Real wealth is less than assumed or notional wealth by at least a factor of 10. Could be way higher depending on how you look at derivatives. The masses are kept in the dark, while the elites jockey amongst themselves. The ones who created this mess are attempting to slip out the back door , leaving us holding the bag. By crafty means of dirty methods they imagine themselves quite clever. That explains a lot.
It might be possible in time to offer all of those who have conspired to mass-murder the choice of relinquishing all of their claims to wealth, or being executed.
Just thinking out loud. It seems like it would be the exact reverse of what they tried to do to others, so it would be a form of easily-understood justice.
Family-fortunes might vanish, if families had been complicit in genocide.
I love science fiction but dystopia gripped me as a fifth grade reader and in college reading galley of Ecotopia in 1975 I laughed.
Is industrial civilization for mass man doomed to sharp sudden decline? If true is this due to malinvestment? Or absence of engagement in other ways to thrive in a system of cartels? Cartels are corporate legacy over say 60 years. Money put into cartel profits with investment guided by cartels controlling net resources and net energy. This is why relative cost of the net energy is already so high that established industrial economies cannot be sustained without cheap inputs from outside, which is what we see globally. As if if you will only color blind people directed ad budgets hired by the blind.
I think most of us figure more and more negatively in the projections of powerful selfish interests. I don't know just what any of them knows or projects precisely, but "not enough for so many people" seems to be a good summation.
What isn't expressed outright in Tim Morgans work and I think a lot of people miss is the fact that as the economy grows it also requires more of that energy to stay put. By that I mean that more infrastructure is created during the growth cycles and as such need more energy put in in the form of maintenance. Just look at any commercial building and think about the amount of energy represented in the construction of said building. Now remember this buildings life expectancy is about 50 years, during that time it will need as much energy poured in just to maintain it not counting upgrades. I know SEEDS takes this into account but it isn't obvious to the casual observer. So when looking at world energy use in barrels of oil equivalent using say 50 million per day this year gives growth, next year will need a few more per day to get the same growth rate. Because the 50 million will be used in maintaining all the previous combined growth, some of which will have deteriorated to the point of needing renewal. To make matters worse not all infrastructure lasts 50 years, roads for starters and the electric grid for another. I'm sure the readers here can extend this list by a large margin. Maintenance ain't cheap brother! Because it also requires energy its costs are rising. The bean counters call this inflation which is shorthand for: we need more fuel! What most of us that are paying attention miss, I think, is that this isn't a problem it's a predicament which means there is no answer simply because it is not a problem. We have to go through it there is no way around it. As the good doctor here is well aware, I believe, the way through isn't visible with the lenses we now possess. We need new glasses Doc! Do you know any cutting edge optometrists?
There is a new post over at COS that is a shout out to Tim Watkins new book here is the youtube link for the fifteen minute overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZKIpqwSFDs
Thanks Red. I finally watched that 15 minute "Death Cult" book preview, which seems good, and pretty close to my own assessment.
Each level of complexity added to a complex energy-consuming system adds further energy consumption beyond the increasing sze of the system. Up to some point, adding more levels increases the ability of the system to produce whatever it produces, though it must have loots of energy and lots of raw materials.
At some point, the system's ablity to produce begins to decline with the addition of further complexity (I think we are there.)
Smaller systems may be more efficient in the use of materials and energy per unit of production, or not. There is usually an optimum point of complexty for systemic efficiency. (I think we passed that a long time ago, but it is hard to measure.) When humans are operating as automatons it is not a good sign for systemic efficiency, but it is sometimes necessary when any minor deviation is a failure-mode.
I think that people who are accustomed to being one-trick-automatons will have a hard time adapting to an economy where they have to perform a lot of their life-support activities, as in poorer and more rural settings and "the old days".
I'm trying to move my difficulty of adaptation forward into the present moment, because I have the ability to solve more problems now than just daily survival, and I am able to anticipate the kinds of problems that arise in systemic change, with systemic shortages.
The deer don't seem to like the feel of the pavers. The locals don't much steal fresh vegetables, though they did pick and ruin tree-fruits pretty casually last fall (bite and drop).
What are the potential costs and benefits?
They do not always match initial assumptions. Fences are expensive in labor and wealth, may present a challenge to some people, and would greatly increase my work of maintenance of the grass and weeds. This is a large area, already much more work than one would perceive without doing it.
Real wealth is less than assumed or notional wealth by at least a factor of 10. Could be way higher depending on how you look at derivatives. The masses are kept in the dark, while the elites jockey amongst themselves. The ones who created this mess are attempting to slip out the back door , leaving us holding the bag. By crafty means of dirty methods they imagine themselves quite clever. That explains a lot.
