If one possible outcome of the existing system is collapse, recognizing the system itself need to be changed isn’t doom-and-gloom, it’s analytical.
Those people who discuss collapse are typically dismissed as doom-and-gloomers, the equivalent of individuals who view dash-cam videos of lorry crashes all the time, savoring catastrophe. Why would we spend a lot effort discussing collapse if we didn’t wish for it?
Those dismissing us all as doom-and-gloomers wishing for collapse have it backward: yes, some long for collapse as a real-life disaster film, but those going over collapse in systems terms are trying to avoid it, not enjoy it.
If the system is vulnerable underneath a surface stability, then the only method to prevent negative consequences is to comprehend those vulnerabilities/ fragilities and exercise systemic changes that minimize those risks.
It’s not the analysis of vulnerabilities that triggers collapse, it’s refusing to look at vulnerabilities due to the fact that to do so is thought about negative. Why not be optimistic and just go with the agreement that the status quo is invulnerable to severe interruption? Can-do optimism is all that’s needed to overcome any area of trouble.
The problem is humankind’s tendency to confuse optimism with magical thinking. This confusion is particularly visible in any discussion of energy. The status quo holds that every issue has a technological service, and doubting this optimism is dismissed as naysaying: “why can’t you be favorable?”
I consider myself an optimist in the sense that I see services that are within reach if we change our meaning of the issue so we can enable brand-new solutions. I consider myself an useful, practical optimist since I comprehend from life experience that systemic options normally require tough improvements that will require great effort and sacrifice. In a lot of cases, this procedure is mainly a series of failures and dissatisfactions that are the crucial parts of a steep knowing curve.
But little of this fundamental awareness shows up in media descriptions of “solutions.”
Hence every advance in a laboratory someplace is instantly promoted as the globally scalable option: algae-based fuel, modular nuclear reactors, new battery designs, etc, in an endless profusion of innovations which are 1) not even to the prototype stage 2) can not be scaled 3) restricted to particular usages 4) require the building and construction of brand-new infrastructure 5) take in vast resources to be developed, consisting of hydrocarbons 6) are not renewable as they should be changed every 10-15 years 7) are not cost-effective once externalities are consisted of 8) are fundamentally impractical due to complexity, dependency on uncommon minerals, etc.
All this “optimism” is actually 95% wonderful thinking, as the useful, real-world realities are dismissed or glossed over: “oh, they’ll figure all that out.”
To put it simply, throw adequate cash and talent at an issue (“we went to the moon, so anything is possible!”) and it will always be solved in a way that’s larger and better. This is not optimism, this is wonderful thinking being passed off as optimism. Genuine optimism bewares and contingent, hyper-aware that solutions are a reliance chain that just reach affordable scalability if a whole chain of circumstances and advances line up ideal.
There’s another source of confusing optimism and magical thinking: being too successful for too long. Previous Intel CEO Andy Grove discussed this in his book Just the Paranoid Survive: as soon as an organization reckons it has prospered and has whatever required to continue attaining success without making any systemic changes, then it’s destined decay and ultimate collapse.
When success ends up being the default then all the hard parts of success– sacrifices made, failures mopped up, bets that didn’t pay off and gambles that did– melt away and all that’s left is a bright confidence that somebody someplace will exercise a service that scales as much as fix the problem for everybody: “we have leading people working on it– top people!”
Meanwhile, back in the real life, it takes 20 years to get a brand-new bridge approved and integrated in the U.S., 20 years for a brand-new train line approved and developed and twenty years to get a brand-new landfill authorized.
We’re supposed to make the leap to an eco-friendly zero-net-carbon future in 20 years and we can’t even develop one new-design atomic power plant model in 20 years, even as we ‘d require hundreds of new reactors to change a considerable piece of hydrocarbon usage.
However if you attempt to point out this painfully noticeable inconsistency between the real-world troubles in getting a single prototype integrated in less than twenty years and the claim that we’re going to transition far from hydrocarbons in twenty years, then you’re a doom-and-gloomer, a naysayer who derives some bitter satisfaction from shooting down optimists dealing with painless, sacrifice-free techno-solutions.
The essence of wonderful thinking is the belief that the long dependence chain between the idea/lab experiment and a solution that’s affordable and scales approximately serve everybody will always form due to the fact that it’s constantly formed in the past, therefore there’s no factor to doubt that all the pieces will form moving forward.
This is wonderful thinking since it has zero interest in the real-world restraints embedded in each link in the long chain. If you raise any of these constraints, the wonderful thinking “optimist” is right away frustrated and implicates you of being a bitter cynic. The concept that there might be real-world restraints that “top individuals” can’t overcome is rejected as naysaying.
The possibility that there might be systemic restraints is declined out of hand because “anything’s possible if we throw sufficient cash and skill at it.” There will constantly be a service/ replacement which will be budget-friendly and sacrifice-free.
That all the previous examples of this were made it possible for by our exploitation of the easiest-to-extract hydrocarbon wealth is neglected as a footnote.
This leaves us all disappointed. Those people grounded in the real world are frustrated that if we bring up any real-world restrictions– for instance, those marvelous untapped ore deposits that are going to make all these brand-new techno-wonders inexpensive and fast and simple are far from paved highways, far from significant river or bluewater ports, far from processing plants, and far from sources of the millions of liters of diesel fuel that will be needed onsite to extract the ores– then we’re bitter naysayers who can’t bear optimism and easy success, while the magical thinking “optimists” are frustrated that we’re declining the technocratic religion that “leading people” and a tsunami of money will fix any issue.
One thing I’ve noticed is “top individuals” (real experts with long experience) are never the ones hyping some new innovation as the pain-free budget friendly solution unless they’re paid shills of special interests. Then they buzz nuclear reactors as the solution without pointing out the issue of what to do with the waste, to call one restriction “optimists” inevitably overlook.
In the real world, the tough part is getting every link of the long dependence chain to work dependably and at an expense that’s sustainable/affordable. Success comes not from blithely dismissing constraints as naysaying but from accepting most possible options will stop working due to concerns for which there is no cost-effective, useful, scalable fix.
On a systemic level, this requires questioning whether the system itself needs to alter if we want a different result. If one possible result of the current system is collapse, understanding the system itself must be altered isn’t doom-and-gloom, it’s analytical.
Thank you, everyone who dropped a hard-earned coin in my begging bowl today— you reinforce my hope and refuel my spirits.
If you found worth in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Current Videos/Podcasts:
Keiser Report|The Disaster of the Treadmill (25:30)
My recent books:
A Hacker’s Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Diminishing Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Check out the first section for free (PDF).
Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Revenue, Power, and AI in a Distressed World
(Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Check out the very first section totally free (PDF).
Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Last Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($5 (Kindle), $10 (print), ( audiobook): Read the first section totally free (PDF).
The Experiences of the Consulting Theorist: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)
Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the very first area totally free (PDF).
Become a $1/month patron of my work through patreon.com.
KEEP IN MIND: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and e-mail remain personal and will not be offered to any other specific, company or firm.
|
Thank you, Henry C. ($25), for your much-appreciated generous contribution to this site– I am significantly honored by your support and readership. |
Thank you |
, John S. ($4), for your most generous contribution to this website– I am significantly honored by your support and readership. |
|
Thank you, Sebastian S. ($40), for your superbly generous contribution to this site– I am considerably honored by your assistance and readership. |
Thank you |
, Ken B. ($50), for your splendidly generous contribution to this site– I am greatly honored by your support and readership. |