Great presentation! As Nate said in near future ,biophysical limitations will diverge too sharply from money printing exponential economy. Unfortunately I don't think governments and people will come to their senses. If people can't plan for long term future when times are good, they certainly will not do it when times are dire. Instead it will be everyone scrambling even harder to put number one above everything else and catastrophe will spiral out of control.
You need energy to produce something. The main difference between making things in the past and making them now is that in the past they were made to last, but now they are made to quickly break down and end up in a landfill. Why? Because that's how we make money. This is a huge problem, and until we solve it, we won't be able to solve the energy problems. But the only solution the current economic system can offer us will result in mass poverty and possibly mass death.
Thats why the problem is the economic system. or more accurately, economics and economists. It is just plain wrong. humans thrived for 100 thousand years without the mass industrial production of commodities. It was a vanity to think we could out model nature.
Global net debt to GDP is estimated at 400%. Global economic growth has been fueled by debt. Currencies are virtual representation of energy. Debt is committing energy from the future with unknown supply or cost. Last 25 years humans have consumed 50% of all the energy that has been costumed, in the next 25 years there is not another 50% to consume. CO2 equivalent has been measured at over 500 ppm. Global warming is mathematically related to CO2 PPM. 4 C warming by 2100 is locked in and 8 C warming some time next century with 2-3 m of sea level rise. The Arctic ice cap keeps the the Artic Ocean cool. Ice free Arctic will warm and release 2.6 million years of stored methane hydrates from the ocean floor and tundra accelerating global warming.
@@klondike444 Only said by those that are ignorant of both facts and the limits of science. Some time next century global population at 2 billion if there is enough temperate land to support them. Past civilizations failed because they use up their available resources or wiped out by wars or a cosmic event. We are no different.
Another great presentation from Nate Hagens! But what is the context of the audience for this presentation? Who is "GITA"? I'm not familiar with this organization.
The freshwater crisis is the early proxy of the twenty first century’s ultimate challenge of learning how to manage our crowded planet’s resources in both an economically viable and an environmentally sustainable manner. By grasping the lessons of water’s pivotal role on our destiny, we will be better prepared to cope with the crisis about to engulf us all.
'coping with the crisis' was our problem all along. technological humans do not respond to limiting factors appropriately. by dying off and going away. the hive mind fixes things, and the population bubble keeps growing. its scale has long surpassed absurdity, but they want more life. nate calls humans the super organism. but they are better described as the megacancer. its the correct analogy because cancer ignores/defeats the mother systems signals to stop growing. it is part of the cancer mindset to expect/demand to live in harmony one day. like its a given. that there should not be a denouement, like is traditional. that the ultimate price should not be paid. bit much to expect contrition from a cancer i guess.
I’m just a little afraid to sound like a fool. But 8.5 minutes in Nate ( and you’re a star!! ) describes how adding in the semi and fully automated milking systems means wages go from$ 20 and hour to $25. I know the numbers themselves are fabricated. But, the increase to me seems small considering how many more cows can b e milked or hour. Is that because the capital cost is subtracted from the hourly rate? I want to understand this it seems extremely important that I “ get it”.
If you plotted increases in productivity of almost anything it’s going to look like some kind of square-root curve, where initial increases in input are very productive and then it tapers off. However, if you plotted the energy costs for an increase in input it will look much more linear. While a fully-automated milker will be more efficient than a semi-automated version, the increase in productivity is less than the increase in input costs. In some things the intersection of those two curves will occur sooner or later, and technological innovations can alter it, but the law of diminishing returns in inevitable. This happens in other areas too. If you plotted how good a coffee tastes with the costs of each additional technique it would be very similar to the milker. Things like good water and fresh beans will dramatically improve a coffee. A fancy variety or a fancy machine will certainly improve the taste of the coffee, but the marginal benefit of each iteration of technique/technology/preparation will not keep pace with the costs of implementing them. I hope I made sense and that this helps you understand
Nice presentation. As for the future of investing, I think we need to realize that most of what we call 'investing' today is really just leeching. People buying stock (after IPO), for example, invest nothing into the company, or the effort of producing a product or service. Their purchase offers some support to the stock price at that moment, but otherwise gives nothing, yet the purchaser expects a return. This is parasitical behavior that will not be tolerated very much longer. We can say that in the short term, a diversified portfolio may be a good idea while uncertainty and volatility increase, but then what? Broad declines in consumption will occur and investing into liquid instruments will become increasingly dangerous. Investing will finally have to be about more than me doing something for me, more than those who have more than they need doing something with their surplus for their own benefit.
