The Crux of Rapid Collapse

[fishmahboi]

In the consequences Subforum, something that I have encountered frequently is the entertainment of thoughts about society rapidly collapsing and the scenario being the best in terms of the long term. In reply to my reading of posts that talk about this, I would like to ask a question; why is there so much hope for the prospect of rapid collapse?

The justification for bringing up this question is that I do not see the advantage of rapid collapse of society for it just means that ridiculous amounts of people will die, society will crumble and fall to nothing and the developments, achievements of society, scientific and other, will be thrown out the window and, under methane or hothouse circumstances, the probability of human extinction rises close to or jumps to 100%.

As a young person, I personally do not want society to collapse under any circumstances, but seeing as it is inevitable, and the time it takes for it to crumble is increasing as new factors are coming into play day by day (Perhaps one new factor could cause society to collapse in a few months time, but that's stretching the band to breaking point), mainly because it would be a shame for so many people who have their hopes and dreams snuffed out and consumed by the void as they are thrust into oblivion, although thoughts like this are ridiculous in a sense and I should probably just grow up and stop being a child.

So I would like to know, what advantages could be gained from a rapid societal collapse, or do the advantages only apply to those who think extinction is the only option for humanity or that humanity does not deserve to live on this earth at all, or those people who think the population could use a major trimming and that a large amount of people dying, regardless of what they could provide, would be a major advantage to when society develops again, if it develops again if humanity isn't wiped out by major scenarios like horrific methane releases or nuclear winter, a mad max world rapidly turning into a world similar to that of The Road.

[TerryM]

Fish
I haven't noticed any "hope"" for a collapse of any kind. I'm one who does see collapse as a likely outcome of the path we seem to be on, but I take no pleasure in this.
If the world was making progress regarding GHG emissions then pushing the collapse as far into the future as possible would make extreme sacrifices now reasonable. Instead each year we see increased use of FF, more CO2 being released and no real progress on any front. One of our posters proposed a "Palliative Care" approach where we simply accept that we're screwed and live as well as we can until everything disintegrates. This seems to be the path that the big players are taking. No sacrifice, no restraint, more drill baby drill.
It would be nice if some of those most responsible were to feel some of the pain & this may be fueling some of the undertone you picked up on. The truth is that the old men who did this will be dead in 20 years and will go to their graves knowing they won.
Terry

[Laurent]

Hello Fismahboi,

I don't think a total collapse will happened (in the next ten years after ?), what i expect is an other financial collapse, but this time the real one, it will be triggered by the complete loss of the Arctic because there would be at that point absolutely no doubt for nearly every body that a change is going on. It should have happened earlier but most of the people take some benefits ( having a job) of the economical system even if it is a giant fraud !
The debts are too high, most of the countries need to have an increase in gdp of at least 1%/year (in France we are at 0,2% and it is going down) if we want to reimbourse only the interest !

Japan has 230% debt of his gdp. Grece is just fine compare to them...why nobody is pointing at them (they own there own debt...blablabla)?

A financial collapse is welcome because it will reset the economy with the reality...but the rules have to change after that otherwise nothing will change really !!!
The FED is the first thing that has to be thrown away because they can create money out of thin air, they have the power to buy everything...and they do (even in France, through the French banks because the fed finance them)!
Then change the rules of the banks.
My hope is that the people globaly will start thinking of climate change and act really. Acting mean, living with local resources, exchanging localy...

[ccgwebmaster]

In the consequences Subforum, something that I have encountered frequently is the entertainment of thoughts about society rapidly collapsing and the scenario being the best in terms of the long term. In reply to my reading of posts that talk about this, I would like to ask a question; why is there so much hope for the prospect of rapid collapse?

I hope personally to see the harm our species is causing to itself, it's future, and to the rest of the ecosystem (that we ultimately need) will be minimised. In an ideal world, that would mean the species fixes the problem and gets its act together. When that appears impossible - or fantastically unlikely - then a rapid early collapse would seem to minimise harm better than a slow grinding one.

As a young person, I personally do not want society to collapse under any circumstances, but seeing as it is inevitable, and the time it takes for it to crumble is increasing as new factors are coming into play day by day (Perhaps one new factor could cause society to collapse in a few months time, but that's stretching the band to breaking point), mainly because it would be a shame for so many people who have their hopes and dreams snuffed out and consumed by the void as they are thrust into oblivion, although thoughts like this are ridiculous in a sense and I should probably just grow up and stop being a child.

Call me cynical, but I've found in life that hopes and dreams are routinely snuffed out. A lot of bad things happen in the world even today - a different (and formerly excessively privileged) set of people may experience disproportionately more, but will it be any worse for those at the edge of starvation already? Or those living in high conflict regions without effective rule of law? Or those effectively imprisoned by extreme interpretations of the prevailing religions?

It's all relative - but - I would argue that rather than wallowing in the apparent inevitability of it all, you may as well try to chart the best course through life you can find regardless. One can generally have little influence over the rest of the world, but one have total influence over how you behave and how you respond to problems. If one stops at the point one perceives hopes and dreams being snuffed out - one is giving in to defeat and achieving nothing. If one derives a new hope or dream and fights for it - then one will still have your hopes and dreams.

The bottom line is that while many in the western world view this sort of a future as hell on earth and unimaginably bad, they are ignoring the large numbers of people in other parts of the world who already have extremely difficult and unpleasant lives. They are ignoring the suffering and pain that happens today in the modern world (and that has happened throughout history), and concentrating only on their personal position of privilege and what they think they will lose personally. I think if you take the big picture view, I question if the changes we can expect are as profound and unprecedented in terms of the collective human experience as those who are comfortably placed in western societies today believe.

