Writing about collapse is an odd business. When I started researching and obsessing about collapse a decade-and-a-half ago, there were only about half a dozen people writing about it (Diamond, Tainter, Greer, Bardi, Orlov, Kunstler and some adjacent figures; almost entirely white, male elders), now though the field of collapsology is much more diversified and much busier (dozens of books, authors, substacks and an expansive collapse reddit). I wonder why? (haha)
It’s also odd because one writes about a situation that is worsening quicker than one can reasonably keep track; any disaster or horrible statistic is soon out of date and overtaken by another grim fact. Moreover, if one is writing in good faith, one needs to ask, for whom is one writing? Reflecting on the downward slopes of collapse scenarios reminds one that there is little by way of a future audience for what one is writing about. Being right, if even approximately so, means one’s time might have been better spent than writing an academic book about collapse. Little or no value in a “I told you so” or proof of theory if there is no one to hear. Odd.
However, while we are still here to listen and think about such matters, a great interview (“damn”; my aforementioned envy creeping in) and a useful contrast with the earlier much drier collapse piece. Not much to say. I agree broadly with all of Luke’s points – and it’s consoling to see that people are increasingly converging on these systems-based diagnosis of past and future collapse(s).
My only trivial bones of contention:-
I think for various reasons this time collapse it is different. You picked Luke up on this and he obviously recognises this himself too (e.g. (a) there is nowhere to go post-collapse when it is global (we are now massively expansive as a civilization), b) during past collapses the 99% were more competent and able to feed themselves, whereas today we tend to lack such basic skills and competencies (i.e. we are thoroughly domesticated and dependent on the system), c) there is the resource issue, which you highlighted, which could be developed to include: d) the massive ecological overshoot, environmental degradation, extirpation of species etc. that is co-extensive with our particular collapse.
Basically, I’m more pessimistic than Luke (possibly an artefact of age). I consider us to be facing a dozen or more progress and anthropocene traps (rather than just one or two), each of which is wired to cause us to collapse or self-terminate and which must be safely defused. So, a dozen or more traps to get past in order to escape collapse or self-destruction. That feels like a pretty big miracle or series of miracles to me. I liked it where Luke noted “The book is maybe pretty pessimistic about the future, but much more optimistic about people.” I would say that my own work in progress is pretty pessimistic about the future, and pretty pessimistic about humanity too. So, the difference probably rests there.
I’d also affirm that collapse is best thought of as a process – or a series of interconnected processes - rather than an event. So, I’d agree that doomsday predictions are misplaced. However, there may be various tipping-points, although probably only discernible with any confidence in the rear-view mirror. I’d personally suspect/predict that collapse is already well underway, and some tipping-points may have been crossed (collapse is ‘already here, but not evenly distributed’ to use William Gibson once more).
Enough said. Another great interview. Many thanks.
Jem Bendell has organized a group (fee based) to discuss the politics of collapse. 1st guests were these guys, who also wrote recently about this through the lens of Critical theory.
There was a lot of really interesting research that Luke referenced and the predominance of more egalitarian societies was an eye-opener. There is much in what he talks about that resonates with Anarchism which favours non-hierarchical forms of governance in which citizen assembly-type decision making is key.
I would second his suggestion for Audrey Tang who I saw interviewed on Nate Hagens channel a while back (https://youtu.be/aXgne-9F7uU?si=Uexr9V0KVitfB8Ch). I got a little lost in the tech bit but what he and those he works with with have achieved is immense.
While I shared some of your optimism about our ability to ride out a collapse - and it was definitely good to hear that collapse historically has been beneficial for the majority - I do wonder whether the different ratio of resources to population that we now face might make the slide into collapse a rather more cutthroat affair. I'd be happy to hear arguments to the contrary!
Luke was a great guest and I appreciated his grasp of his subject.
I'll listen with interest and a twinge of academic jealousy. I must admit that I suffered an "oh no" when I first learnt of Kemp's book a while back, as I've been labouring with something very similar for a long time. Fortunately, on investigation, I think our focus is sufficiently different for me not to be too despondent. But still a little green-eyed envy may colour my listening experience.
Just watched/listened to this twice in a row to try to absorb more of it (while building a Lego set to keep my hands busy 😅). I find the sheer density of valuable information in your conversations to be overwhelming at times, but in the best possible way. There was so much good stuff here but what struck me the most was the idea that we largely view historical collapses through the eyes of those who stood to lose the most at the time, and thus project current outcomes for ourselves to be far bleaker than they may actually turn out to be.
