Collapse: What’s Happening to our Chances?

[GliderGuider]

Collapse: What’s Happening to our Chances?

It’s been a little over a year since we tried to assess the probability that today’s perfect storm of environmental problems will lead to a collapse of civilization.[1] This seems an appropriate time to see how recent events and discoveries might have changed the odds. The trends in the main drivers of destruction continue unabated. The Population Reference Bureau, which in 2012 projected that the world population in 2050 would be 9.624 billion people, foresaw in 2013 a 2050 population of 9.727 billion, resulting from a slight rise in the global total fertility rate. There is little sign of consumption abating, with purchasing power increasing on average globally (but with great geographic differences). There is growing evidence that anthropogenic climate change is not only raising the global average temperature but also increasing the probability of extreme weather events. The latter have been especially destructive in portions of America’s “breadbasket,” essential to maintaining human food supplies. Even more worrying, there seems to be an escalating discovery of positive feedbacks such as the melting away of arctic sea ice, which decreases reflectivity and thus accelerates warming while ironically causing nasty blizzards in the northern United States. Warming also leads to even more warming by increasing the flux of the greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere as permafrost thaws and possibly as methane clathrates (complexes of ice and methane underlying northern oceans) disintegrate as the oceans warm. More positive feedbacks are clearly reducing the odds of keeping climate disruption within “manageable” limits (if such have not already been passed).

There is some good news. Total energy consumption in the United States has been declining under President Obama because of steady increases in efficiency, especially in vehicles. U.S. coal consumption has been going down because electricity generation has been flat and coal’s role in it has been diminished by being replaced by natural gas (which, even after accounting for fugitive emissions in production and transport, remains much better than coal in terms of climate change). Of course, this only makes sense as a temporary “bridge” to a much lower carbon mix. There is also a heartening spread of solar technology in poor countries, among other things giving many more people access to modern communications (which, of course can be used for either good or ill!). “No-take” zones (areas where fishing is prohibited) have shown an amazing capacity to regenerate neighboring fisheries. But sadly, the zones cannot control pollution, acidification, or temperature change and thus may rapidly lose their value.

But what is crystal clear is that these changes are not remotely big or fast enough to make a real dent in the problem. Furthermore, there are no plans nor any tendency toward making the most crucial move required to lessen the odds of a collapse: a rapid but humane effort to reduce the scale of the entire human enterprise by ending population growth, starting the badly needed overall decline in numbers, and dramatically curtailing consumption by the rich. There is not even discussion about the obvious elements of the socio-economic system that support a structure embedding a need for perpetual growth – fractional-reserve banking being a classic target that requires investigation in this context. Virtually every politician and public economist still unquestioningly assumes there are benefits to further economic expansion, even among the rich. They think the disease is the cure.

A few years ago we had a disagreement with our friend Jim Brown, a leading ecologist. We told him we thought there was about a 10 percent chance of avoiding a collapse of civilization but, because of concern for our grandchildren and great grandchildren, we were willing to struggle to make it 11 percent. He said his estimate of the chance of avoiding collapse was only 1 percent, but he was working to make it 1.1 percent. Sadly, recent trends and events make us think Jim might have been optimistic. Perhaps now it’s time to talk about preparing for some form of collapse soon, hopefully to make a relatively soft “landing.” That could be the only thing that might preserve Earth’s capacity to support Homo sapiens in a post-apocalyptic future.

[4dsc]

1. but sheeple don't care or worry about these things

Great read again.. But alas, the sheeple will not be forewarned or heed any warning as long as they are warm and cozy in their little castles. As long as they can a happy meal at any time of the day the invisible hand is alive and well.

And don't think any politician is going to heed the warning either. They are too busy being bought off by the highest bidder to want to join this crusade of conservation.

For those who do heed the warning though we go forth and conserve to the best of our ability and wonder about future generations. I try to education the sheeple but their ears remained closed and will until its too late. Then they'll ask why weren't we warned and I'll just smile.

[Demeter]

2. First you need a civilization...but that's pretty far gone already

What is next to collapse is our technology...which serves as a substitute and crutch for civilization.

And technology will collapse because the people who hold it together and keep it running are being eliminated, stressed to the max, retiring, or undermined by the $$$$ of the 1%.

[CrispyQ]

3. Pretty dismal, although I don't disagree.

Even Thom Hartmann is talking the E word, extinction. And Thom is a total optimist compared to me.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/last-hours-humanity-warming-world-extinction-1

~kick.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

4. Silly.

I've seen this stuff come from the right, and here I see it from the left.

Just as a counter, wildlife ranges are expanding, not contracting, in North America. I live in a regular everyday suburb, and whereas a few years ago coyote and bear sightings were unheard of, they're not anymore. I myself saw a pair of coyotes while walking the dog. I knew they were because they looked like a couple of stray dogs from a distance, but once they got up close (they weren't paying attention to me or the dog) it was obvious they weren't dogs. They moved in a completely different way; over a forest floor broken up by dead branches and rocks they just glided, noses to the ground, oblivious to everything except whatever it was they were tracking.

Two things are always desperate: the international situation (especially in the Middle East, of course), and the state of the planet. Both somehow manage to go on, though.

One day civilization will end, in chaos and blood and toxic hell.
One day the sun will explode, too. I'm not holding my breath.