[ritter]

I for one do not hope for a collapse. I would love to continue my lifestyle as it is. I'm not a huge consumer, but I am definitely a middle class American, living a fossil fueled life. I conserve when and where I can. I reuse when and where I can. But I am certainly not living off the land, although I'd give it a go in a big way if my partner were keen on the idea. She isn't. I have a 10 year old and a wife I love dearly. Collapse would not be kind to either them or me.

That said, I see absolutely no real work being done on the transition to sustainable energy that should have begun 40 years ago to be meaningful on a climate change level. Yes, I know we are making progress on renewables and efficiency standards. But CO2 is still going up. We are still burning all we can get our grubby little hands on. Here in California, governments are moving from a stance of CO2 mitigation to adaptation. There is an unspoken recognition that we simply can't break the addiction, so we better brace for the consequences. I also see no real work toward a sustainable population.

So the logic is, the faster we crash, the less we will burn/destroy and the more likely it is that homo sapiens will survive the event. The longer it is delayed, the more degraded the world will be on the other side of the bottleneck. Best estimates are the Earth's carrying capacity is 1 billion or fewer. 6 out of every 7 of us needs to disappear for that number to be reached. There is a very good chance that my family would be in that 6. I do not wish for that. But the sooner the six disappear, the more livable the planet will be that is left behind for the 1. It's godawful depressive thinking, but there you have it. We've got the tiger by the tail and there's no real appealing way to let go. (edited to add: upon rereading, this sounds just horrible. Just to restate, I do not wish for such things, only that it is likely the best outcome for human survival.)

My climate schizophrenia includes employment in the environmental field and adaptation planning/implementation is high on my list of interests. I have no interest in watching people die in a collapse. I will do all I can at a professional and a personal level to hang on to the tail while enjoying what we've got while we've got it!   

[wili]

What ritter said. But I would also like to point out that, in my experience, it is rare to find people who say they want to avoid rapid collapse who are actually minimizing the things they do every day that make that collapse more likely--drive, eat meat and dairy, fly, buy lots of crap...

Likewise, I find "optimists"--people who like to emphasize the bright side, that human ingenuity will win the day, or cooperation...--generally very large carbon and consumption footprints and have no serious plans to reduce them.

In fact, it is only the people I know who are most pessimistic about the future (based on close reading of the best science), and who recognize that there could be upsides for the rest of the living world in a rapid collapse of western industrialized society...it is only among these types of folks that I have seen people seriously trying to live on "one earth."

http://www.myfootprint.org/

(or pretty much any other realistic measure you want to use)

It is worth noting, though, that if (as I suspect may happen soon as northern Hadley cells collapse to one) collapse is primarily brought about by mass starvation, humans are going to go after anything they can either kill to eat or burn to cook and stay warm, which is pretty much all complex life. So even a rapid collapse is likely to bring about a very rapid mass extinction event.

[fishmahboi]

I appreciate the responses to the thread and I find that those who favor early collapse have a logical reason to do so.

@CGS

I am aware of the other problems that people face in certain countries which makes me feel ashamed for having feelings of despair at a point where my western lifestyle is compromised and I do agree that it is best to seek out a goal, even when collapse commences, but the future seems to be barren and thus I feel that there is nothing to achieve, but I'm exaggerating and I apologize for doing so.

@Ritter

Why do you come to the conclusion that 1 billion people is the limit for the human population? I find it odd because I thought the limit would have been at least two or three billion people higher.

[ritter]

@Ritter

Why do you come to the conclusion that 1 billion people is the limit for the human population? I find it odd because I thought the limit would have been at least two or three billion people higher.

The vast majority of human existence has been well under 1 billion. It was not until the implementation of agriculture and enslavement of fossil fuels that we achieved our first billion. Remove stable agriculture (due to climate change) and fossil fuels (due to over utilization and exhaustion of recoverable sources) and where do you think we'll end up? I will admit that my crystal ball is cloudy. But your odds are not much more appealing anyway!



Pictures just for fun.

[JimD]

fishmahboi

I think that the general motivation for the comments that are troubling you are that posters are trying to essentially wish for the what they perceive to be the best long-term results.

I don't think anyone wants to go through the collapse experience any more than you do.  It is clear that most of us old guys are taking some comfort in that we likely will not live long enough to have to experience collapse like you are describing.

If one thinks collapse is inevitable (like I do) then the question becomes what is best long-term.  A long drawn out process which further dramatically reduces the amount of resources left for the survivors to rebuild from, results in much higher co2 levels and a much bigger die-off; or a quick collapse that eliminates the population quickly, lowers carbon emissions much earlier and leaves lots more resources to the survivors.  This is a fair question to contemplate, but I think it can be put into too simple of terms when looked at that way.  There are a lot of assumptions built into the question when put the way I did above.  Are those assumptions correct?  All of them?  I can easily understand viewpoints which go either way.

But the key thing to remember is that we don't actually get to choose one way or the other so it is an academic question in the first place.  In my opinion the data does not support thinking there is a high probability of a quick collapse.  It indicates a medium-term collapse is at least 50/50 and long-term it seems pretty certain. 

If there is a quick collapse it means one of a few things; the climate is in much worse shape than most of us think and it spins out of control unexpectedly, a negative Black Swan shows up and trips the world into collapse all at once, or some entity deliberately triggers the collapse (which is also a sort of Black Swan event).  If it happens it happens, but I would just ignore that possibility if I were in your shoes.

Re the carrying capacity question.  If you look at Ritter's excellent charts one can try and project post collapse populations based upon the technologies that will still be available to them.  This is going to be very subjective as everyone will come up with a different answer to the technology question.  And how long after collapse we are talking about impacts that answer as well.  Population may plummet at first and then decline fairly slowly for a long time as the full climate change effects take place. 

