Really excited for the series. Would you be willing to put out a booklist of books you'd recommend in this direction? I know you have a blogpost about books that were influential on your current trajectory but a more comprehensive one would also be appreciated. Thanks for your time and effort.
For others' benefit, the list referred to is a post called A Reading Journey on Do the Math: dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/07/a-reading-journey/ I will stress again Ishmael and other Daniel Quinn books. Since that list, I got a lot of insight out of The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist, The Restless and Relentless Mind of Wes Jackson by Robert Jensen (a phenomenal book), and episode 126 of The Great Simplification with Daniel Schmachtenberger as guest (long one).
Thank you Tom, for making the series. Looking forward to the next episode. Also, my suburban backyard has thrived under the permaculture principles i learned, it's a forest, wild edibles, micro-swales, natives, fruit, nuts, berries, veggies, and soon chickens. The insects LOVE my yard, and I often find rare beetles, or a mantis, and strange bees I've never seen before ... and then the birds love it too. I mention this because I want to believe we can all make a small difference, maybe build little micro sanctuaries, and meanwhile support bigger projects, like rewilding, regenerative farming, reintroduction of keystone species (beaver, bison, wolves), and ... watch the human population decline and then collapse. I liked the graph you made in one of your recent videos, showing a possibility of 3B or 4B in the not too distant future.
Thanks for this new series Tom. We hope your work will encourage more people to face the daunting reality of our predicament and to #TalkCollapse. Yes - unsustainable! Meanwhile the word 'sustainability' seems to have lost all meaning by being misapplied to all manner of ecocidal modernity.... How did we catch this terminal case of stage IV modernity some might wonder? Many would argue that there was little choice in the matter. Considering a synthesis of prof. Catton's ecological perspective with that of historian, prof. Tainter's; civilisational complexity (modernity) may be considered an 'emergent' phenomenon that naturally arises from access to the surplus energy in ecological systems. Surplus energy, resulting in increasing complexity, growth, ecological #overshoot, and inevitably, #collapse. Whilst our extreme overshoot and concomitant modern complexity could not have been attained without the drawdown of finite geological reserves of energy, all life that seek surplus energy is capable 'in potentia' of attaining overshoot.
Good subject. Here's a few suggested readings that might provide clarity and/or content: Zygmunt Bauman, "Wasted Lives"; James Scott, "Seeing Like a State"; "The Dawn of Everything" Graeber and Wengrow. If you've read any of these, please let us know.
Of these, I read Dawn of Everything. I gained a fair bit of archeological knowledge, but had serious problems with narrow/wishful interpretation, which I wrote about on Do the Math: dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/the-dawn-of-everything/ See also comment by Orpheuslament, pointing to a reading list.
@@tommurphy2694 Thanks very much for your response. A few notes: I did look at your referenced reading list before posting. I can't remember if it was in response to seeing that list before; I am reading "Hospicing Modernity" now. Regarding other items: I read your book when it first came out (it’s on my shelf with numerous sticky notes, between Hagen's "Reality Blind" and "Blip"). Your piece on Graeber and Wengrow deserves a longer response (it has fewer sticky notes and is arbitrarily located between Montgomery and Bikle’s “The Hidden Half of Nature” and Jensen, Draffin, and Osborn’s “Railroads and Clearcuts” [I have a long history of policy engagement on NW forestry issues]). I don’t think I agree with your statement that the authors were wrongly(?) arguing that modernity has “dire political implications”? (Your review says “Enlightenment-era views of the nature of humanity”-are you saying those are the core or basis of “modernity”?). I think the question is the inevitability of modernity. On that point, I think you’re perspective is accurate. I think your river system metaphor and graphic is spot on. As I think this through a bit, I don’t believe modernity is inevitable culturally. I think modernity is inevitable thermodynamically, i.e., as a result of the maximum power principle (Lotka, Odum, Hall). Your work on energy along with many others makes this pretty clear IMO. So, "The Dawn..." needs more thought (by me anyway), especially the final section to see if Graeber and Wengrow really argued that modernity is not inevitable (e.g., my sticky note on scale, hierarchy, and complexity at p. 515). And the references at the end or your review. Thanks… On your other cites: I thought “Sapiens” was not well thought out beyond the first parts. I never cared for Derek Jensen’s overwhelming doomerism (but maybe the title you cite is worth a look). I (apparently) don’t understand the metaphors “Ishmael” is trying to convey; I will try his other titles. The other cited works await time for review and study.