Again, thank you so much for the amazing work you do, Rachel.
The crescendo at approx 30 mins re Trinity Test... loved that! Rachel, this was a brilliant episode. I've been meaning to read Luke's book for a while after a bunch of recommendations, so this was a really nice entry point. It's great to see the work (Turchin, Quigley, Toynbee etc.) he is building upon, and I have to say, he communicates incredibly complex topics with aspirational coherence. Thank you both.
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. – those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . .
And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders – at least within the western empire – have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
I dont think those minority immigrants play a role. In UK London is becoming more muslim. That likely means more socialism, ie more resource usage faster. Russians are quite scattered and tiny minority everywhere despite globally their exodus amounts to probably over 10million. But all of them are scattered across globe. Although same applies to them as anyone else: people become super nostalgic in bad way in these scenarios. Thus they re-create their childhood utopian dream that also has many downsides. For many cases it includes removing everything good today and trying to make carbon copy of yesterday while time moves on and clashes with goals.
I would think lots of people would be ready to "downsize", do sensible common sense things to prepare for this change. Afterall this abundant waste of oil and other energy forms isnt even 50 years old economic push(one youtube channel made video of old triangle shaped windows in US midwestern houses that are designed to be passive cooling against hot summer days heating house, vs now AC is default option. All of this ties to what this Plant Critical talks about. "Markets" are not what people want. Structurally it is different and legislation is lobbied heavily. Electric prices are already skyrocketing with inflation everywhere, despite "green promises". If politicians dont do it, hopefully small business owners see need and bring solution. This just dont change big city dynamics.
Since no-one else seems to have piped up, I'll just chip in some 'energy context' here. We're not waiting for, nor do we need some 'magic bullet' energy tech to enable the green transition. Virtually everything we need is already available - still missing are the rational policy changes that would put economic and societal impetus behind their implementation. This needs democratic pressure from us ("the people" a.k.a. the 99% in terms of the Goliath conversation) via the wholesale unmasking of the petrostate- and energy company-funded black propaganda. James, there are some knotty problems to solve - clean air travel e.g. is yet some way off - but we have so much within our reach that there is no reason to hesitate a moment longer. Elsewhere in this thread Paul Reid-Bowen points out how we are faced by multiple possible fracture points that might lead to collapse. Depressingly, they each reinforce each other. But in moving towards sustainable tech, organisation and economics, each achievement reinforces other beneficial changes. Imagine if you will the improvement in public health across the world's towns and cities, following the disappearance of fuel-burning vehicles from the streets? [Any epidemiologists round here care to tell us the gain in QALYs that would result?]
So I'm going to invoke the spirits of Christiana Figueres and the late Hans Rosling to assert that we've got it all to play for!
I very much enjoyed hearing Kemp's views. I've been reading snatches of his book in the bookstore, so am familiar with some of it. Like others seem to have felt, the emphasis on historical collapse based on internal failure Kemp studies only partially compares to our situation, where we simultaneously have both societal and ecosystem collapse, which complicates things. You can't spend too much talk about how to save a marriage if you don't recognize that at the same time as your family seems to be falling apart, your house catches fire or is staring at a tsunami. The multiple chaotic events that climate change is bringing don't only sit next to but also amplify the elements of social collapse, maybe even initiate some of them. It was good to have the notion of the benefits of collapse in mind, however, insofar as they have been seen in the past. And the same thought also reminded me that, while I tend to imagine a social splintering resembling an implosion where there is simply chaos and neighbour versus neighbour, for my own book I've already documented how in our own age natural disasters, for example, have not brought out the worst in us but the best in us, and I really need to bring those two ideas together and make some changes. I was struck by the idea that we might do well, when things get rough, to "simply" cut out the cancer: shave off the top levels of so-called management in both civic and private enterprise to where the various units are fully operational, but no longer buggered by the psychopaths at and near the top. Like Rachel said; "Who knows how to do this stuff?" So okay, we need them, but not the so-called leaders who just take take take, and force regular re-shuffling.