If one looks out a 100 years from now it is probably a good bet that in many areas of the world the remaining population will be mostly subsistence farmers living at a technological level somewhere in between 1900 and 1950 plus a few capabilities from later decades which have been preserved and adapted to their circumstances.  There should still be places in the world where they have access to pretty significant technologies.  Electricity, at least basic computer technology, a robust level of industrial technologies, manufacturing on some scale, the full book range of knowledge that we have today will still exist, etc.  While one can make an argument that the sustainable carrying capacity of the world is not much more than 1 billion with yesterdays environment and climate, that is not what will exist in the future.  So what is the number we will have in a 100 years?  I think at that time we will still be above carrying capacity (whatever the new number is) though we could be down to under 2 billion.  Those technologies and knowledge will help us hold up population levels a long time in my opinion.  It all boils down to how many people we can feed and that answer is both dependent on how much technology we can maintain and how bad the climate gets.  And we don't know the answer to either of those points.

[ritter]

but the future seems to be barren and thus I feel that there is nothing to achieve, but I'm exaggerating and I apologize for doing so.

Fish,

This was directed at CCG, not me. I'd like to respond to it, though. I find I catch myself in the habits of old--daydreaming of glorious futures, riches and the bounty of life, to be a bit silly about it. But I also find myself recognizing that I am daydreaming and the future will likely not be like that, collapse or no. It can get depressing and it is a difficult thing to talk about with many folk as they either look at you like you're a loon or find it too much of a downer to contemplate. I rarely even discuss it with my wife, although she feels the wind of change as well. To use a phrase from the 60s, it's heavy, man. All that to say, I can relate to your angst.

So what to do about it? I have a family to look after. It is my focus and will be my way through this for better or worse. I try to learn new practical skills as generalists tend to do better in times of rapid change than specialists. I try to keep a reasonable (not doomsday) stockpile of food and supplies (I do live in earthquake country, so it's prudent anyway). I keep up my physical health and do marital arts. It's good exercise, discipline and may make a difference one day (and fits into those funny old daydreams of grandeur). Plus it's something I can do with my daughter that (secretly) prepares her some for what may be and could make a difference to her in the future regardless.

If I didn't have a family? Well, I can't say I'd do much differently except I wouldn't make my living in an office, I'd be doing it by either farming or building/fixing things. I'd be more free to radically participate in what is occurring rather than laying low to protect those I love. I suppose my advice is to find the adventure in it rather than the despair. I try to remind myself of this often as well. Doom is a lonely business but you are not alone.

[fishmahboi]

It seems to me that people are addressing me and while it is nice, I was hoping for the discussion to be centered around the general prospects for collapse that people think would be best for the long term.

[wili]

Wow, ritter. That was very eloquent.

[ritter]

Wili,
You understand the angst as well. Sometimes, we need to hear another voice (or read, in this case) that validates our feelings and confirms they are shared by others. Fish sounded a little despondent and company is good medicine for that. I truly sometimes wonder if I've gone insane thinking about these things. Who the hell wants to think that the end of the world (at least as we know it) is really possible? Then I read well reasoned posts from intelligent people who have reached the same conclusions. It at least makes me feel better about my mental state! 

One thing that I find striking about out current society is the fact that it is now the scientists predicting the end is near and the religious zealots proclaiming all is well (or at least will be with rapture). It is a paradigm shift that I find very interesting. 

[fishmahboi]

The company is good and the advice seems adequate, but I see a problem with mass death in the quick collapse scenario, being a sort of best case scenario in the long run and I don't say this because of the fear of death, but I say this because there are certain factors that could just decimate the remaining 1 billion in one foul swoop. The factors I am referring to are the Worst Case scenarios with regards Climate Change because I question humanity's chances of survival in a world that is similar to that experienced in the PETM or another type of Climate Hothouse like world, for example the one Wili brought up in the Climate and Agriculture thread.

I also want to introduce a certain aspect of our population that has left me somewhat curious with regards the fact that the amount of people we have on earth is too many and the reason I am curious is that I wonder as to whether or not this accounts for every country, large amounts of people in every country of the world must die for the sake of a small number of others, or if there are marginal areas where the population is stellar or under the carrying capacity, for example Ireland after the great famine.

[retiredbill]

I'll second, or third, the sentiments of ritter about the existence of others who
also see the end of our technological civilization. A while back, I was wondering if I was
the only one and made a few posts about the inevitable future. Since then, I've almost
stopped posting because many people had been more concise and reasoned on
the topic e.g. JimD who has clearly devoted much thought to the subject.

As to carrying capacity, I think the more primitive the present-day life style, the
closer the population is to the limit. Inuits and aboriginals will suffer less from CC
then most other people, unless the Inuits don't get wiped out by sea level rise or
the disappearance of ice and the wildlife the ice supports.

[chopper]

i would figure a rapid collapse would lead to a great deal of war and conflict, which would cause destruction on a grand scale. the aftermath would be dirty and disease-ridden which isn't such a great prospect for the people who survive.

so i'd argue that no, rapid collapse is not great for long-term prospects of humanity.

[JimD]

Chopper

Some would argue that a medium-term or a long-term collapse would also

...lead to a great deal of war and conflict, which would cause destruction on a grand scale. the aftermath would be dirty and disease-ridden which isn't such a great prospect for the people who survive....

Only that war and conflict in the medium and long term scenarios would occur in a world which had consumed much more of its resources, had a much larger population and a climate which was in much worse shape.     

[wili]

rb, I certainly think that traditional, small-scale societies like the Inuit and various aborigines, deserve not to be wiped out by GW/CC.