It might be possible in time to offer all of those who have conspired to mass-murder the choice of relinquishing all of their claims to wealth, or being executed.
Just thinking out loud. It seems like it would be the exact reverse of what they tried to do to others, so it would be a form of easily-understood justice.
Family-fortunes might vanish, if families had been complicit in genocide.
A fair application of justice, as you just framed. Would be very sweet indeed.
Call me "Solomon". ;-}
I prefer standing anyway, sitting puts you at a disadvantage in most situations.
"On your toes", then?
:-)
I love science fiction but dystopia gripped me as a fifth grade reader and in college reading galley of Ecotopia in 1975 I laughed.
Is industrial civilization for mass man doomed to sharp sudden decline? If true is this due to malinvestment? Or absence of engagement in other ways to thrive in a system of cartels? Cartels are corporate legacy over say 60 years. Money put into cartel profits with investment guided by cartels controlling net resources and net energy. This is why relative cost of the net energy is already so high that established industrial economies cannot be sustained without cheap inputs from outside, which is what we see globally. As if if you will only color blind people directed ad budgets hired by the blind.
I think most of us figure more and more negatively in the projections of powerful selfish interests. I don't know just what any of them knows or projects precisely, but "not enough for so many people" seems to be a good summation.
I am a frustrated utopian like Mumford.
I will source my gangs only locally from now on.
What isn't expressed outright in Tim Morgans work and I think a lot of people miss is the fact that as the economy grows it also requires more of that energy to stay put. By that I mean that more infrastructure is created during the growth cycles and as such need more energy put in in the form of maintenance. Just look at any commercial building and think about the amount of energy represented in the construction of said building. Now remember this buildings life expectancy is about 50 years, during that time it will need as much energy poured in just to maintain it not counting upgrades. I know SEEDS takes this into account but it isn't obvious to the casual observer. So when looking at world energy use in barrels of oil equivalent using say 50 million per day this year gives growth, next year will need a few more per day to get the same growth rate. Because the 50 million will be used in maintaining all the previous combined growth, some of which will have deteriorated to the point of needing renewal. To make matters worse not all infrastructure lasts 50 years, roads for starters and the electric grid for another. I'm sure the readers here can extend this list by a large margin. Maintenance ain't cheap brother! Because it also requires energy its costs are rising. The bean counters call this inflation which is shorthand for: we need more fuel! What most of us that are paying attention miss, I think, is that this isn't a problem it's a predicament which means there is no answer simply because it is not a problem. We have to go through it there is no way around it. As the good doctor here is well aware, I believe, the way through isn't visible with the lenses we now possess. We need new glasses Doc! Do you know any cutting edge optometrists?
There is a new post over at COS that is a shout out to Tim Watkins new book here is the youtube link for the fifteen minute overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZKIpqwSFDs
Thanks Red. I finally watched that 15 minute "Death Cult" book preview, which seems good, and pretty close to my own assessment.
Each level of complexity added to a complex energy-consuming system adds further energy consumption beyond the increasing sze of the system. Up to some point, adding more levels increases the ability of the system to produce whatever it produces, though it must have loots of energy and lots of raw materials.
At some point, the system's ablity to produce begins to decline with the addition of further complexity (I think we are there.)
Smaller systems may be more efficient in the use of materials and energy per unit of production, or not. There is usually an optimum point of complexty for systemic efficiency. (I think we passed that a long time ago, but it is hard to measure.) When humans are operating as automatons it is not a good sign for systemic efficiency, but it is sometimes necessary when any minor deviation is a failure-mode.
I think that people who are accustomed to being one-trick-automatons will have a hard time adapting to an economy where they have to perform a lot of their life-support activities, as in poorer and more rural settings and "the old days".
I'm trying to move my difficulty of adaptation forward into the present moment, because I have the ability to solve more problems now than just daily survival, and I am able to anticipate the kinds of problems that arise in systemic change, with systemic shortages.
Thank you Dr. Day as ever and what a fabulous and professional garden! In Greece we'd put wire fencing around it: animals and passing locals :-))
The deer don't seem to like the feel of the pavers. The locals don't much steal fresh vegetables, though they did pick and ruin tree-fruits pretty casually last fall (bite and drop).
What are the potential costs and benefits?
They do not always match initial assumptions. Fences are expensive in labor and wealth, may present a challenge to some people, and would greatly increase my work of maintenance of the grass and weeds. This is a large area, already much more work than one would perceive without doing it.