7 Comments

I have to say I struggled with this episode (not necessarily a bad thing!) It felt like there was a running subtext about the use of physics to describe the world and our place in it. Much of what Tim talked about I could agree with and some of his analogies provoked some reflection on the issues raised. I don't know if this what he believes but there was this sense that he was applying the laws of physics to people's behaviour and implicit in that was a sense of inevitability - even that a different outcome was not even possible.

What I'm still trying to disentangle is Tim's demeanour from what he is saying. Perhaps I am reacting to his apparent lack of passion, bordering on despair, because it reflects my own fear of an unstoppable ride to destruction.

We are, of course, all subject to laws of physics - not that those are set in stone! But in social relations I strongly believe that we can choose, and we have chosen in different times and places, to be more concerned for those around us and prioritise a more egalitarian approach. I'm no utopian. In fact I reject the idea of utopia or perfection as being an anathema to the healthy functioning of the human and non-human world.

Also, Physics is not a standalone discipline. It is intimately connected with all the other scientific disciplines which in turn are intimately connected to our creative disciplines. The only walls between them are the ones we have built. So it is crucial that such walls are broken down so that proffered solutions are broadly based and not deriving from any one area of knowledge alone.

One of the most important elements that is not often talked about and affects everything is the disruptive role of randomness. That wonderful element that keeps us on our toes and prevents the ossification of any state.

To use a Maritime analogy to tie these somewhat disparate points together, we are on a boat which is subject to the laws of physics in that it must float and resist the ingress of water and to propel us we can use the physics of wind on a sail and to steer a course we use the physics of a rudder resisting the inertia of forward motion. The hand on the rudder, though, is not governed by physics and the map used to plot a destination is drawn from and by the imagination of cartographist and the stories of our voyage are told and retold, evolving with each telling.

Imperfection and randomness are the lifeblood of our continued existence so rather than visualising our destination as a completed society we need to set a course and trust in the unexpected and be open to unthought-of possibilities.

Expand full comment

A really challenging conversation. The picture it paints is one of the inevitability of growth and collapse by applying the laws of physics to civilisation as a complex system. It seems that the best we can do is to plan for collapse, when our political leaders are more interested in culture wars than even engaging with reality.

I like the wave analogy, but wonder whether it would be more accurate to use a surfer riding the wave rather than a cork. A surfer anticipates the wave, sees it coming and catches it at the optimum point, before riding it to safety. There's always the chance of being overwhelmed and injured by the wave, but you may just ride it to the safety of the beach. Then the surfer, or civilisation, swims out to catch the next wave.

A problem with this, is that the energy and materials that have been used to power our global civilisation were created by maybe one-off geological processes that took millions of years. The biosphere evolved while many of the toxic chemicals we have released were buried out of harms way in the earth's crust. So the next 'wave' that humanity rides has to have different goals...we can't do the same again surely?

Expand full comment

Music to my ears. I wrote a talk during my PHD called “can iPods grow on trees”. The core premise is that earth is open to energy but approximately closed to mass. This thermodynamic envelope for a planetary system has forced biological systems into a certain form.

Biological systems have built up an infrastructure so that new evolutions are only marginal changes. Each cycle of collapse and regrowth is navigated by modifying information stored in biological matter.

I think of DNA sequences as the capital that has accrued that subsequent generations leverage to get them through their generation. The DNA encodes know how about how to leverage the system.

Remember that dna encodes proteins which are enzymes. The DNA literally stores information on how to do chemistry!

Ie Process the matter in the ever rotating wheel!

I think with biology as a template/outline, and this physical theory, we should be able to develop the top level block diagram for a novel kind of infrastructure that can be retasked using information.

Imagine a wheel spinning that can be repurposed with only marginal updates.

Like a mobile phone: you don’t need to change the hardware to update the system.

This is key: If we can figure out how to link information processing into our materials architecture we can make our technology incredibly sophisticated and renewable.

See my book Brave Green World.

Also: I love the discussion about networks. Political parties are networks! The people we elect are just the fruiting bodies of this networks. Really it doesn’t matter who we elect. The political parties remain as behemoths.

I think if we pivot to deliberative democracy in which we select decision makers by lottery, thus will force the emergence of a civilization wide network to support it. Such a lottocracy can only work with a deliberative network from which the people are drawn.

I think we can merge the concepts of econophysics, deliberative democracy, biomimetics and computation in material systems as a novel form of manufacturing, to yield a kind of minimum complexity politico-technology-social structure that can adapt forever more, to new energy sources. With decay, steady state, growth, reuse, all built in properly.

