The End of The Regenerative Illusion?
Recently, it has been difficult to keep up with different aspects of the predicaments we face. Quite a bit has been going on with several very serious developments happening in a short period of time. Two rather large lithium battery facilities have caught fire and burned up, releasing lots of toxic material into the environment, both within the last three months. One was a battery storage unit designed to store electricity, the other was a battery recycling plant. This is in addition to the firestorms which literally devastated several different parts of the Los Angeles area in California.
The lithium battery fires aren't the only facilities here in the U.S. to be affected, as is shown in this video. Another set of fires at a facility in Madison, Illinois also brings concern to the situation. Knowing that the level of toxicity of a lithium battery fire is intense, what are these fires releasing into the environment and how might that affect the food supply as these types of fires quickly ramp up?
It seems rather obvious that these battery fires aren't even limited to one-time events, given the fact that multiple fires have broken out at ALL three of the above facilities. Taken together with the absolutely massive fires in the Los Angeles area, one can clearly see just how much material has been released into the environment.
Think of the average household and what kinds of materials are contained inside. There are the building materials of the house, the equipment and appliances inside, the furniture, the carpets, rugs, and other furnishings, clothing, bedding, and other materials that may contain fire retardant chemicals (often PFAS-containing materials). The refrigerators and air conditioning compressors will often release or leak strong greenhouse gases into the environment. It is a mind-bending amount of toxicity that has been released.
The real issue here is that we're just getting started. I've discussed the Gatlinburg fires (both in 2016 and in 2024) before here. I've discussed how carbon sinks are turning to carbon sources. Obviously, there is a trend here when one sees the trajectory of wildfires globally.
Why is this important?
Because I keep getting hammered in comments from folks who aren't willing to see the writing on the wall. I can't make them see; they must choose for themselves to open their eyes and minds to reality. But I do feel for them as they play the blame game and turn to denial of reality and optimism bias in a vain effort to "solve" the unsolvable. I understand it as a defense mechanism designed to protect them from the cognitive dissonance they feel from where they would like to see themselves in the future and how that gels with (or not) the conditions of today.
I had some spare time the other day, so I chose to read and reply to comments on my articles. I think most of my readers understand that there is no way out of the set of predicaments we have worked ourselves into. Most of us had no clue that this was even what we were doing. It isn't until one discovers that civilization itself is totally unsustainable that one begins to wake up to the reality of what ecological overshoot really means. Trying to help commenters who misunderstand the situation and find fault with my assessments can occasionally be helpful to other readers. Beliefs have no bearing on facts. The facts won't change just because someone doesn't like them.
It is true that most everything we do today is based upon degenerative processes. Ecologically speaking, this leads to a deadening of everything (explaining part of why we are now in a mass extinction of our own creation). So, naturally, the way to reverse this is to switch over to regenerative processes, right? Well, not so fast.
There is an argument to be made that "we must do something," so doing that which is right must take precedence. While I generally agree with that statement, is that what is happening today? Um, NO. First of all, who is WE? Are we actually attempting to reduce overshoot or are we bargaining to maintain civilization? I will admit that I know a few who are attempting to reduce overshoot by reducing their ecological footprint. But there are very few people doing this. Most of society is instead firmly locked into the daily grind of supporting and maintaining the unsustainable system that engulfs most if not all of the developed world.
So, in effect, the world as a whole is moving forward on a path that ultimately leads to destruction. (Link to entire video here.) Needless to say, switching over to regenerative processes is a more complicated situation than at first sight, and those in power have vested interests in destroying such attempts because they interrupt their income and power streams.
Let's say you are on a train speeding down the tracks and it is discovered that the bridge ahead is out. The train keeps going faster and faster and you want off because you realize that the train is now a death trap. What do you do? You're dead if you jump off and you're dead if you stay on. There's no easy answer, is there? There may be some other options depending on how much time you have - perhaps call in a rescue? How about finding out why the train keeps speeding up? Is the engineer aware of this? This is a predicament - it's not just that there's no easy answer, there's no answer at all really. IF there's enough time, maybe the situation can be mitigated somewhat. But the bottom line at the end of the day is that predicaments have outcomes, not solutions. How likely is it that this person could contact emergency personnel and that he or she would be the person or persons rescued? Would there be enough time to rescue everyone or just a few people?
What can be seen fairly easily here is that there are severely limited options, and even if there was enough time, there was no guarantee that the person contacting emergency personnel would be one of the people who might get rescued. It's entirely possible that no rescue could be accomplished, period. Would you accept the predicament and continue trying to enjoy yourself the best way you could or would you fall into denial? Would denying it make anything better? Would bargaining with it make it better? I have a lot of questions in my mind.
I see a considerable amount of denial and bargaining from my perspective. For anyone who understands the situation with pollution loading, taken into consideration with the material I provided at the top of this article, one can easily see how the pollution we have generated and released into the environment is beginning to kill us off, slowly at first. Just like with all exponential curves, the rate continues accelerating.
My point with regard to the predicaments we face is for those who understand them to focus on reaching acceptance. What I tend to see instead is resistance to acceptance with many reaching for the hopium by preaching the benefits of various approaches, none of which actually solve anything. This is the trouble - it really is no different than engineers developing different sources of energy (think "clean" "green" "renewable" and "sustainable" energy) to power the unsustainable system of civilization. Powering it differently changes absolutely nothing - one is still adding to the overshoot predicament instead of reducing it.