Great presentation. I do think however that (perhaps a function of time available) there is too much of a broad brush being applied here - especially when we examine the relationship between sovereign wealth, reliance on debt, fossil fuels in the ground, food & water availability - and both fecundity & continued improvements in standards of living. Considering those factors, Sub-Saharan Africa and the G7 might as well be on different planets. At present there is a growing, reprehensible attempt to prevent SS African developing their own fossil fuels. Now more than ever can they prosper from developing those resources. Put that on top of the mountains of vital raw materials, and the natural mineral & fuel wealth of much of Africa is enormous. The western world (excl Canada & Australia) may indeed be facing an almost Malthusian crisis because of their paucity of in-country fuel, food and minerals, but it need not include Africa. Russia with a relatively small and very stoic population, massive resources, will tough out a reduction in growth much better than Europe. China and India are doomed however. The sooner Europe & the US re-kindie respectful relations with both SS Africa & Russia the better. So while in aggregate “the world” might experience the future predicted here, individuals only inhabit the country they live in. When push comes to shove, the tendency towards tribal and clannish behaviours will outweigh concern for others in far away places - unless we know we need them to help us keep our lights on and bread on our plates. Because there is no solution, the last thing that’s likely to happen is governments, in the final analysis, considering the “rest of the world” if that leads to loss of power. It’ll be the ultimate out-working of Darwinian social anthropology on a global scale, and it won’t be pretty.
No, Nate, most people don't realize we live in unsustainable times. Even the minority who have some idea that we could "run out" of oil and some other resources eventually assume that we can just switch to "sustainable" energy, substitute other resources and continue bau, and growth. Many are still denying climate change, and worry about a falling population. You know economists are large energy blind, so you seem oddly sanguine about people in general.
He's a brilliant analyst of systems, but a bit too hopeful that humanity will suddenly change its ways in recognition of the laws of thermodynamics. Only when wet bulb temperatures, flooding and continent-wide wildfires are wiping out billions of lives will anyone ever realize how stupid this species was. If even then.
Awesome compilation of models and insights Nate. Central banks create money from government bonds which are based on debt - for instance, for every dollar created through bonds, $10 dollars in debt is created.
Is there any data on where we are right now in this oil production gaussian curve? The relationship between oil production, oil price and wells drilled is still linear as far as i can see which does not raise any alarms in terms of oil scarcity. It seems to me we still have a lot of time to figure out renewables, maybe even too much as those who rush in with renewable investments will be competing with the "old world" that is in no hurry in terms of oil running out.
Great review! You’re giving the same story as others, that it’s arbitrarily created. That’s not what really happens. Banks extend loans, to people who have created organizations able to pay it back from profit. So… the money creation came from the value creation of the new productive organization. There is a problem, that the assumed conditions for growth won’t last! Coming soon it appears.
North American suburban karens will get the most shock. Soon we'll have to live like the rest of the world. Nate has mentioned before that Spain uses half of energy per capita as the United States, first world conditions do not need to be all about consumption.
Nate, it’s really shocking that you don’t address the role of creating wealth … to multiply wealth, the central driver of our creation now becoming our demise, for … not having a science that explains how natural systems make the response to growth limits to usually climax at peak strength, vitality and longevity. But, you know, if you’re not making false promises, nobody listens! :-)
There is embedded in all of these types of Malthusian (or Ehrlichian) horror tales a flawed premise. The premise is that populations have ever been "sustainable" Nothing in nature is sustainable and as humans we are products of nature as well. The Egyptians built a civilization based on the premise that any new idea was a bad idea; the past present and future simply had to be the same. The Egyptians, employing this grand over-arching philosophy ultimately proved to be unsustainable. So were the newer civilizations of the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Spanish, English and even that of the "Thousand Year Reich" All unsustainable. At the core of all of this is an infantile notion that since my childhood was free of care, I want to preserve it forever. No you cannot. The future is not yours to control, not even the present. The author mentioned a few recent examples of the four horsemen (war and plague) as times of "sustainability." For whom one is tempted to ask. People desiring to bend the arch of the future are simply wanna-be petty tyrants, Some make top ranking: Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler etc and all they accomplished was to make mountains of corpses but other than that they accomplished absolutely nothing. Seek happiness and fulfillment by living within the world you got, not the one you would rather have; nothing is sustainable.
oeha... We have out sourced our thinking to the market.... Good one
This is very easy to understand presentation!
Thank you!!!
The ride back to reality is going to be fun
thank you nate...a lot of work went into that
Great presentation! As Nate said in near future ,biophysical limitations will diverge too sharply from money printing exponential economy. Unfortunately I don't think governments and people will come to their senses. If people can't plan for long term future when times are good, they certainly will not do it when times are dire. Instead it will be everyone scrambling even harder to put number one above everything else and catastrophe will spiral out of control.
We can’t control energy, or nature. But we should be good at organizing ourselves and making a plan. This is just basic.