"Like Rachel said; "Who knows how to do this stuff?" So okay, we need them"
Im baffled how high average education level in western countries is (both university research level is staggering what they do and degrees who go to working life and private life later) yet our cultural landscape is stagnation and passive aggressive "no can do". We collectively forget each human can learn and grow immensely. Everyone also from t hose "elite" holding position there now started as tabula rasa and somehow gathered skills and knowledge enough to do tasks. If they dont do good job, we have excellent tools and skillsets out there who can measure that.
So called leaders is also structural problem because honest, necessary jobs dont pay enough. So people have need to push to those positions to afford basics: 1-2 kids, spouse. Remove this need and there wont be oversupply for those positions. Most people dont want promotion if there isnt critical (life endangering?) need to do so.
“Complexity Theory argues that any species that is dependent on any non-renewable resource must grow or it will collapse, because as a resource depletes the quality of its reserves declines, which requires increasing complexity and energy for extraction to maintain the flow of supply, and increasing complexity requires a growing population, because each brain can manage a finite level of complexity, which requires a growing supply of resources to support the growing population, and because recycling non-renewable minerals without losses is impossible, and since the energy that supply chains depend on is mostly non-renewable, a point is eventually reached where the complexity of supply chains must break down, and the species returns to a state that is not dependent on non-renewable resources, which for humans is a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. “?
I dont agree on hunter gatherer. Farming has been some 10,000 years way of life. It provides benefits, some downsides too. I dont see that going away. Writer is on right track but ignores what knowledge is still needed to farm land. Machines help but human skillset,experience,knowledge is needed. What that means for global population, estimates vary 1-3billion. I find this downside, huge amount of writers live in urban cubicle and cant even imagine anything beyond that. Yet in fringes it is still happening every day like hundreds of years. Humans are good at adapting. We just dont like to do it as big groups voluntarily, just like any other organism.
But that logic shows in corporations running business: cars now get in only 7years to such unrepairable shape, deliberate design, while some people drive 20 or 50 year old cars correctly maintained. Thus depending on time horizon, we will have enough energy. If you have 10 years, you can gather tons of synthetic energy from anything.
Copper smelting arose alongside civilization, followed by bronze during the fourth millennium BCE. Metallurgy undoubtedly contributed to agriculture, patriarchy, slavery, and war. Societies that lack metallurgy might practice horticulture, even at some sort of scale, but they don't translate into full tilt civilization, and retain elements of hunting and foraging. I think metallurgy is unsustainable, as we have depleted practically every ore there is except maybe aluminum. Mining now has to go deeper, wider, destroying far more ecosystem life. I think that the end game of global collapse has to be largely neolithic, relying on metals only to the extent that scrap and artifacts can be reused. Post collapse, there won't even be enough trees left to make the charcoal necessary for smelting.
Of course, collapse isn't a one and done process. It's a ratchet. So both of your stories are plausible, but at different time scales. Still, the end state cannot include irrigated agriculture at scale.
So it happens classical way, population crashes, then slowly creeps back up, depending on resources available. Forests have time to grow if that growth is slow. Not having metallurgical tools to assist in agriculture slows down farming and population. History books mention these but not in coherent way.
However these have huge regional and local differences. With energy supply collapse, that matters a lot as it wont be easy to find them from far away.
Coal supplies are also limited so.... that leaves cutting forests if things get bad. After that it is basicly again collapse and just long hard times, as trees take long time to grow.
Mining is good point as before industrial revolution energy was the limiting factor, but now it could be metals that are so deep it needs practical expedition to go there and dig, like hunter gatherers organize long multiday hunting trips in group. Smelting takes lot of energy and that is most common way to purify metals if those have oxidized and rusted over time(recycling angle).
Metal tools make agriculture so much better, that it is hard to compare(if no fuel powered machinery is available; also horse carriage agriculture benefits from metal tooling).
Lot of our modern medicine requires that energy processing: glass, metals, heating water to purify (desinfect) metal tools for surgeons and so on. Thus diseases and serious injuries would be more lethal in this scenario.
I’m a great fan of Luke, including his Climate Endgame paper. To me the issue is that we’re talking about the 99% of perhaps 10% of current population who are left.
Excellent discussion. I would only quibble about Luke’s “1%”. That may have been true in previous cultures where the vast majority were subsistence peasants and only dependent, if anything, on their lords and masters to protect them from other lords and masters. Without the elites, they could just carry on growing their veggies and not even have to pay rent or taxes.