Unfortunately, the Inuit in particular are in fact on the front lines of cultural extinction due to GW--it is their home, after all, in and near the Arctic that we are seeing change and disappear faster than pretty much anywhere else in the world.

The close second for cultural extinction due to GW are the many islands and nations of islands that are in the process of inundation from SLR. Again, these are mostly still small-scale, mostly still traditional societies (though, of course, like pretty much all cultures, they are not untouched by modernity).

Other small scale societies, probably most, are under threat from a variety of forces, including language extinction (not completely unrelated to species extinction).

To keep abreast of these developments, one good source is:

Cultural Survival http://www.culturalsurvival.org/

[Glenn Tamblyn]

For me the crux of what a collapse could mean and why is related to the collapse of the structures of society and the knowledge base we have built up in the last few centuries. Knowledge can be lost very quickly, in just a generation or 3 if the world descends into chaos. Going back to a medieval society is not just a loss of the material aspexcts of our societies. It is the knowledge and culture lost as well.

We are all mortal, we all die. The legacy of society and culture and knowledge that we build and pass on to future generations is our true immortality. We may be the first generation that fails to do that.

[wili]

True, but keep in mind that there are enormous losses of cultural knowledge going on right now with the globalization of modern industrial culture, too. Just consider how rapidly languages from small-scale traditional societies are being lost. Their traditions, "folk-knowledge," oral histories, healing methods, unique perspectives...are all be lost at the same time.

We don't have to wait for 'collapse' to see a massive, irreplaceable loss of cultural knowledge take place. It's happening right now. (And it is not altogether unrelated to the mass species extinction going on, as well.)

[ritter]

The legacy of society and culture and knowledge that we build and pass on to future generations is our true immortality. We may be the first generation that fails to do that.

100 years ago, a woman handed a sack of flower, some lard and a chicken would know what to do to make a meal (not intended as a sexist statement, just gender roles were much different in the past). A man given a hammer, some nails and wood could make a passable residence. Now, not so much. I'd say we've been failing to pass on essential knowledge related to living for at least a century now. The more specialized we become, the less useful we are. What will we do when we can't just go get some McNuggets? 

[prokaryotes]

If you bring up this topic the first thing people mention is, "Oh it's because of over population". However, if we do not learn to manage current population in regards to planetary boundaries, we won't with lesser amounts of people.

Another aspect here is that we face a genetic bottleneck. Because abrupt development means that we probably have the Titanic effect when lifeboats remain unused. Lifeboat as in, self sustaining communities.  We rather stay isolated (as in nations, local and social level) and mob mentality will rule once food shortages become to overwhelming.

We face total chaos and the only way out of this "death spiral" are global combined actions to reduce emissions, which would require a paradigm shift. So far our species is not sustainable enough it turns out.

[JimD]

Prokaryotes

I admit I just got up and have only had part of a cup of coffee, but I am confused by your post.

If you bring up this topic the first thing people mention is, "Oh it's because of over population". However, if we do not learn to manage current population in regards to planetary boundaries, we won't with lesser amounts of people.

Since our population is far beyond (maybe 3-4 times) the carrying capacity of the earth it is not possible for us to "learn to manage current population".  Especially since population is rising at a steady rate.  Hope for miracles is what everyone is depending upon (whether technical or spiritual) to save us.  While our behavior might not change much our prospects are certainly more robust with a much lower population also.

Another aspect here is that we face a genetic bottleneck. Because abrupt development means that we probably have the Titanic effect when lifeboats remain unused. Lifeboat as in, self sustaining communities.  We rather stay isolated (as in nations, local and social level) and mob mentality will rule once food shortages become to overwhelming.

Could you explain the genetic bottleneck statement?  Our current genetic diversity is the greatest it has ever been.  Are you talking about post die-off?

Also your statement above about sustainable "lifeboat" communities and the following comment about the only way out being "global combined actions" would seem to be in contradiction at some level.

We face total chaos and the only way out of this "death spiral" are global combined actions to reduce emissions, which would require a paradigm shift. So far our species is not sustainable enough it turns out.

But maybe I have not had enough coffee yet.

[ccgwebmaster]

For me the crux of what a collapse could mean and why is related to the collapse of the structures of society and the knowledge base we have built up in the last few centuries. Knowledge can be lost very quickly, in just a generation or 3 if the world descends into chaos. Going back to a medieval society is not just a loss of the material aspexcts of our societies. It is the knowledge and culture lost as well.

We are all mortal, we all die. The legacy of society and culture and knowledge that we build and pass on to future generations is our true immortality. We may be the first generation that fails to do that.

This is a very good point.

I think another thing one can add to this if that a lot of modern skills depend upon modern infrastructure in order to be meaningful. The vast majority of my current skills becomes useless if I live in part of the world where the lights go out and nobody puts them on again...

In that way knowledge could become irrelevant even within a generation.

Another thing I think will tend to mitigate against knowledge retention is that if people are struggling just to survive - things like education are unlikely to be such high priorities as in more developed nations now. The way less developed nations do things likely points the way in these respects. That much I suppose is part of your within 1 or 3 generations...

[dlen]

Hm, I don't see future as gloom and doom as some here. Yes, there will be big problems, but the communication between men, the general degree of organization is already very high and will be higher in the future. Yes, there may come up hunger problems. Also considerable economic problems because of hight raw material costs. But there is still some leeway, it only needs considerable reorganization. I am thinking of the arable land to be gained in Canada and Siberia, and of massive decrease in meat consumption.
What is important is to strengthen international relationships to a much higher level than now, statewise and individually, to increase education on the globe, which fosters the ability to make better decisions (and reduces population growth radically), and to work hard for able and reasonable elites, that put personal power and enrichment second and the wellbeing of their people first. A culture of taking part has to be established, to avoid a "save your own ass and fuck the rest" - mentality. Develop organizational intelligence, if such a thing exists.
Personally, I decided to donate (in spite of very tight budget) to a UNICEF schooling programme, to help just that.

