Nice interview Cadell, good to hear you on yet another medium. -Do you ever sleep? I didn't read the NASA study but it sounds like it's taking something extremely complex and attempting to simplify it in to four? basic data points, is that right? If we are beyond the "tipping point," then what good could internet mobilization of the "commoners" do to prevent "civilizations collapse?" -We may go down fighting, but we'll still go down. Same point with Solar, if it's the 2020's when we have grid parody, isn't that too late?
Yes, the study attempted to extrapolate our system stability using four variables: elites, commoners, nature, and wealth. The problem with the model is that you cannot just extrapolate "business as usual". Any model of the human system that extrapolates "business as usual" since the beginning of the 20th century would predict collapse. You must factor in human agency - our capability to change the system - as well as technological evolution, which often provides us with new physical capability to solve problems (in the mean time often creating news ones - but that's another topic). If it comes to an Internet-driven global revolution, then that's what it comes to. Maybe that revolution will be successful, or maybe it won't. But there is no mathematical model that will tell you which is more likely with 100% accuracy. Is it possible that in 2025 when the entirety of humanity is online that we self-organize to create a new system? Yes, it's possible. I don't know how likely. But it's possible. In the metasystem transition framework it would probably depend on how much progress solar would have made by this time - the more distributed our grid, the less reliant we will be on the grid that is controlling our governments and - as a result - us. I think if we have a solar explosion in the 2020s this will be just in time. If we transition globally to a fully renewable world by 2050 (as long as there is significant progress in the 2020s, 2030s etc.) then we might be able to stabilize the climate. I'm also quite optimistic that advances in synthetic biology and nanotechnology will be able to help scientists regulate the temperature of the planet by designing large "carbon sinks". In short, you cannot model the future of the human system - while ignoring technological evolution and human agency. It is a mistake that scientists have made for centuries and now that technology evolves so quickly, you just look silly by proposing such scenarios. That being said, they are 100% right on policy. We need a massive redistribution of wealth. And we need to transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as practically possible.I didn't read the NASA study but it sounds like it's taking something extremely complex and attempting to simplify it in to four? basic data points, is that right?
If we are beyond the "tipping point," then what good could internet mobilization of the "commoners" do to prevent "civilizations collapse?" -We may go down fighting, but we'll still go down.
Same point with Solar, if it's the 2020's when we have grid parody, isn't that too late?