Today I would suggest a much larger proportion of the population are in effect part of the elite (even if they don’t feel like it). They (we) are utterly incapable of looking after themselves, in the most basic sense, and this is a community wide issue - no one in an average European or North American town or city could survive for more than a few days if supply chains and energy systems start to degrade. So not 1% of the world, more like 30 or 40%.
Not only are people deskilled, the environment is too degraded to support us even if we had the skills. We've paved over the most fertile soil. We've depleted and contaminated water sources. And no urban or suburban dweller possesses the acreage necessary to support themselves.
The AFL CIO protest has a slight slant towards worker's rights, while the MayDay protest leans more into civilian rights. Each speaks out against the Trump Regime.
Both have marches and rallies, while the AFL CIO is also hosting picnics and parades. They each share some of the same local events. Why not attend both?
🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻
🍃Dissent in Bloom
🍃"I want you to remember something: The line doesn’t end with LAND OF THE FREE but with HOME OF THE BRAVE."
Ancient virus from Arctic permafrost, tactical nuke in a stratovolcano, artificial intelligence multilateral drone strike or French Revolution price of wheat take ll.
We know this. The root problem is that many do not and automatically reject this kind of thinking because it’s not important or true from their point of view. If and only we can get through to enough of them, otherwise this is spitting into the wind.
“So the thesis of this book stands or falls with the correctness of the decline rate that Brown gives us. Therefore I have calculated with several different parameters as regards the decline rate, and all point in the same direction. The difference between them is a few years at most. Therefore I assume that my thesis is solid, which is that the end of global net oil exports in 2030-2032 (Brown’s scenario) is a best-case scenario.
Collapse can, I think, begin in earnest already in 2026, only because of too little diesel exports. Observe that oil exports vanish successively, more and more, not all at once.” ? ?
Writing about collapse is an odd business. When I started researching and obsessing about collapse a decade-and-a-half ago, there were only about half a dozen people writing about it (Diamond, Tainter, Greer, Bardi, Orlov, Kunstler and some adjacent figures; almost entirely white, male elders), now though the field of collapsology is much more diversified and much busier (dozens of books, authors, substacks and an expansive collapse reddit). I wonder why? (haha)
It’s also odd because one writes about a situation that is worsening quicker than one can reasonably keep track; any disaster or horrible statistic is soon out of date and overtaken by another grim fact. Moreover, if one is writing in good faith, one needs to ask, for whom is one writing? Reflecting on the downward slopes of collapse scenarios reminds one that there is little by way of a future audience for what one is writing about. Being right, if even approximately so, means one’s time might have been better spent than writing an academic book about collapse. Little or no value in a “I told you so” or proof of theory if there is no one to hear. Odd.
However, while we are still here to listen and think about such matters, a great interview (“damn”; my aforementioned envy creeping in) and a useful contrast with the earlier much drier collapse piece. Not much to say. I agree broadly with all of Luke’s points – and it’s consoling to see that people are increasingly converging on these systems-based diagnosis of past and future collapse(s).
My only trivial bones of contention:-
I think for various reasons this time collapse it is different. You picked Luke up on this and he obviously recognises this himself too (e.g. (a) there is nowhere to go post-collapse when it is global (we are now massively expansive as a civilization), b) during past collapses the 99% were more competent and able to feed themselves, whereas today we tend to lack such basic skills and competencies (i.e. we are thoroughly domesticated and dependent on the system), c) there is the resource issue, which you highlighted, which could be developed to include: d) the massive ecological overshoot, environmental degradation, extirpation of species etc. that is co-extensive with our particular collapse.
Basically, I’m more pessimistic than Luke (possibly an artefact of age). I consider us to be facing a dozen or more progress and anthropocene traps (rather than just one or two), each of which is wired to cause us to collapse or self-terminate and which must be safely defused. So, a dozen or more traps to get past in order to escape collapse or self-destruction. That feels like a pretty big miracle or series of miracles to me. I liked it where Luke noted “The book is maybe pretty pessimistic about the future, but much more optimistic about people.” I would say that my own work in progress is pretty pessimistic about the future, and pretty pessimistic about humanity too. So, the difference probably rests there.
I’d also affirm that collapse is best thought of as a process – or a series of interconnected processes - rather than an event. So, I’d agree that doomsday predictions are misplaced. However, there may be various tipping-points, although probably only discernible with any confidence in the rear-view mirror. I’d personally suspect/predict that collapse is already well underway, and some tipping-points may have been crossed (collapse is ‘already here, but not evenly distributed’ to use William Gibson once more).
