Problems, Predicaments, and Technology

  It is truly saddening to see so many articles which proclaim complete nonsense. The worst part is that so many people are culturally indoctrinated to the point where they cannot see through these false claims. In this particular one , the claim is made that we need to protect nature (true), quote:  " Our five breakthroughs for nature echo and expand upon those same themes, emphasizing the urgent need to transform our relationship to the natural world on which we ultimately all depend. In a nutshell, here is the handful of headline actions that we are advocating: We need to put nature at the heart of decision-making, with governments and the private sector held accountable for making nature a global priority. An annual investment of US$500 billion to protect and restore nature is a minimum requirement, with funding diverted from environmentally harmful activities into nature-positive initiatives. The communities and local organizations working on the front line of conservation a

  OK, I am going to try to keep this quite short and to the point. Everyone familiar with me knows that I have been rather outspoken against what are commonly called "technofixes" for a considerably long time. Of course, this has always been for very good reasons, being that technology is what has caused the predicament of ecological overshoot in the first place. However, given the hype, marketing, advertising, and PR work done by the industries involved, many people are unaware that these technologies do not reduce fossil fuel use, they actually INCREASE their use by requiring (among other things) a considerably larger electrical grid, storage of energy for when intermittent devices are not generating, and large losses due to the realities of electrical transmission. Because the overwhelming message presented to society over the years that technology is "great" and does so much for us, the inculcated message is that technology can do no harm. Unfortunately, this c

  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

My last article focused on mindsets and how they can lead us into traps. One of the most pervasive of these traps is the energy trap . People are constantly searching for new types of energy, new energy generation, and/or ways to improve energy efficiency, ALL of which unfortunately are ultimately dead ends. The search for this energy is often with the idea to reduce emissions in an effort to reduce the effects of climate change. The trouble is in the fact that this ignores the root predicament of ecological overshoot and that producing more energy requires destruction of our planet resulting in MORE ecological overshoot, not less. Ultimately, the only way to reduce emissions is to consume less globally, period. I pointed this out in my article, What Would it Take for Humanity to Experience Radical Transformation?  and added that continuing civilization is a non-starter. Yet, practically every single idea we see to "solve" climate change consists of ideas to ramp up energy p

  First picture: Morning, Hamilton Ranch (aka Carroll Ranch), Big Hole Valley, Montana Second picture: Beaverslide used for hay. Agriculture is what led into civilization. After quite an interesting last week, I have a better understanding of why so many people fall into the different "traps" and mindsets that we do. Rarely do we see the bars around us (known as wetiko or colonialism ) and as such, we often forget precisely which boundaries are real and set in stone (such as the fact that civilization is unsustainable ), which ones are real and temporary, and which ones are only illusory and imagined. This brings a new aura to the forefront; one which explains why it is so necessary to Live Now . Peter Russell points out one of the big issues surrounding modern humans, looking for external items we think we are missing  in our lives.   One of my friends, Simon Michaux, just came out with a new video  describing precisely where we are with regards to mining and extraction and

This is Part 3 of So, What Should We Do? One of the things that is so pervasive in today's society is the constant flow of hype, advertising, marketing, and propaganda, and many people fail to see through it. Steve Bull came out with this article explaining the same scenario. They are led to believe that everything is a problem and that technology or some product produced from technology can solve it all. The truth is that technology and its use is actually the root source of these issues; and they are predicaments, not problems. Furthermore, more or new technology can do nothing but cause yet more damage. Technology is what supports civilization, as I pointed out in my last article (see the top picture) . Agriculture is technology . Since civilization is unsustainable , we cannot fix portions of civilization and stop the damage caused by civilization, which is causing those portions to develop trouble in the first place. In other words, we cannot switch out ICE (internal combus

  I have mentioned Tom Murphy many times in this blog precisely because facts don't lie. If anyone wants to truly know where we are as a species on this planet, Tom can definitely tell you. Don't get me wrong, I can also tell you; but I'm not a physicist. Tom is one of the few individuals who has written a book about our predicaments and allowed free access to everyone.  Tom has done far more than that, however. He has a website which has been a staple within the energy community for many years. He talks about our situation in this video  and surprisingly thought the same way I did for many years regarding our future. He thought that we would develop various "renewable" technologies and that our future would be shiny and "green" so that BAU could continue unabated. I actually think a very large portion of society thinks the same way, and it is because they simply do not understand the laws of physics, thermodynamics, biology, and chemistry and how they

    If you believe that there are good reasons to say that hydrogen produced with nuclear energy should be deemed to be "pink," then there must be something that doesn't click right inside your brain. The people who propose this rainbow of colors for a colorless gas don't seem to realize that when you arrive to this level of silliness, there has to be something deeply wrong at the very basis of the idea. (Courtesy of this article )  I  have mentioned how non-renewable "renewables" don't actually reduce fossil fuel use AND how they require the fossil fuel platform for their very existence in several of my articles. This means that ANYTHING which depends upon that infrastructural layer also doesn't reduce fossil fuel use due to the ongoing building, maintenance, and decommissioning and disposal of the infrastructural layers of civilization which support these upper layers and said "anything" also requires the fossil fuel platform for its ex