause disease or even death depending on whether the minerals are lacking or too plentiful in the soil and/or water (and therefore in much of the food we or other animals eat). It also brings into focus certain realities that many people often forget, as this quote from page 371 shows:

"The net result of numerous environmental rules and actions is that in the United States, and increasingly in other parts of the world, more and more land is being set aside for various purposes, and cannot be used for mineral production despite the inescapable fact that materials obtained from the Earth are the basis for human existence and prosperity. More and more people are becoming dependent on less and less land. Again, we have to recognize that everything we have, including ourselves, comes from the Earth. Locking up more resource land to protect it from development cannot continue indefinitely."

This sadly is why so many different conservation tactics are bound to fail sooner or later. I have pointed out in the previous articles how some conservation refuges that have been set up are constantly raided or wildlife poached from by locals who previously used the property to augment their existence. Occasionally, different cartels have used such properties to obtain wildlife for the bushmeat trade or trade in delicacies such as pangolin scales, often used in traditional Chinese "medicines". Other items such as rhinoceros horn or elephant tusk and other similar materials are also often targeted.

In South America, large parts of the Amazon Rainforest have been deforested in order to use the land for agriculture, beef production, and gold mining (see page 374). Whether the land is part of a conservation plot is somewhat irrelevant considering the importance of the Rainforest to the world. Unfortunately, the entire area is slated to be transformed into much more arid grasslands as a result of the deforestation, wildfires, drought, and climate change in general. Further down the page, land subsidence is discussed, which I wrote about in this article, albeit from water pumping of aquifers rather than geothermal development or oil fields.

These two stark paragraphs are on page 395 at the end of Chapter 20, quote:

"People use resources. We look toward a “renewable natural resource sustainable economy.” In pure form, it cannot exist. For even if we use renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, and waves, equipment deteriorates and the materials from which these energy conversion devices are made must come from the Earth. They must be mined. The human race will continue to draw on and impact the Earth. The challenge is to minimize the impact, and at the same time, maintain an acceptable standard of living. 

It is futile to try to solve environmental impact problems without also addressing the underlying issue of excess population. All of society, and especially organizations with a primary concern for the environment, must recognize this."

The red underlined section is my emphasis. This leads us right back to reducing technology use, which is the driving force (technology use) behind population growth through the reduction or elimination of negative feedbacks that naturally kept our numbers in balance with the rest of nature. Nothing else will reduce overshoot. All the fancy hype and marketing of all the other ideas for "green, clean, renewable, and sustainable" energy and/or products ignores this reality.

One of the things I see quite regularly are posts and threads which have to do with "record profits" of different corporations, frequently fossil fuel companies. These are often based upon ignorance or misunderstandings of what is actually required for one of these companies to begin extracting in the first place and the economic ups and downs, time lags, and other problems, and chapter 21 deals with these particular issues.  

One part I am grateful for is the section on Liebig's Law of the Minimum on page 428. I have discussed this before in this space in more detail here and here.

Chapter 24 points out the predicaments caused by Minerals, Politics, Taxes, and Religion. This section is chock full of all sorts of issues that arise from the combination of this witches' brew. 

Chapter 26 reveals a long list of myths and realities. The myths are quite common and I see and hear them frequently from all corners. Just like all the fantasies, myths, and fairy tales that frequently adorn the headlines of articles, the reality is much different and often not very pleasant.

On a side note, I learned that there is a huge difference between shale oil and oil shale, and the myth about oil shale (which contains no oil - it is kerogen) brought this to mind. Shale oil, unlike oil shale, has gone through the "oil window" temperature which converts the kerogen to oil and these deposits are what are being exploited through "fracking."