Enough said. Another great interview. Many thanks.
Jem Bendell has organized a group (fee based) to discuss the politics of collapse. 1st guests were these guys, who also wrote recently about this through the lens of Critical theory.
https://crudefutures.substack.com/p/our-theory-of-collapse
https://jembendell.com/2025/09/02/report-on-the-first-metacrisis-meeting/
I've ordered Luke's book, cause, why not, right...
I’m with you.
There was a lot of really interesting research that Luke referenced and the predominance of more egalitarian societies was an eye-opener. There is much in what he talks about that resonates with Anarchism which favours non-hierarchical forms of governance in which citizen assembly-type decision making is key.
I would second his suggestion for Audrey Tang who I saw interviewed on Nate Hagens channel a while back (https://youtu.be/aXgne-9F7uU?si=Uexr9V0KVitfB8Ch). I got a little lost in the tech bit but what he and those he works with with have achieved is immense.
While I shared some of your optimism about our ability to ride out a collapse - and it was definitely good to hear that collapse historically has been beneficial for the majority - I do wonder whether the different ratio of resources to population that we now face might make the slide into collapse a rather more cutthroat affair. I'd be happy to hear arguments to the contrary!
Luke was a great guest and I appreciated his grasp of his subject.
I second the suggestion for an Audrey Tang conversation.
I'll listen with interest and a twinge of academic jealousy. I must admit that I suffered an "oh no" when I first learnt of Kemp's book a while back, as I've been labouring with something very similar for a long time. Fortunately, on investigation, I think our focus is sufficiently different for me not to be too despondent. But still a little green-eyed envy may colour my listening experience.
No need for envy. Any work in this area is of the utmost importance. Carry on with a full heart.
Just watched/listened to this twice in a row to try to absorb more of it (while building a Lego set to keep my hands busy 😅). I find the sheer density of valuable information in your conversations to be overwhelming at times, but in the best possible way. There was so much good stuff here but what struck me the most was the idea that we largely view historical collapses through the eyes of those who stood to lose the most at the time, and thus project current outcomes for ourselves to be far bleaker than they may actually turn out to be.
Again, thank you so much for the amazing work you do, Rachel.
Thank you so much!
The crescendo at approx 30 mins re Trinity Test... loved that! Rachel, this was a brilliant episode. I've been meaning to read Luke's book for a while after a bunch of recommendations, so this was a really nice entry point. It's great to see the work (Turchin, Quigley, Toynbee etc.) he is building upon, and I have to say, he communicates incredibly complex topics with aspirational coherence. Thank you both.
Thank you! I just ordered the book. Listening in now 🙏🏻
No ‘BAU’?
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. – those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . .
And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders – at least within the western empire – have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
Bigger than you can imagine
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2022/07/01/bigger-than-you-can-imagine/
https://www.facebook.com/cosheep
I dont think those minority immigrants play a role. In UK London is becoming more muslim. That likely means more socialism, ie more resource usage faster. Russians are quite scattered and tiny minority everywhere despite globally their exodus amounts to probably over 10million. But all of them are scattered across globe. Although same applies to them as anyone else: people become super nostalgic in bad way in these scenarios. Thus they re-create their childhood utopian dream that also has many downsides. For many cases it includes removing everything good today and trying to make carbon copy of yesterday while time moves on and clashes with goals.
I would think lots of people would be ready to "downsize", do sensible common sense things to prepare for this change. Afterall this abundant waste of oil and other energy forms isnt even 50 years old economic push(one youtube channel made video of old triangle shaped windows in US midwestern houses that are designed to be passive cooling against hot summer days heating house, vs now AC is default option. All of this ties to what this Plant Critical talks about. "Markets" are not what people want. Structurally it is different and legislation is lobbied heavily. Electric prices are already skyrocketing with inflation everywhere, despite "green promises". If politicians dont do it, hopefully small business owners see need and bring solution. This just dont change big city dynamics.