[ralphw]

I do not know how likely rapid collapse is.  If it happens,  it will be the result of large scale war between the major powers of the world, and will be triggered by rapidly falling oil supplies as the major oil exporting nations implode politically.

I am getting nervous that we are once again entering interesting times.

Syria was only a minor oil exporter.
Libya is a top 10 exporter and currently exports have fallen to precisely zero.
Brazil has never been an oil exporter although that is news to some people,  their imports are rising.
Iran is still a top 5 exporter in spite of US led sanctions.
Russia vies with Saudi Arabia for the number 1 spot , but both countries are showing major signs of having reached their all time peak production.
Regardless of shale oil,  US still vies with China as the world's largest oil importer.
Iraq had almost regained their previous record oil production of 4Mbpd (reached in 1979, before the Iran/Iraq war started,  I remember that well),  before the current insurrection really got going.  This one has real potential for big trouble,  as it redraws a lot of lines in the sand.  Oil companies are withdrawing foreign workers,  some oil supplies are now in the hands of the Islamists, and more could be disrupted.  Price is rising on the markets. 

The question is how far this will spread.  Iran is already threatening to back up Maliki,  and Saudi Arabia will be extremely nervous.  Most of their oil fields are in minority Shia areas and they are very unhappy.

[ritter]

I do not know how likely rapid collapse is.  If it happens,  it will be the result of large scale war between the major powers of the world, and will be triggered by rapidly falling oil supplies as the major oil exporting nations implode politically.

I am getting nervous that we are once again entering interesting times.

Yep, there's a lot of weird going on.
Russian bombers buzz coast of California, Alaska
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/12/russian-bombers-buzz-us-defense-systems-coast-cali/

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

I've been seeing things as hell-bent for total collapse since fracking went into high gear about five years ago. Before that like other peak oilers I expected peak oil would cause a scaling back of our spewing, saving us from abrupt climate change. However, I'm now understanding that a lot of this fossil fuel frenzy has been about speculation and stock market churning so that actually we are on the brink of the end of cheap oil. We may actually live through the scenario the Transition Town movement was conceived to deal with.

On the other hand, we don't know how close we are to major climate tipping points. If we go over, there will be mass starvation and wars over migrations. Even if the financial system continues to reinvent itself and serve the function of keeping money flowing into the hands of the power-hungry, the most comfortable of us will be nostalgic for the halcyon days when small stupid wars filled the evening news.

I'm afraid there are some dreamers (I know some) who are raising chickens and growing veggies in hopes of being among the final few left after total collapse, professing despair while actually looking forward to it. Somewhere here in these forums someone mentioned life having been good pre-automation, in classical Greece. Someone commented that this was because there were slaves to do the work. It's important to realize that in the age of cheap oil and mega container ships zipping across the Pacific, we have been sitting back and letting slaves do our work. There are billions of people who have already experienced what we think of as collapse.

Sorry for a messy thought stream, but I'm that unclear about things. I'm living as though being green will make a difference and expecting the financial system to sort of hold together. But I wouldn't be having kids if I were twenty-five. (I'm 62.)

[lisa]

Lynn, we're on the same page.  There is part of my that wants to believe that we will find a way to make it through this, but my reason tells me that billions will die and life will be very difficult for those who survive. 

I'm one of those gardening and hoping to teach myself and my family some basic survival skills, but I'm really, really not hoping for a collapse.  I think to myself maybe we'll be ok, and then I get teary eyed because I know we won't be.  It's hard. 

Then I go out and weed my garden.  Today I weeded the herbs -- so lovely.

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

Lisa, it's no coincidence that Neven, the guy who started this blog, signs off his posts with "Il faut cultiver notre jardin." I had to explain to my son today that following the details of climate science doesn't make me miserable. I can spend half an hour up to my eyeballs in doom, then go outside and absolutely revel in every sprout and blossom bud. One is the antidote to the other right now, if not in case of the worst case scenario.

[jonthed]

I can see how collapse starting sooner would mean that the world will face up to things before even more damage is done, which is preferable, but I certainly don't hope for collapse. I do also see potential for specific technological advances to ease the pain of collapse a little, so part of me is holding out on them.

I still worry about what I should be doing for my family in light of the coming changes due to GW itself (sea level rise etc.) and the looming threat of food crises, societal collapse, and mass migration.

If collapse and AGW is coming, what can I do about it? Even if I could afford to move and establish a self sufficient life with my young family, as soon as food became scarce we would be looted or worse. The way I see it is that individual prepping is futile. Once nationwide food riots break out, the army will step in to ration food and commandeer all means of food production anyway. Anyone who grows their own could expect their meagre harvest to be pilfered probably before its even ready to harvest. Basement food stores may well be sussed out by starving neighbours or even government inspectors, and they too will be lost. I see no way to go it alone, or even in a small community, if there are going to be thousands of desperate people willing to do anything to find some food for their families. Even less so if some sort of martial law is imposed and all food requisitioned for rationing.

I only hope that my government will be able to get a good grip of the situation, and bring an ordered rationing system into play before too much chaos arises. My hope for safely surviving collapse rests on the response of my government and army to the crises. If even with a ration system there is not enough food for everyone then we will really be in trouble. Hopefully children will get priority.