One myth deserves highlighting here, quote:

"Myth: “There is an easy, painless, solution” to our energy problem 

Reality: After one of more than 500 talks I have given on energy problems, especially on petroleum supply, the common question is: “What’s the answer?” What the person is really asking is: “How can we keep the current game going?” There must be some alternative, and the question is sometimes bolstered by the thought that “we put men on the Moon, we can solve the oil supply problem.” Putting men on the moon was a neat technological trick designed to show the Russians that whatever they could do — Sputnik satellite and men in space first — we could do better. But that technology has only limited applications, not related to oil supply problems. The answer to the question “what’s the answer?” is that it is not going to be possible to keep the current game going, hugely dependent as we are on fossil fuels. When I say this, I sometimes add that if I did have “the answer” and could patent it, within five years, I would be the world’s richest man. When I tell the audience there is no simple solution, I generally do not get invited back. We all like simple, inexpensive answers to problems. The problem of replacing oil offers no easy or inexpensive solutions."

This clearly points to our energy "problem" not being a problem, but a predicament. Then there is this quote on page 490, a true gem:

"Regardless of the popularity of optimism over realism, the wisest route for humanity would be one that plans and bases decisions on today’s scientific and technological realities and reasonably visible resources, rather than on hope for things that may never arrive. Optimism is vital in looking toward the future. One must be optimistic to have a basis for making an effort. But optimism should be tempered with facts. Campaigns for public office should not give citizens false hopes. As civilization proceeds, it will be much more convenient and far less disruptive to be pleasantly surprised along the way than unpleasantly surprised. Myths must be replaced by reality on which intelligent decisions are made. 

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” —Aldous Huxley"

Chapter 27 reveals this quote which demonstrates how willingly people are to talk about sustainability without having any real idea of how to accomplish it:

"An interesting exercise is to ask someone to precisely define “sustainable” and to describe in detail how it can be accomplished. Through correspondence and conversation, I have pursued this matter of “sustainable” in terms of what technologies and materials would be involved and how many people could be supported and how well. People I contacted have been confidently using the word over the years because it is a nice concept, and just thinking about it, makes people comfortable. Comfortable, that is, until faced with identifying details of how this can be accomplished with zero drawdown of Earth resources. Such would have to occur if a truly sustainable society could be established. Only about half replied, and those that did, dealt only in generalities with factually unsupported assurance that “it can be done."

Yes, exactly - I hear these same generalities with little actual details and I can easily point out where many of the assumptions are that all of today's conditions will remain the same which, of course, is impossible. There are so many poignant statements and facts in this book, and one of them points to a repeating theme I write about time and again, quote:

"Huxley (1977) related the policy difficulties of population issues:
"There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population: whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control — the control, for example, of infectious diseases — can be accomplished by a handful of experts…. But when it comes to decreasing the birthrate, we find ourselves confronted with problems which can only be solved by the cooperation of the entire population."

Once again, the concept of global unity and cooperation comes into play and, once again, the reason population issues still remain is because global unity and cooperation are mere illusions some still choose to believe in. If only beliefs had the power to change physical reality...

Speaking of physical reality, an article on Rob Mielcarski's site grabbed my attention with this quote:

"We are trying to solve problems within the same systems that are responsible for creating them and that only exacerbate those problems. Moreover, we are locked and trapped in these systems. […] But these systems are far too complicated and too interconnected to fully understand their function. Managing these systems in a way that would allow for controlled shrinkage while maintaining our prosperity is not possible. There is no path to sustainable or planned decline. […] The conclusion of this report is that a decline in energy will almost certainly initiate a series of processes, at the end of which will be the collapse of our civilization. We are close to a point where world oil production will decline or may have already reached that point (peak oil). Our civilizational structure reacts unstably to a withdrawal of energy. In all likelihood, our globally interconnected civilization is on the verge of a surprisingly rapid and imminent collapse."

The implications for the degrowth movement are huge, although I've already covered that story in several different articles before, this one in particular. Underneath that article is another article by Art Berman regarding the aspect of using nuclear energy to replace fossil hydrocarbon energy; one I shall add to my article here about nuclear power along those same lines. Spoiler alert: Nuclear is Not The Answer is the title of the article.

On that note, I shall conclude this lengthy article now with the fact that this book, GeoDestinies, while very lengthy (almost 600 pages), is well worth your time to read!