Hello, I think that most people are worried about mass die offs and impending global wars for resources, so I wonder what do you think about that? It's hard not to panic when that's likely what awaits us, or the vast majority of unprivileged people.
A valid concern, for sure. Best case: demographic reduction via current cliff-edge drop in fertility, easing pressure. But even that probably stirs turbulence. I view it as having the wolf by the ear: let go and it rips your throat; but you can't hang on forever. It's an unfortunate situation that we might wish we never got ourselves into. I think early acceptance and "moving on" mentally so that we're able to process the grief and keep our heads for what comes after is the best service we can offer to Earth and our fellow human beings. That's my take at the moment, anyway.
Yes - around the world many are already responding to our predicament by organising in local communities to build resilience as this ship inevitably goes down. Don't just collapse - #JustCollapse! JustCollapse.or g
Tom, there are several interlinked issues. Firstly the only truth in economics is supply will meet the demand that has the ability to pay. Who will have the ability to pay? Currencies are virtual representations of energy and commodities. Debt is committing energy and commodities from the future at unknown supply or cost. Energy and commodities have limits to their cost. That limit is both economic and energy based. Due to the infrastructure and machinery, which both have energy and commodity content, needed to put energy to work energy can be only a small fraction of the value of the work it will do. Fossil fuels about 84% of global energy will be used to economic depletion within a few decades, when the cost of supply of energy and commodities is more than the ability to pay. And largely depleted before the end of this century.
A good start. I think it's dangerous to conflate all of humanity with a single person (the "patient"). Sure, if modernity ends, humanity may continue, but that doesn't mean billions of people won't die with modernity.
I think RUclips auto-removed my initial reply as too controversial or something. Anyway, metaphors are always limited. Since maintaining billions indefinitely is not possible, the farther future will almost certainly have far fewer people. Ideally, that could happen in a natural deflation, demographically, as here: ruclips.net/video/4-G70C90aas/видео.html
I am familiar with it (in fact, was guest for Episode 18 and Frankly 22, scheduled for another on population). I highly recommend it for its attempt to broaden boundaries and promote systems thinking. I have gained a number of key insights from Schmachtenberger, McGilchrist, Andreotti, and many other guests.
Fair question; call it a preference. But the rinse-and-repeat is not as much an option as it might seem, as a transformed earth's surface depleted of surface ores and fossil fuels won't just let the same thing happen again.
1) why ought we not be anthropocentric? 2) It's asserted modernity is bad, likened to cancer. Based on what? 3) what's the alternative? The stone age? 17th century? 4) does the bad outweigh any good? 5) Is it possible to cull the bad and preserve the good? 6) Is it possible some of the bad is only temporary and will payoff in the future? 7) you mentioned we don't get much criticism of modernity from our media sources but I'd argue just the opposite. The media is saturated with it.
Everything others produce for my consumption is edited. Unless I am having a present one on one dialog every communication is edited, too. Really being present is not essential to any media relationship. Presence for previously produced content is generally a waste of time. Your stuff excepted naturally.
Important distinction: humans within modernity are not the root problem-just as an organ afflicted by cancer or a normal inhabitant of 1942 Germany is more a victim of a malignant system. Don't make the mistake of taking the comparison personally.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Tom Murphy… Brilliant and appreciated!
I am looking forward to what is coming next! Thanks a lot Tom 🙂
Really excited for the series. Would you be willing to put out a booklist of books you'd recommend in this direction? I know you have a blogpost about books that were influential on your current trajectory but a more comprehensive one would also be appreciated.
Thanks for your time and effort.
For others' benefit, the list referred to is a post called A Reading Journey on Do the Math: dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/07/a-reading-journey/
I will stress again Ishmael and other Daniel Quinn books. Since that list, I got a lot of insight out of The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist, The Restless and Relentless Mind of Wes Jackson by Robert Jensen (a phenomenal book), and episode 126 of The Great Simplification with Daniel Schmachtenberger as guest (long one).
i love and appreciate your blog. i am looking forward to watching these.