Since no-one else seems to have piped up, I'll just chip in some 'energy context' here. We're not waiting for, nor do we need some 'magic bullet' energy tech to enable the green transition. Virtually everything we need is already available - still missing are the rational policy changes that would put economic and societal impetus behind their implementation. This needs democratic pressure from us ("the people" a.k.a. the 99% in terms of the Goliath conversation) via the wholesale unmasking of the petrostate- and energy company-funded black propaganda. James, there are some knotty problems to solve - clean air travel e.g. is yet some way off - but we have so much within our reach that there is no reason to hesitate a moment longer. Elsewhere in this thread Paul Reid-Bowen points out how we are faced by multiple possible fracture points that might lead to collapse. Depressingly, they each reinforce each other. But in moving towards sustainable tech, organisation and economics, each achievement reinforces other beneficial changes. Imagine if you will the improvement in public health across the world's towns and cities, following the disappearance of fuel-burning vehicles from the streets? [Any epidemiologists round here care to tell us the gain in QALYs that would result?]
So I'm going to invoke the spirits of Christiana Figueres and the late Hans Rosling to assert that we've got it all to play for!
I very much enjoyed hearing Kemp's views. I've been reading snatches of his book in the bookstore, so am familiar with some of it. Like others seem to have felt, the emphasis on historical collapse based on internal failure Kemp studies only partially compares to our situation, where we simultaneously have both societal and ecosystem collapse, which complicates things. You can't spend too much talk about how to save a marriage if you don't recognize that at the same time as your family seems to be falling apart, your house catches fire or is staring at a tsunami. The multiple chaotic events that climate change is bringing don't only sit next to but also amplify the elements of social collapse, maybe even initiate some of them. It was good to have the notion of the benefits of collapse in mind, however, insofar as they have been seen in the past. And the same thought also reminded me that, while I tend to imagine a social splintering resembling an implosion where there is simply chaos and neighbour versus neighbour, for my own book I've already documented how in our own age natural disasters, for example, have not brought out the worst in us but the best in us, and I really need to bring those two ideas together and make some changes. I was struck by the idea that we might do well, when things get rough, to "simply" cut out the cancer: shave off the top levels of so-called management in both civic and private enterprise to where the various units are fully operational, but no longer buggered by the psychopaths at and near the top. Like Rachel said; "Who knows how to do this stuff?" So okay, we need them, but not the so-called leaders who just take take take, and force regular re-shuffling.
"Like Rachel said; "Who knows how to do this stuff?" So okay, we need them"
Im baffled how high average education level in western countries is (both university research level is staggering what they do and degrees who go to working life and private life later) yet our cultural landscape is stagnation and passive aggressive "no can do". We collectively forget each human can learn and grow immensely. Everyone also from t hose "elite" holding position there now started as tabula rasa and somehow gathered skills and knowledge enough to do tasks. If they dont do good job, we have excellent tools and skillsets out there who can measure that.
So called leaders is also structural problem because honest, necessary jobs dont pay enough. So people have need to push to those positions to afford basics: 1-2 kids, spouse. Remove this need and there wont be oversupply for those positions. Most people dont want promotion if there isnt critical (life endangering?) need to do so.
“Complexity Theory argues that any species that is dependent on any non-renewable resource must grow or it will collapse, because as a resource depletes the quality of its reserves declines, which requires increasing complexity and energy for extraction to maintain the flow of supply, and increasing complexity requires a growing population, because each brain can manage a finite level of complexity, which requires a growing supply of resources to support the growing population, and because recycling non-renewable minerals without losses is impossible, and since the energy that supply chains depend on is mostly non-renewable, a point is eventually reached where the complexity of supply chains must break down, and the species returns to a state that is not dependent on non-renewable resources, which for humans is a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. “?
https://un-denial.com/2025/07/12/by-hideaway-eroei/
I dont agree on hunter gatherer. Farming has been some 10,000 years way of life. It provides benefits, some downsides too. I dont see that going away. Writer is on right track but ignores what knowledge is still needed to farm land. Machines help but human skillset,experience,knowledge is needed. What that means for global population, estimates vary 1-3billion. I find this downside, huge amount of writers live in urban cubicle and cant even imagine anything beyond that. Yet in fringes it is still happening every day like hundreds of years. Humans are good at adapting. We just dont like to do it as big groups voluntarily, just like any other organism.
But that logic shows in corporations running business: cars now get in only 7years to such unrepairable shape, deliberate design, while some people drive 20 or 50 year old cars correctly maintained. Thus depending on time horizon, we will have enough energy. If you have 10 years, you can gather tons of synthetic energy from anything.