So, what should I do? Apart from trying to make people care about these issues, and doing my bit to minimize my contribution, what else would be a sensible move? My wife and I have been working hard to pay off our mortgage so that we may pass on some inheritance to our 2 boys. But our house is in a city only 8m above sea level, and what with the collapse and all, is investing our wealth in this way pointless? Even moving house may be pointless if a collapse renders property ownership invalid. Is there something better we should be pouring our efforts and finances into that would better benefit us and our boys as AGW becomes more damaging and as the collapse unfolds.

I am sincerely asking for any opinions.

Perhaps skills are the only thing we can hope to hold on to, and the only things that will be of any use.

Sorry if these questions don't really fit this thread, but I would genuinely like some input from you all.

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

Jonthed, I do think it's worth doing some gardening, because you can't assume it's all-or-nothing. I believe food will get very expensive. My main focus is on building a resilient rural community, well-connected with the town half an hour's drive away. With the internet it's now possible to raise kids in the country and still make a living. Not for everybody, I realize, but there are lots of possibilities.

[lisa]

As for me and mine, we are working to save for a large piece of acreage up north, by Lake Superior.  We're working class country folk, and we have a kept a lot of the old skills -- hunting, skinning, butchering, growing food, tinkering, carpentry, smithing, spinning and weaving -- as well as some of the new skills, electronics, alternative energy systems and programing.  When I say "we" I mean a large-ish group of family and friends, something like a loose-held clan.  We're not prepping in a literal sense of stocking up supplies, but we're stocking up on skills and saving for this property. 

Of course, it might be all for naught.  We may fail miserably.  But it's the only thing that we can think to do.

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

That sounds great, Lisa. Are you sure you want to go that far north? Land's still pretty cheap here, an hour from Kingston and two from Ottawa. There's a lot of what you mention going on around here. We have the remnants of several sixties communes, aging back-to-the-landers with a lot of experience.

[ccgwebmaster]

I still worry about what I should be doing for my family in light of the coming changes due to GW itself (sea level rise etc.) and the looming threat of food crises, societal collapse, and mass migration.

Is your partner supportive? I must say it's extremely hard to do anything if they are not...

If collapse and AGW is coming, what can I do about it? Even if I could afford to move and establish a self sufficient life with my young family, as soon as food became scarce we would be looted or worse. The way I see it is that individual prepping is futile. Once nationwide food riots break out, the army will step in to ration food and commandeer all means of food production anyway. Anyone who grows their own could expect their meagre harvest to be pilfered probably before its even ready to harvest. Basement food stores may well be sussed out by starving neighbours or even government inspectors, and they too will be lost. I see no way to go it alone, or even in a small community, if there are going to be thousands of desperate people willing to do anything to find some food for their families. Even less so if some sort of martial law is imposed and all food requisitioned for rationing.

I thought about all this sort of thing some years ago now - I came to the conclusion if you were within a community that was starving, and you had a food stash, you would probably have to use it very sparingly as you couldn't afford to be visibly better nourished than everyone else. You'd also likely have to be seen to be participating in whatever else everyone else was doing to survive...

If you were going to have the capability to go it alone - you could consider the sort of thing I'm doing (even though I didn't remotely intend to end up going it alone... indeed my planning cannot have any value if done entirely alone) - but I would be inclined to say the obstacles are far too great for most people to take on, from my experience. Your mileage may vary depending on circumstances of course...

I only hope that my government will be able to get a good grip of the situation, and bring an ordered rationing system into play before too much chaos arises. My hope for safely surviving collapse rests on the response of my government and army to the crises. If even with a ration system there is not enough food for everyone then we will really be in trouble. Hopefully children will get priority.

I think it very naive to look towards the government for help, unless you are in some way essential to the government - eg military personnel. What value do you have to them? Why should they look after you?

This next few sentences, one might prefer to skip - but children have no special value if circumstances are adverse enough. As a matter of practicality you will see many people actively working against them - for instance the starving tribal people of Mongolia during a dzud may worry more about their livestock, which represent a current assert, versus their children who are a liability and potential future asset. Likewise, you find instances of child cannibalism during the Holomodor - same sort of logic.

I am not saying I subscribe to this, I do not think I could operate that way (inasmuch as one can be sure without facing the same sorts of stresses those people face(d)). I am saying though that your children hold no special value to anyone else, as a general rule.

So, what should I do? Apart from trying to make people care about these issues, and doing my bit to minimize my contribution, what else would be a sensible move? My wife and I have been working hard to pay off our mortgage so that we may pass on some inheritance to our 2 boys. But our house is in a city only 8m above sea level, and what with the collapse and all, is investing our wealth in this way pointless? Even moving house may be pointless if a collapse renders property ownership invalid. Is there something better we should be pouring our efforts and finances into that would better benefit us and our boys as AGW becomes more damaging and as the collapse unfolds.

Personally I think collapse will render such things as houses worthless, even disregarding sea level rise. My opinion is that skills - particularly around food, clothing, shelter etc are a very valuable starting point - but one should consider my bias in that advice, which is that I have an increasingly strong opinion that we will face nearly complete collapse ultimately as a result of all this (and indeed my own project is to try to ensure the scope to rebuild a civilisation from very limited beginnings, in the event collapse should be that complete).

Most people will probably think my position extreme even today though.. let's hope it stays that way indefinitely, eh?

[ccgwebmaster]

As for me and mine, we are working to save for a large piece of acreage up north, by Lake Superior.  We're working class country folk, and we have a kept a lot of the old skills -- hunting, skinning, butchering, growing food, tinkering, carpentry, smithing, spinning and weaving -- as well as some of the new skills, electronics, alternative energy systems and programing.  When I say "we" I mean a large-ish group of family and friends, something like a loose-held clan.  We're not prepping in a literal sense of stocking up supplies, but we're stocking up on skills and saving for this property. 