Thank you Tom, for making the series. Looking forward to the next episode. Also, my suburban backyard has thrived under the permaculture principles i learned, it's a forest, wild edibles, micro-swales, natives, fruit, nuts, berries, veggies, and soon chickens. The insects LOVE my yard, and I often find rare beetles, or a mantis, and strange bees I've never seen before ... and then the birds love it too. I mention this because I want to believe we can all make a small difference, maybe build little micro sanctuaries, and meanwhile support bigger projects, like rewilding, regenerative farming, reintroduction of keystone species (beaver, bison, wolves), and ... watch the human population decline and then collapse. I liked the graph you made in one of your recent videos, showing a possibility of 3B or 4B in the not too distant future.
Thanks so much for your careful and deliberate framing of the common "cancer" analogy. It is both accurate and helpful.
Thanks for this new series Tom. We hope your work will encourage more people to face the daunting reality of our predicament and to #TalkCollapse. Yes - unsustainable! Meanwhile the word 'sustainability' seems to have lost all meaning by being misapplied to all manner of ecocidal modernity.... How did we catch this terminal case of stage IV modernity some might wonder? Many would argue that there was little choice in the matter. Considering a synthesis of prof. Catton's ecological perspective with that of historian, prof. Tainter's; civilisational complexity (modernity) may be considered an 'emergent' phenomenon that naturally arises from access to the surplus energy in ecological systems. Surplus energy, resulting in increasing complexity, growth, ecological #overshoot, and inevitably, #collapse. Whilst our extreme overshoot and concomitant modern complexity could not have been attained without the drawdown of finite geological reserves of energy, all life that seek surplus energy is capable 'in potentia' of attaining overshoot.
Thank you, very much!
Love this series❤
Thank you for your work Tom.
Just discovered your channel, very intrigued by the topic, looking forward to watching all of the episodes.
Bless you Tom. I'm also recovering from my role, indoctrinating youth thru teaching math and tech {google products) . How mislead we were
Good subject. Here's a few suggested readings that might provide clarity and/or content: Zygmunt Bauman, "Wasted Lives"; James Scott, "Seeing Like a State"; "The Dawn of Everything" Graeber and Wengrow. If you've read any of these, please let us know.
Of these, I read Dawn of Everything. I gained a fair bit of archeological knowledge, but had serious problems with narrow/wishful interpretation, which I wrote about on Do the Math: dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/the-dawn-of-everything/
See also comment by Orpheuslament, pointing to a reading list.
@@tommurphy2694 Thanks very much for your response. A few notes:
I did look at your referenced reading list before posting. I can't remember if it was in response to seeing that list before; I am reading "Hospicing Modernity" now. Regarding other items: I read your book when it first came out (it’s on my shelf with numerous sticky notes, between Hagen's "Reality Blind" and "Blip").
Your piece on Graeber and Wengrow deserves a longer response (it has fewer sticky notes and is arbitrarily located between Montgomery and Bikle’s “The Hidden Half of Nature” and Jensen, Draffin, and Osborn’s “Railroads and Clearcuts” [I have a long history of policy engagement on NW forestry issues]). I don’t think I agree with your statement that the authors were wrongly(?) arguing that modernity has “dire political implications”? (Your review says “Enlightenment-era views of the nature of humanity”-are you saying those are the core or basis of “modernity”?). I think the question is the inevitability of modernity. On that point, I think you’re perspective is accurate. I think your river system metaphor and graphic is spot on.
As I think this through a bit, I don’t believe modernity is inevitable culturally. I think modernity is inevitable thermodynamically, i.e., as a result of the maximum power principle (Lotka, Odum, Hall). Your work on energy along with many others makes this pretty clear IMO. So, "The Dawn..." needs more thought (by me anyway), especially the final section to see if Graeber and Wengrow really argued that modernity is not inevitable (e.g., my sticky note on scale, hierarchy, and complexity at p. 515). And the references at the end or your review. Thanks…
On your other cites: I thought “Sapiens” was not well thought out beyond the first parts. I never cared for Derek Jensen’s overwhelming doomerism (but maybe the title you cite is worth a look). I (apparently) don’t understand the metaphors “Ishmael” is trying to convey; I will try his other titles. The other cited works await time for review and study.