Copper smelting arose alongside civilization, followed by bronze during the fourth millennium BCE. Metallurgy undoubtedly contributed to agriculture, patriarchy, slavery, and war. Societies that lack metallurgy might practice horticulture, even at some sort of scale, but they don't translate into full tilt civilization, and retain elements of hunting and foraging. I think metallurgy is unsustainable, as we have depleted practically every ore there is except maybe aluminum. Mining now has to go deeper, wider, destroying far more ecosystem life. I think that the end game of global collapse has to be largely neolithic, relying on metals only to the extent that scrap and artifacts can be reused. Post collapse, there won't even be enough trees left to make the charcoal necessary for smelting.
Of course, collapse isn't a one and done process. It's a ratchet. So both of your stories are plausible, but at different time scales. Still, the end state cannot include irrigated agriculture at scale.
So it happens classical way, population crashes, then slowly creeps back up, depending on resources available. Forests have time to grow if that growth is slow. Not having metallurgical tools to assist in agriculture slows down farming and population. History books mention these but not in coherent way.
However these have huge regional and local differences. With energy supply collapse, that matters a lot as it wont be easy to find them from far away.
Coal supplies are also limited so.... that leaves cutting forests if things get bad. After that it is basicly again collapse and just long hard times, as trees take long time to grow.
Mining is good point as before industrial revolution energy was the limiting factor, but now it could be metals that are so deep it needs practical expedition to go there and dig, like hunter gatherers organize long multiday hunting trips in group. Smelting takes lot of energy and that is most common way to purify metals if those have oxidized and rusted over time(recycling angle).
Metal tools make agriculture so much better, that it is hard to compare(if no fuel powered machinery is available; also horse carriage agriculture benefits from metal tooling).
Lot of our modern medicine requires that energy processing: glass, metals, heating water to purify (desinfect) metal tools for surgeons and so on. Thus diseases and serious injuries would be more lethal in this scenario.
This cracked me up:
Luke:
I presume you and I are probably less on the side of thinking we can simply techno-fix our way out of every single problem we face.
Rachel : 36:22
Yes, because I'm not a child.
I’m a great fan of Luke, including his Climate Endgame paper. To me the issue is that we’re talking about the 99% of perhaps 10% of current population who are left.
Excellent discussion. I would only quibble about Luke’s “1%”. That may have been true in previous cultures where the vast majority were subsistence peasants and only dependent, if anything, on their lords and masters to protect them from other lords and masters. Without the elites, they could just carry on growing their veggies and not even have to pay rent or taxes.
Today I would suggest a much larger proportion of the population are in effect part of the elite (even if they don’t feel like it). They (we) are utterly incapable of looking after themselves, in the most basic sense, and this is a community wide issue - no one in an average European or North American town or city could survive for more than a few days if supply chains and energy systems start to degrade. So not 1% of the world, more like 30 or 40%.
Not only are people deskilled, the environment is too degraded to support us even if we had the skills. We've paved over the most fertile soil. We've depleted and contaminated water sources. And no urban or suburban dweller possesses the acreage necessary to support themselves.
Agreed, although 30-40% still feels optimistic. 80-90% would be a personal estimate for most Western countries.
🏚️🏠🏚️🏡🏚️🏚️🏬🏚️🏡🏚️🏚️🏠🏚️🏠🏠🏠🏚️
TWO NATIONAL PROTESTS IN 3 DAYS
🏡🏚️🏠🏚️🏡🏠🏚️🏠🏡🏚️🏚️🏡🏠🏚️🏡🏘️🏚️
🏚️🏚️🌵 Monday September 1st 2025 🌲🏠🏚️
🏘️🏠🏚️🏠🏚️🏡🏚️🏘️🏠🏠🏡🏘️🏚️🏚️🏠🏚️🏚️
Workers over Billionaires
organized by MayDay/50501
https://maydaystrong.org/
⚙️⚙️🔨🔧⚒️🔧🔨⚙️⚙️🔨🔧⚒️🔧🔨⚙️⚙️
Workers Labor Day 2025
organized by AFL CIO
https://workerslaborday.org/
JOIN THE DEMOCRACY TRAIN.