You need energy to produce something. The main difference between making things in the past and making them now is that in the past they were made to last, but now they are made to quickly break down and end up in a landfill. Why? Because that's how we make money. This is a huge problem, and until we solve it, we won't be able to solve the energy problems. But the only solution the current economic system can offer us
will result in mass poverty and possibly mass death.
Thats why the problem is the economic system. or more accurately, economics and economists. It is just plain wrong. humans thrived for 100 thousand years without the mass industrial production of commodities. It was a vanity to think we could out model nature.
Nat you are spot on with your research...and government is keeping
This from the public...
It’s not politically popular
Global net debt to GDP is estimated at 400%. Global economic growth has been fueled by debt. Currencies are virtual representation of energy. Debt is committing energy from the future with unknown supply or cost. Last 25 years humans have consumed 50% of all the energy that has been costumed, in the next 25 years there is not another 50% to consume. CO2 equivalent has been measured at over 500 ppm. Global warming is mathematically related to CO2 PPM. 4 C warming by 2100 is locked in and 8 C warming some time next century with 2-3 m of sea level rise. The Arctic ice cap keeps the the Artic Ocean cool. Ice free Arctic will warm and release 2.6 million years of stored methane hydrates from the ocean floor and tundra accelerating global warming.
Human ingenuity and technology will solve all - I keep being told.
@@klondike444 Only said by those that are ignorant of both facts and the limits of science. Some time next century global population at 2 billion if there is enough temperate land to support them. Past civilizations failed because they use up their available resources or wiped out by wars or a cosmic event. We are no different.
@@klondike444 Fusion will solve ALL our problems :D
@@torsteinholen14 Can't wait!
@@klondike444 Literally 💥
Another great presentation from Nate Hagens! But what is the context of the audience for this presentation? Who is "GITA"? I'm not familiar with this organization.
That's not an accident.
Nate is a slow and deliberate speaker. Try boosting the playback speed to 1:25.
The freshwater crisis is the early proxy of the twenty first century’s ultimate challenge of learning how to manage our crowded planet’s resources in both an economically viable and an environmentally sustainable manner. By grasping the lessons of water’s pivotal role on our destiny, we will be better prepared to cope with the crisis about to engulf us all.
'coping with the crisis' was our problem all along. technological humans do not respond to limiting factors appropriately. by dying off and going away. the hive mind fixes things, and the population bubble keeps growing. its scale has long surpassed absurdity, but they want more life. nate calls humans the super organism. but they are better described as the megacancer. its the correct analogy because cancer ignores/defeats the mother systems signals to stop growing. it is part of the cancer mindset to expect/demand to live in harmony one day. like its a given. that there should not be a denouement, like is traditional. that the ultimate price should not be paid. bit much to expect contrition from a cancer i guess.
I’m just a little afraid to sound like a fool. But 8.5 minutes in Nate ( and you’re a star!! ) describes how adding in the semi and fully automated milking systems means wages go from$ 20 and hour to $25. I know the numbers themselves are fabricated. But, the increase to me seems small considering how many more cows can b e milked or hour. Is that because the capital cost is subtracted from the hourly rate?
I want to understand this it seems extremely important that I “ get it”.
If you plotted increases in productivity of almost anything it’s going to look like some kind of square-root curve, where initial increases in input are very productive and then it tapers off. However, if you plotted the energy costs for an increase in input it will look much more linear.
While a fully-automated milker will be more efficient than a semi-automated version, the increase in productivity is less than the increase in input costs. In some things the intersection of those two curves will occur sooner or later, and technological innovations can alter it, but the law of diminishing returns in inevitable.
This happens in other areas too. If you plotted how good a coffee tastes with the costs of each additional technique it would be very similar to the milker. Things like good water and fresh beans will dramatically improve a coffee. A fancy variety or a fancy machine will certainly improve the taste of the coffee, but the marginal benefit of each iteration of technique/technology/preparation will not keep pace with the costs of implementing them. I hope I made sense and that this helps you understand
Nice presentation. As for the future of investing, I think we need to realize that most of what we call 'investing' today is really just leeching. People buying stock (after IPO), for example, invest nothing into the company, or the effort of producing a product or service. Their purchase offers some support to the stock price at that moment, but otherwise gives nothing, yet the purchaser expects a return. This is parasitical behavior that will not be tolerated very much longer. We can say that in the short term, a diversified portfolio may be a good idea while uncertainty and volatility increase, but then what? Broad declines in consumption will occur and investing into liquid instruments will become increasingly dangerous. Investing will finally have to be about more than me doing something for me, more than those who have more than they need doing something with their surplus for their own benefit.
Great presentation.
I do think however that (perhaps a function of time available) there is too much of a broad brush being applied here - especially when we examine the relationship between sovereign wealth, reliance on debt, fossil fuels in the ground, food & water availability - and both fecundity & continued improvements in standards of living.
Considering those factors, Sub-Saharan Africa and the G7 might as well be on different planets.