Loved this episode. Would love to engage further on these themes.

Expand full comment

That energy extraction needs matter extraction needs energy extraction cycle is absolutely diabolical.

It was to good to hear some different ideas from Tim, not that I am totally onboard with his thinking but he does add some interesting questions into the narrative.

And a good point you raised with the (useful) surplus being exploited by the 1% for purely frivolous and wasteful pursuits.

Expand full comment

I feel like this episode needed a live illustrator lol. I listened to it once, then listened to his first interview about the Thermodynamics of Collapse, and then listened to it again. It was a lot, but SO interesting. I'm not a scientist, but it did help me see what is possible while also bringing about so many questions about human will and choice and how this factors into the larger trajectory.

The analogy about how humans gain weight and grow their bodies which grows their appetite made me really think about metabolism. Humans can increase their metabolism through specific behaviors and habits, so what is that equivalent for the Earth? It can "weigh" the same and have more "muscle" <--- perhaps that's the matter Tim talks about is somehow strengthened. It also all just made me think about how we structure our economy to measure the GDP based on a value that is beyond currency. I am reading Doughnut Economics now and very curious what it will bring up.

Lastly, I said I'm not a scientist, but I am a wellness practitioner, someone who really supports people to access safety they forget is available to them. And this episode really made me think about how we might reach for food or other substances as a source of "energy" instead of tending to and metabolizing the energy/feelings inside of ourselves. This led me to ask what "matter" is the fuel that helps us be okay with all the swirling energy of feelings within us? I think our awareness, consciousness, flesh, and connection with other beings it its own fuel.

So many thoughts, thanks for an amazing interview. Gonna binge some more now, k bye!

Expand full comment

There were some big moments in this talk. I normally listen to your podcasts in the forest when I go running on a local mountain. I always find myself recording voice messages on thoughts and things that strike me in the discussions but today I took my mountain bike up the mountain and listened to your talk with Tim so I could only take mental notes. I had to wait to get back home to review this talk…

I absolutely agree with the comments from Richard Bergson and am glad to know I am not alone in these thoughts.

On the subject of the thermodynamic boundaries that may restrict our civilization from moving to degrowth mode, when Tim said basically that we have developed a momentum that we won’t be able to reduce, or at least not easily, I was glad when Rachel finally cut in to ask what had been on my own mind: what about the fact that our current consumption is made up of one hell of a lot of waste? Of our total energy production, about 65% is wasted, mostly due to inefficiencies inherent in the processing and use of fossils, so we don’t need to try to replace that wasted energy as we move toward pure renewables. Secondly, primarily due to the extraordinarily wasteful lifestyles of the 0.1% of the population, well over 90% of their energy use could be eliminated without any harm to their actual needs. It is inconceivable to me that the laws of thermodynamics require continued production of energy on this level. We have laws that limit human behavior. Speed laws limit how fast we can drive. Wealth and consumption laws could limit how much wealth we are allowed to accumulate, what we may and may not own, how many homes we may own, how large they may be, etc., and overnight our cumulative overconsumption could be severely curtailed. This is the point: our level of energy and therefore consumption represent massive overconsumption, not consumption according to need. Physical laws cannot stop us from eliminating this waste. What people are willing to do, how lazy or selfish they are, is another matter. Talking about this on the level of the laws of physics is just preposterous.

I found myself in a similar state of disbelief when Tim shied away from saying that yes, of course we could redistribute the wealth (and necessarily the overconsumption) of the 1%. Is this simply the words of someone afraid to risk getting into hot water with their employer? Is this a politically motivated comment? Yes, “everywhere in the world there is a distribution of wealth” but that is a very weak argument for implying that there’s nothing to be done about obscene wealth hoarding and lavish lifestyles. Surreal. I mean, “it’s in our DNA?” It’s about the physics? Come on. I hate having the feeling that a scientist has been somehow coaxed into relying on the immutable laws of physics to protect the status quo.

Finally, he hit the bull’s eye when he mentioned funding. To the amazement of the world, those who control funding are apparently not interested in trying to solve the right problems, and/or the right way. Scientists cannot properly study what they are not funded to study. Who pays for their living? Governments, mostly. Run by hacks who are only concerned about the next election. Bought and paid for by the corporations, at least in the US. One way or another, nearly all scientific research is focused on at least the eventuality of creating a marketable product, or something that some government or corporation considers “useful.” This is why all of our so-called solutions to climate change, for example, are focused on business activity. Another product to sell. We’re doomed if we keep that up.

Expand full comment

Natural scientist explains the social world with laws of nature with lots of short cuts it seems to me

Expand full comment