🚂🇨🇦🇬🇧🇫🇷🇯🇵🇦🇺🇩🇪🇺🇦🇸🇳🇳🇱🇰🇷🇵🇱🏴🇻🇦
The AFL CIO protest has a slight slant towards worker's rights, while the MayDay protest leans more into civilian rights. Each speaks out against the Trump Regime.
Both have marches and rallies, while the AFL CIO is also hosting picnics and parades. They each share some of the same local events. Why not attend both?
🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻
🍃Dissent in Bloom
🍃"I want you to remember something: The line doesn’t end with LAND OF THE FREE but with HOME OF THE BRAVE."
🍃
🍃"So, now I must ask you — are you brave?"
🍃
🍃Sixteen Days Into Trump’s Occupation of D.C.
https://open.substack.com/pub/dissentinbloom/p/sixteen-days-into-trumps-occupation
🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻🌿🌻
Elbows UP! 🏒
🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁
Barry McGuire - Eve Of Destruction
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I
🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁
Keep protests peaceful.
Don't kill anyone.
Here are resistance related guides from around the world:
🇺🇸 Fundamentals of physical surveillance: a guide for uniformed and plainclothes personnel
https://archive.org/details/fundamentalsofph0000silj
The RCMP has its own publications including:
🇨🇦 GCPSG-022 (2025) - Threat and Risk Assessment Guide
GCPSG-010 (2022) - Operational Physical Security Guide
🇨🇦 GCPSG-019 (2023) - Protection, Detection, Response, and Recovery Guide
https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/physec-secmat/pubs/index-eng.htm
The non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation also has excellent guides on:
🇺🇸 Street Level Surveillance
https://sls.eff.org
🇺🇸 Surveillance Self-Defense
https://ssd.eff.org/
🇪🇺 🇸🇪⚠️ Resistance Operating Concept
https://jsou.edu/Press/PublicationDashboard/25
🇺🇦 🇺🇲 Radio Free Ukraine Resistance Manual
https://radiofreeukraine.com/3d-flip-book/resistance-manual/
⚠️ Assessing Revolutionary And Insurgent Strategies (ARIS) Studies
Small Wars Journal
Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies (ARIS) Project
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2012/08/05/assessing-revolutionary-and-insurgent-strategies-aris-project/
Author's website:
On Resistance, Revolutions, and Insurgencies
https://zimmerer.typepad.com/resistance/
Free PDF download of the book from the original author:
Casebook on Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare, Volume II 1962 - 2009
http://zimmerer.typepad.com/Documents/ARIS%20Casebook%20Vol%202%202012%20s.pdf
⚠️ Civilian-Based Defense: A Post-Military Weapons System
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/resource/civilian-based-defense-a-post-military-weapons-system/
🏁 Simple Sabotage Field Manual by United States Office of Strategic Services
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184?ref=404media.co
⚠️ Library of Congress
Revelations from the Russian archives: documents in English translation
https://www.loc.gov/item/96024752
🏁 Robert Reich/Resistance School
Communicating Across Difference
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaT8gjnOmQl3dguy0_E0vVCL5ZYEyCTzu
🏁 Bernie Sanders:
https://m.youtube.com/@BernieSanders
🏁 CPJ Committee to Protect Journalists:
Safety Kit
https://cpj.org/safety-kit/
🏁 Activist Handbook:
https://activisthandbook.org/introduction
(⚠️ These are USA sponsored websites. Some publications may have been removed by the Trump regime)
Ancient virus from Arctic permafrost, tactical nuke in a stratovolcano, artificial intelligence multilateral drone strike or French Revolution price of wheat take ll.
We know this. The root problem is that many do not and automatically reject this kind of thinking because it’s not important or true from their point of view. If and only we can get through to enough of them, otherwise this is spitting into the wind.
“So the thesis of this book stands or falls with the correctness of the decline rate that Brown gives us. Therefore I have calculated with several different parameters as regards the decline rate, and all point in the same direction. The difference between them is a few years at most. Therefore I assume that my thesis is solid, which is that the end of global net oil exports in 2030-2032 (Brown’s scenario) is a best-case scenario.
Collapse can, I think, begin in earnest already in 2026, only because of too little diesel exports. Observe that oil exports vanish successively, more and more, not all at once.” ? ?
https://un-denial.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/lars-larsen-the-end-of-global-net-oil-exports-13th-edition-2024.pdf
https://un-denial.com/2024/07/29/book-review-the-end-of-global-net-oil-exports-by-lars-larsen-2024/