At present there is a growing, reprehensible attempt to prevent SS African developing their own fossil fuels. Now more than ever can they prosper from developing those resources. Put that on top of the mountains of vital raw materials, and the natural mineral & fuel wealth of much of Africa is enormous.
The western world (excl Canada & Australia) may indeed be facing an almost Malthusian crisis because of their paucity of in-country fuel, food and minerals, but it need not include Africa. Russia with a relatively small and very stoic population, massive resources, will tough out a reduction in growth much better than Europe. China and India are doomed however.
The sooner Europe & the US re-kindie respectful relations with both SS Africa & Russia the better.
So while in aggregate “the world” might experience the future predicted here, individuals only inhabit the country they live in. When push comes to shove, the tendency towards tribal and clannish behaviours will outweigh concern for others in far away places - unless we know we need them to help us keep our lights on and bread on our plates.
Because there is no solution, the last thing that’s likely to happen is governments, in the final analysis, considering the “rest of the world” if that leads to loss of power. It’ll be the ultimate out-working of Darwinian social anthropology on a global scale, and it won’t be pretty.
24:11 ominous sith voice!
"leave fossil fuel"
@Nate Hagens 1:57, when looking this at the human civilization level, could we also link it to the concept of the Kardashev scale?
Good info we all know by now. Remember-- every dam thing we make ends in the garbage. As food and water goes away ,, eyes will open more. ❤️🌎❤️
No, Nate, most people don't realize we live in unsustainable times. Even the minority who have some idea that we could "run out" of oil and some other resources eventually assume that we can just switch to "sustainable" energy, substitute other resources and continue bau, and growth. Many are still denying climate change, and worry about a falling population. You know economists are large energy blind, so you seem oddly sanguine about people in general.
He's a brilliant analyst of systems, but a bit too hopeful that humanity will suddenly change its ways in recognition of the laws of thermodynamics. Only when wet bulb temperatures, flooding and continent-wide wildfires are wiping out billions of lives will anyone ever realize how stupid this species was. If even then.
@@alandoane9168 We're just doing what we evolved to do. Unfortunately we're much too good at it.
Awesome compilation of models and insights Nate. Central banks create money from government bonds which are based on debt - for instance, for every dollar created through bonds, $10 dollars in debt is created.
Is there any data on where we are right now in this oil production gaussian curve? The relationship between oil production, oil price and wells drilled is still linear as far as i can see which does not raise any alarms in terms of oil scarcity. It seems to me we still have a lot of time to figure out renewables, maybe even too much as those who rush in with renewable investments will be competing with the "old world" that is in no hurry in terms of oil running out.
Great review! You’re giving the same story as others, that it’s arbitrarily created. That’s not what really happens. Banks extend loans, to people who have created organizations able to pay it back from profit. So… the money creation came from the value creation of the new productive organization. There is a problem, that the assumed conditions for growth won’t last! Coming soon it appears.
Started years ago, actually.
Did you learn about how Bitcoin creates bottom-up pressure of financial austerity and creates a full reserve banking system?
bitcoin is bullshit
North American suburban karens will get the most shock. Soon we'll have to live like the rest of the world. Nate has mentioned before that Spain uses half of energy per capita as the United States, first world conditions do not need to be all about consumption.
Nate, it’s really shocking that you don’t address the role of creating wealth … to multiply wealth, the central driver of our creation now becoming our demise, for … not having a science that explains how natural systems make the response to growth limits to usually climax at peak strength, vitality and longevity. But, you know, if you’re not making false promises, nobody listens! :-)
There is embedded in all of these types of Malthusian (or Ehrlichian) horror tales a flawed premise. The premise is that populations have ever been "sustainable" Nothing in nature is sustainable and as humans we are products of nature as well. The Egyptians built a civilization based on the premise that any new idea was a bad idea; the past present and future simply had to be the same. The Egyptians, employing this grand over-arching philosophy ultimately proved to be unsustainable. So were the newer civilizations of the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Spanish, English and even that of the "Thousand Year Reich" All unsustainable.
At the core of all of this is an infantile notion that since my childhood was free of care, I want to preserve it forever. No you cannot. The future is not yours to control, not even the present.
The author mentioned a few recent examples of the four horsemen (war and plague) as times of "sustainability." For whom one is tempted to ask.
People desiring to bend the arch of the future are simply wanna-be petty tyrants, Some make top ranking: Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler etc and all they accomplished was to make mountains of corpses but other than that they accomplished absolutely nothing.
Seek happiness and fulfillment by living within the world you got, not the one you would rather have; nothing is sustainable.
A bit confusing and lengthy blog. Check Mike Mills on the reasons and solutions …
The only solution to this predicament is a radically smaller population with consumption rates at about 2% of current levels!
It couldn't have been clearer. Perhaps you're just in denial.