One discussion in particular continues to amaze depress me. It is the one where folks continue to wax on lyrical about regenerative agriculture and/or permaculture. Is it better than industrial agriculture? Of course. Does it solve anything? Nope. Agriculture in ALL its forms is going away. Agriculture has many requirements, one of which is stable weather patterns. The Holocene featured stable weather for the most part, which is part of what led to the development of agriculture in the first place. The other part of that equation had to do with the fact that we had wiped out the megafauna and needed a new food supply. Some people think that by adopting permaculture and teaching it to the next generation that they will be providing the means for that next generation to survive and thrive, but this actually ignores the overwhelming facts of the predicaments we face which point to the poisoning of our sources of sustenance - namely, food, air, and water. The assumption that we can continue with old ways of living needs to be erased because it just isn't true. The other mechanism which will end agriculture is that dependable weather patterns are disappearing. The two of these issues together mean that agriculture will become just as undependable as hunting and gathering, although this is down the road a ways yet.
I've pointed out the fertility issues many times just recently - we are slowly losing the ability to reproduce caused by the ongoing pollution loading; especially PFAS, PFOS, microplastics, and other endocrine disruptors, but also from agricultural pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers. The trouble is in the fact that we aren't the only ones being affected - this is affecting ALL animals including insects. We are all connected in the web of life. Once again, I will reiterate that as long as the goal is to continue civilization, we will continue to cause our own extinction. Since agriculture in all its forms is the basis of this way of life supported by technology use, what is actually needed is the wherewithal to opt out of that system to the extent possible because it is a dead end. Doubling down on technology use will only get us to that dead end faster and faster. So far, the ONLY proven system for living sustainably has been hunting and gathering, and there are several people who think that this is what we will be returning to. So, while I can be supportive of those who currently practice regen ag or permaculture, this is not a long-term strategy for survival. Teaching the next generation these techniques is a noble idea, but one which ultimately rests in the same category as those teaching the next generation how to do today's jobs which generally won't exist in a generation.
The same is true for most all of the other ideas I typically see being promoted. One simply cannot work on "finding a solution" for the predicaments we face instead of understanding the predicaments we face. There aren't any solutions. Even ideas that focus on mitigation are counterproductive if they don't do away with the unsustainable system of civilization. Those efforts can only encourage people to continue practicing unsustainable systems, which is precisely how we arrived here in the first place. So, comprehensively understanding these predicaments is far better than searching for nonexistent magical unicorns.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater - practicing more sustainable forms of almost anything is still better than continuing with massively wasteful and/or unproductive practices. It's just not enough, and that is what I am trying to get across. In the most recent edition of the AARP Bulletin, an article about doctors appears (link available to AARP members) which points to the inevitable predicament of the massive medical system here in the U.S. and how some doctors have simply chosen to leave the field permanently or commit suicide to escape the boondoggle. The system is based on profits, unfortunately, rather than on service or medical help to patients and recently a medical insurance CEO was gunned down as a result of his company's procedures of denying insurance claims to patients who needed certain treatments. No differently than the insurance industry, these systems based on profit face the exact same outcome as the system of civilization since they are but a subset of that system - overshoot always leads to collapse. Doctors tend to be rather smart, so some can see that this is the inevitable consequence and those same ones can see that the system is set up to self-terminate.
So, once again, my plea is for folks to understand overshoot comprehensively and to realize that the outcome is not going to be a good time. For those who talk about survival being a prime directive, you are correct. However, this doesn't mean that there won't be consequences there, either. Survival in this sense is highly overrated, as there will be many survivors who simply envy the dead.
So, all of this hopefully combines to inform those who continue focusing on ways to move forward whether they label them as solutions or not. Moving forward is good - Live Now. But this doesn't preclude the outcome of the predicaments we face, rather it celebrates the fact that we understand what these outcomes are and feel gratitude for what we have right now and are willing to show appreciation for this blessing.
Recently I came across a book by Peter Victor titled Escape From Overshoot. He spends a great deal of effort outlining what overshoot is, and I have a deep appreciation for that. Unfortunately, he frames it as a problem and is blind to the fact that it doesn't have a solution, meaning that there is no escape hatch. This is where literally millions, if not BILLIONS, of people make the same mistake, assuming that overshoot can somehow be solved. It WILL be solved, rest assured of that fact. But we have neither the agency nor the ability to operate that escape hatch. The absolute best that we can do is work towards it. Nature controls the levers to the hatch, not us. Also, the manner in which nature solves it will not be likeable to us. Collapse and die-off is that escape hatch.
Acceptance and comprehension of all of this is what allows me to enjoy my time doing things like woodworking, spending time in nature whether on trips or just hanging out in a park locally, and taking care of all the other daily chores that come my way. I no longer need to tax my brain by obsessing over some mitigation or solution because I know that ultimately it makes no difference to the outcome. This is exceedingly difficult to overcome, and many people are never successful at achieving it. My passion is helping them finally find the adaptation or improvisation which will allow them to finally overcome this issue.
On to a more pleasurable excursion with a distinctive historic appeal at Sweet Springs, West Virginia!
Comments
Post a Comment