Of course, it might be all for naught.  We may fail miserably.  But it's the only thing that we can think to do.

If you pick the right area, in my view - what you're doing is pretty close to the ideal.

Stocking up supplies is only effective for a limited duration (until they run out), and this is a long term (indefinite) crisis we face.

My only note would be to encourage you to consider the bigger picture once the small one is secured - evaluate your external dependencies, consider ways to address them, consider ways to preserve the foundations of future civilisation - including ways to address the problems that led us towards this failure this time around?

[jonthed]

Thanks for your replies.

ccgwebmaster, I think your envisioned collapse is a lot more severe than mine. I do envisage government stepping in and taking control of food supply before the whole nation has descended to dog-eat-dog. Food riots yes, every man for himself no. I'm also picturing the nation (the UK in my case) to be able to ration what we do have in an organized way. I also believe that whilst order is maintained, even if life is hard and people are hungry, women and children will be treated preferentially. Only once the situation is hopeless and people are really starving and fighting each other to survive, then it will be every man for himself. So if the government and military can maintain order, even in just a portion of the country, and leave the rest to fend for themselves (as there is not enough food for them), then we'll cling on. Able bodied men will be recruited into para-military militia to help maintain order, and the men will do this as it guarantees them and their families safety and provision. Soon the nation will be effectively under martial law and a police state, but it will endure. It won't be pretty, or pleasant, but those within will be better off than those where order has collapsed completely.

This is how I see it unfolding in a country like mine at any rate.

[ccgwebmaster]

ccgwebmaster, I think your envisioned collapse is a lot more severe than mine. I do envisage government stepping in and taking control of food supply before the whole nation has descended to dog-eat-dog. Food riots yes, every man for himself no. I'm also picturing the nation (the UK in my case) to be able to ration what we do have in an organized way. I also believe that whilst order is maintained, even if life is hard and people are hungry, women and children will be treated preferentially. Only once the situation is hopeless and people are really starving and fighting each other to survive, then it will be every man for himself. So if the government and military can maintain order, even in just a portion of the country, and leave the rest to fend for themselves (as there is not enough food for them), then we'll cling on. Able bodied men will be recruited into para-military militia to help maintain order, and the men will do this as it guarantees them and their families safety and provision. Soon the nation will be effectively under martial law and a police state, but it will endure. It won't be pretty, or pleasant, but those within will be better off than those where order has collapsed completely.

I foresee a stage of what you describe, but I don't foresee it as the end game.

That said I don't think it's ever exactly every man for himself - individuals do not do well against groups, there is always that tribal social nature of our species at work - people form into gangs, factions, etc - and those units will just get smaller and smaller as collapse proceeds, until an equilibrium state is reached (the problem being the long term effects of climate change potentially leave some pretty dire outcomes that limit habitat for humanity).

This is how I see it unfolding in a country like mine at any rate.

I'm from the UK originally too (I'm nowhere now, in a manner of speaking). The UK has massive dependencies upon international markets for importing food with how things are set up right now. I don't see the ideological trends under the current or any foreseeable government as favouring social conscience and hence the sort of rationing and management you describe. Right now, my impression is that our country is saying damn the poor and encouraging the population to divide and turn against itself - sometimes in rather hostile ways (maybe I'm just biased, effectively locked out as I now am).

The UK also has a pretty impressive level of dependency upon non food imports (energy for instance). The population is way above carrying capacity if you alter the underlying paradigm such that the nation would need to be self sufficient (while degrading technological capability and adding in effects from climate change - though the UK I would expect to remain survivable indefinitely in that last respect).

[Neven]

Of course, it might be all for naught.  We may fail miserably.  But it's the only thing that we can think to do.

Same here for us in Austria.

[lisa]

My only note would be to encourage you to consider the bigger picture once the small one is secured - evaluate your external dependencies, consider ways to address them, consider ways to preserve the foundations of future civilization - including ways to address the problems that led us towards this failure this time around?

We are beginning to collect books, both fiction we love and admire and text books.  One can buy earlier additions of college text books very reasonably -- I'm looking at college syllabi and building my textbook library from that.   We have a small issue with storage -- most of the books are going in various attics until we have the property and can build a library. (Books are secured in a plastic bag, stored flat,  and the whole inside of the box is dusted with diatomacious earth.)   And I'm beginning to keep a written journal of what I see around me and how I think and feel about it all. 

Come to think of it, books are the only thing we're "prepping."

[lisa]

`There's been a lot of rumbling from the scientific community in the last six months or so about a suspected jump in world temp.  Dr. Jeff Masters writes "Are We Entering a New Period of Rapid Global Warming? (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2923); concerns of deep southern ocean released huge quantities of carbon dioxide (http://www.climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2015/02/ocean-sediment-reveals-that-release-of.html); as well as arctic methane and loss of arctic albedo.

Added to that, I'm struck by how little I've heard about the IEA's projection of a 3.5 degrees C rise in world temp by 2035 -- has there been a refutation of this projection and I just missed it? 

I agree what someone said in another thread -- hold on to your popcorn, kids. 

Twenty years -- that's barely time to take a breath.  What are your thoughts?

[crandles]

Added to that, I'm struck by how little I've heard about the IEA's projection of a 3.5 degrees C rise in world temp by 2035 -- has there been a refutation of this projection and I just missed it? 

perhaps try

should not take than CSM report or the IEA seriously. Birol is a showman, IEA exaggerated possible oil reserves for years. And CSM got the reporting wrong.