[NickB79]

5. Ironic you use the coyote as a counter-point

Because coyotes are known to spread rapidly in degraded and/or disturbed habitats that man has altered. Black bear are also opportunistic and spread in a similar manner, so long as hunting pressure is regulated.

As a counter-counter point, take a look at how moose are doing in Minnesota as our climate has warmed. You're not likely to see those anymore.

[defacto7]

6. "Both somehow manage to go on, though. "

I think that statement is the crux of modern complacency. Somehow? What does that mean? It means you don't have any idea and really don't care. The science, the analysis, those are as real as we can come to knowledge of our future. Add to that history... history of the planet, of humankind, of extinction periods. All of those bring us even closer to knowledge of the possibilities we can encounter.

I understand coming to grips with inevitability. Some of us do that through fatalism, denial, some through religion, some through simple fear. But some, like myself want to know as much as possible and take a stand. The outcome of that stand could be the delay of catastrophe or the elimination of it... or it may just be a few chiseled letters on a stone that warn a future generation of beings in 20,000 years of the fate of our civilization... and hopefully it will say more than just, "I was here".

[Benton D Struckcheon]

8. Malthusians can always generate lots of good looking evidence,

because they're looking at the past. No one in the eighteenth century could have guessed that by the twentieth century wood wouldn't be our principal source of energy. I could go on but you get the point.
You cannot, ever, extrapolate from the past to the future. Does not work. Never has, never will.

[hatrack]

9. Yes, nothing to be learned from the salinization of Mesopotamia, or deforestation in the ME

There's nothing ecologists can learn from the story of the Kaibab deer herd, and certainly no lessons for us in what paleobotanists have discovered on Easter Island.

In fact, whether it's the collapse of the Anasazi through drought and salt, the devastation wrought by Old World diseases on immunologically naive New World populations, the extirpation of the passenger pigeon or the disastrous consequences of the construction of the Aswan high dam, all are equally meaningless - meaningless, I say!

None have any bearing whatsoever upon our amazing awesome superness as we glide effortlessly onward aboard the Divine Invincible Escalator Of Progress.

In fact, it's time to call for the banning of history from all schools and universities throughout the land. People might start extrapolating from the past to the future, and we can't have that.

[hunter]

10. Thank you!

Human societies have a grim history blindly believing they are some god or another's chosen ones.

Nature doesn't care.

Coyote is a keen observer of human nature. Thus coyote survives. Coyote probably acquired this skill long ago avoiding Wolf.

Some people might read this as some kind of mystical observation, but it's not.

The coyotes in my own neighborhood, which is at the edge of a city surrounded by farm and ranch land, these coyotes are nearly invisible to humans. I catch only glimpses of them even though I like to think of myself as a keen observer of wildlife. The feral cats, and the pet cats that are left out at night, them that survive, know the coyotes are there.

[CRH]

11. Thank You hatrack … n/t

[NickB79]

12. Well, you know the old saying

"Those who don't learn from history, are bound to be fucking awesome". Or something like that.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

13. Progress is the only thing that works.

It's the reason we still have forests. If we were all still dependent on wood for energy, well, there'd be no wood left.
Same story with any resource you care to name.
Commodity prices are famously volatile, and the reason is that commodities can be substituted: to take another example, these days pvc pipes can substitute for copper.
Like it or not, we're all on this treadmill called progress. The only way out is to continue, via cheap renewables in energy, recycling to eliminate toxic pollution by our garbage, and so on. What these kinds of articles do is to allow for lazy complacency, and a pseudo-intellectual gloss over a discredited Malthusian theory.
If Malthus had ever been right, commodity prices would have gone through the roof as we used them all up. But they haven't. The only one with a real return after inflation is oil, and that's because oil has a ton of uses other than just being burned for energy. Someone said it's so valuable that burning it for energy shouldn't even be allowed, and I tend to agree.

[CRH]

14. Might not need to be Malthus, …

If Malthus had ever been right, commodity prices would have gone through the roof as we used them all up. But they haven't.

Seems the very physical, CO2, has gone through the roof, without approval from the economic saints that rule. It is not about economic theory, it is about ecological synergy. Without the later, the future will be bleak; no matter how much energy, economy, technology, or 'progress', humans care to pretend.

[hatrack]

15. Given your last sentence, what do you suggest as a substitute for oil? Wood? Maybe coal?

Or are you saying that there are no commodities that can be substituted for oil? Seems to undercut your argument a bit.

More to the point you're continuing to completely miss, if we were all still dependent on wood for energy, there wouldn't be 7+ billion of us. Is that part really and truly difficult for you to understand? Seriously?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

16. Where in any of what I wrote would you come to the conclusion that ...

... I would even begin to suggest there's no sub for oil for energy? Please point it out.

That's number one.

Number two, the overarching objection to this pseudo-intellectual crap is that it presumes we can foretell the future.
We can't.
PLUS, the future ALWAYS has turned out to be better than what the Malthusian pessimists think.
To quote Arthur C. Clarke:

Anything that is theoretically possible will be achieved in practice, no matter what the technical difficulties, if it is desired enough. It is no argument against any project to say 'The idea's fantastic!' Most of the things that have happened in the last fifty years have been fantastic, and it is only by assuming they will continue to be so that we have any hope of anticipating the future.

- Hazards of Prophecy, 1962

[daleanime]

7. Kick....