Thanks looks like a good topic to cover.
Hello, I think that most people are worried about mass die offs and impending global wars for resources, so I wonder what do you think about that? It's hard not to panic when that's likely what awaits us, or the vast majority of unprivileged people.
Creating as much local resilience as possible is the only remediation for the future.
A valid concern, for sure. Best case: demographic reduction via current cliff-edge drop in fertility, easing pressure. But even that probably stirs turbulence. I view it as having the wolf by the ear: let go and it rips your throat; but you can't hang on forever. It's an unfortunate situation that we might wish we never got ourselves into. I think early acceptance and "moving on" mentally so that we're able to process the grief and keep our heads for what comes after is the best service we can offer to Earth and our fellow human beings. That's my take at the moment, anyway.
Yes - around the world many are already responding to our predicament by organising in local communities to build resilience as this ship inevitably goes down. Don't just collapse - #JustCollapse! JustCollapse.or g
Thank you for your efforts, Tom.
Tom, there are several interlinked issues. Firstly the only truth in economics is supply will meet the demand that has the ability to pay. Who will have the ability to pay? Currencies are virtual representations of energy and commodities. Debt is committing energy and commodities from the future at unknown supply or cost. Energy and commodities have limits to their cost. That limit is both economic and energy based. Due to the infrastructure and machinery, which both have energy and commodity content, needed to put energy to work energy can be only a small fraction of the value of the work it will do. Fossil fuels about 84% of global energy will be used to economic depletion within a few decades, when the cost of supply of energy and commodities is more than the ability to pay. And largely depleted before the end of this century.
A good start. I think it's dangerous to conflate all of humanity with a single person (the "patient"). Sure, if modernity ends, humanity may continue, but that doesn't mean billions of people won't die with modernity.
I think RUclips auto-removed my initial reply as too controversial or something. Anyway, metaphors are always limited. Since maintaining billions indefinitely is not possible, the farther future will almost certainly have far fewer people. Ideally, that could happen in a natural deflation, demographically, as here: ruclips.net/video/4-G70C90aas/видео.html
Have you seen Nate Hagens "The great simplification" here on YT ? If so, What's your take on it?
I am familiar with it (in fact, was guest for Episode 18 and Frankly 22, scheduled for another on population). I highly recommend it for its attempt to broaden boundaries and promote systems thinking. I have gained a number of key insights from Schmachtenberger, McGilchrist, Andreotti, and many other guests.
Old words come to mind. You think you have time...
Plan to recommend a book that you may find interesting
Why do we want to save humanity? What are we saving it for? To do it all over again? And again?
Fair question; call it a preference. But the rinse-and-repeat is not as much an option as it might seem, as a transformed earth's surface depleted of surface ores and fossil fuels won't just let the same thing happen again.
Sometimes unsustainability results in failure but often it's resolved by change as well. All outcomes are possible. 👍
1) why ought we not be anthropocentric?
2) It's asserted modernity is bad, likened to cancer. Based on what?
3) what's the alternative? The stone age? 17th century?
4) does the bad outweigh any good?
5) Is it possible to cull the bad and preserve the good?
6) Is it possible some of the bad is only temporary and will payoff in the future?
7) you mentioned we don't get much criticism of modernity from our media sources but I'd argue just the opposite. The media is saturated with it.
Everything others produce for my consumption is edited. Unless I am having a present one on one dialog every communication is edited, too. Really being present is not essential to any media relationship. Presence for previously produced content is generally a waste of time. Your stuff excepted naturally.
Moloch is winning, Moloch always wins.
We've been compared to nazis and cancer inside of like 3 minutes.
Important distinction: humans within modernity are not the root problem-just as an organ afflicted by cancer or a normal inhabitant of 1942 Germany is more a victim of a malignant system. Don't make the mistake of taking the comparison personally.