What the IEA actually said, and with which i disagree: in 35 years, given IEA numbers on future fossil carbon combustion, enough fossil carbon will be released to commit to _eventual_ surface temperature rise of 3.5C

_Not_ that 3.5 C rise will occur by 2035, but that enough carbon will be released by then to lock in eventual (century or millennium scale) rise of 3.5C

As i said, i disagree even with this watered down version of CSM version of IEA claim. IEA has been gloriously wrong in the past, and in my opinion, is wrong on this one also. Fossil carbon use will be nowhere close to their claims. For one thing, coal is dead, and the vultures are gathering. I am looking at financing reports and forget trying to get a loan for a new coal project, and forget trying to expand or upgrade exiting production or use. Banks are finally catching on, mainly because they find they cant lay off the risks like they used to. And existing credit arrangements with fossil companies are a)not being rolled over or b) extortionate rate increases are being imposed on all our favorite villains like Peabody and Massey c) New "special contingency" fees are being imposed on all coal or coal burning projects goin forward.


This report was from 2010, world is changing quickly

sidd

[wili]

Weeeeell, coal is certainly not growing as a fuel source for domestic plants much here in the US. But we are still exporting it; I believe exports are up by about 50% over the last few years.

China burns about half the coal in the world, and they're gonna keep burning a lot for a long time.

 And India and a number of other countries in the developing world are going to be adding a lot of coal, too.

So I wouldn't exactly say that 'coal is dead' yet, and I wouldn't write off completely those IEA projections (for how much ff gets burned by 2035, not for it actually warming by 3.5 degrees by then).

[lisa]

Re: IEA projection -- thanks for the clarification, guys.

[jai mitchell]

Michael Mann's graphic from Scientific American holds that 3.5C in 35 years to be true, understand that we are already .8C so that is another 2.7C of additional warming.  His graphic hold if ECS is 4.5C per 2XCO2, however, we know from other's work that the effect of a perennial ice free arctic is equal to a 2XCO2 forcing so even if ECS is 3C and only a partial (say, mid summer) melt out occurs, we will still see this warming rate by 2050 or so.

[lisa]

Thanks, Jai. 

This is my thinking -- that we are going to experience a rise in earth temperature over the next 20 years that is 3X what we have experienced in the last 100 years, I .... it's like I'm insane, seeing some grim hallucination that no one else can see.

I live in the Great Lakes region of the US.  It's  three weeks before the vernal equinox and we're experiencing daytime temps of -10 to -1°C  (15-30°F) and nighttime temps between -17 to -10°C (1 - 15°F). 

That is just the weird weather in my little corner.  It's weird everywhere and going to get so much worse.  I wonder how it will play out, when the cognitive dissonance will no longer be able to hold back the reality of what is happening.  What will the anger, panic and despair of seven billion people look like?

[wili]

"we are going to experience a rise in earth temperature over the next 20 years that is 3X what we have experienced in the last 100 years"

That's pretty much what I've been thinking and what seems to be confirmed by that Mann graph and many recent studies. Keep in mind that at least one recent study has suggested that we can pretty much rule out any sensitivities below 3 C for every doubling of CO2. So something like the 4.5 line is much more probable now than it seemed at the time of the writing of that article.

So yeah, we should really already be close to 2 degrees C and hit 3 by 2040 or so.

When ocean current cycles come around (as suggested by Mann in his recent RC piece)

and as China reduces the non-CO2 pollutants (specifically aerosols) in their coal plants,

and as the sun wakes from its current slumber...

we will snap back to these temperature rather quickly.

Add the carbon feedbacks that seem to be kicking in, and it could be an even more rapid temperature whiplash.

Yes, it all does seem very insane to type this stuff out relatively calmly on a keyboard in relative comfort. It's all going to unwind quite rapidly, afaics.

[Gray-Wolf]

One thing i have pondered recently is whether coupled climate models also produce rapid warming in some runs as they do 'little ice age' type runs?

I know the models use an atmosphere set before the industrial revolution and so may not be the best guide to 'surprise events' but they never seem to mention any 'warm' events propagating through purely chaotic ,natural combinations of forcings? Surely if they can form DO type cooling they must have a flip side?

I only ponder this as we now inhabit a world of a post industrial revolution atmosphere and much reduced Arctic Sea ice. Seeing as sea ice behaviour ,post 07', seems to preclude ice edge advancement south of 70N maybe any 'positive' rapid change events now receive more weighting?

[oren]

To weigh in on the collapse preparations issue, I believe an important aspect that has not been discussed yet in this thread is to make sure you are in the right country to begin with. Some countries are expected to be more self-sufficient than others in regards to food and energy supplies. Not to mention have stronger military. In the first stage of collapse, I believe it will be on a per country and per region basis, like what happened in the Arab countries in 2011. Syria, Lybia and Iraq are already in collapse. Or the famines that occur in Africa every now and then. The best option for someone living in a country with bad prospects, is to try to get an additional citizenship (if possible at all). I am sure this will buy quite a lot of time.
I am not talking outright migration as this typically causes a lot of immediate hardship, while the collapse timetable could stretch out over long decades. If you're lucky you might reach old age before it hits you.

Of course the question is open about which countries are better than others. This involves local politics and trends, as well as expected climate change effects (as far as these can be forecast), and current level of self-sufficiency.

[BengalBangles]

That's pretty much what I've been thinking and what seems to be confirmed by that Mann graph and many recent studies. Keep in mind that at least one recent study has suggested that we can pretty much rule out any sensitivities below 3 C for every doubling of CO2. So something like the 4.5 line is much more probable now than it seemed at the time of the writing of that article.

Do you remember what exact study it was? I was under the impression that they had only said we can effectively rule out ECS under 2C? I also recently read Hansen and Sato 2012 paper again, and they suggest a median of 3C is very likely based on paleoclimate data. Though I am definitely open to a 4.5C ECS, so far it seems like it is less likely than 3C ECS.