On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 12:17 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net> wrote:
One core problem is we have unleashed global capitalism and seems to
destroy the planet. Once the planet has been destroyed and polluted it will be
difficult to restore. Communism does not work because nobody had an incentive
to work since nobody owned anything. Capitalism does not work because nobody
has an incentive to protect nature. It means ruthless and relentless
exploitation of everything to make profit.
As much as I would like to be hopeful about the future I don't see radical
abundance at all. It is true that AI systems become more and more powerful.
They soon will be able to take away even the good, creative jobs like writing,
translating, coding and designing. This means massive unemployment. In
combination with high inflation this will most likely be devastating.
If we look at the past what happened if prices went up radically and jobs
were lost on a massive scale is that people become outraged and angry and then
some demagogue comes along and deflects their anger and outrage towards group
xy [immigrants or black people or LGBTQ folks or some other minority group]
which is to blame for everything and he is the only man who can solve it
because he is a strong man, etc. and we end up in a world world ruled by
strongmen, each of them ruler of a great power having a sphere of influence and
strategic interest in which they allow no opposition. In this autocratic world
the big and strong countries decide the fate of their smaller neighbors and
anyone who disagrees vanishes in an artic gulag or horrible prison in
mesoamerica.
As Edward O. Wilson said "The real problem of humanity is the following: We have
Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is
terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall."
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Pieter Steenekamp <piet...@randcontrols.co.za>
Date: 6/2/25 2:06 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth
It seems I’m the only one here who’s feeling hopeful about the future of
humanity. I don’t think civilisation is about to fall apart. In fact, I believe
we’re heading towards a time of radical abundance.
I was going to prove this by asking my crystal ball… but sadly, the
batteries are flat. So you’ll just have to trust me when I say I know the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Of course, many of you probably think you have the real truth. And maybe
you're right!
I guess the honest thing to say is: the future is unknowable. We can all
make good arguments, quote experts, and write long replies—but there simply
isn’t enough evidence to say with high confidence what the future holds for
humanity.
To end off: yes, I agree that without further innovation, we could be in
serious trouble. But a strong counterpoint is that, over the last few hundred
years, human creativity has helped us overcome challenge after challenge.
Unless someone shares a new angle I haven’t heard yet, I’ll leave it here
and won’t post again on this thread.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 at 22:41, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote:
Texas uses a lot more electricity than California despite being a
smaller economy. What’s interesting is that there is no one sink for that
power. It isn’t pumping (although there is a lot of pumping), and it isn’t
residential air conditioning or data centers. It’s bigger everything and an
appetite to use power across the board.
*From: *Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of steve smith
<sasm...@swcp.com>
*Date: *Sunday, June 1, 2025 at 12:18 PM
*To: *friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com>
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth
As we know, I'm of the school of thought that (techno) Utopian and
Dystopian visions are two sides of the same coin:
<peak-oil>
I think peak oil (fossil-fuels) is a real thing, now matter how
much we slide the timescale with innovative ways to suck harder or deeper and
burn it more efficiently... and in particular the side-effect of saturating the
atmo(bio)sphere with carbon particulates, polymers (e.g. microplastics) and
molecules (COn, CH4, etc) and the myriad attendant
not-very-healthy-to-most-life chloroflouros and Nitrous-this-n-thats and ... on
and on. We (in our technofuturist way) pretend we have maxwell demons or
geni-rebottlers or pandora-box-refillers on the drawing boards which will do
their work faster than entropy and in the particular techno-industrial
concentrated-energy-fueled version thereof.
Fossil fuels made us into an incredibly energy-hungry/wasteful society... I'm a fan of
Switzerland's (nominal) 2000W society (aspiration), although the human *animal's* basal metabolic rate is
<100W avg and peaks at 200-300W (burst performance athlete). The the nominal consumption for the western
world is EU (5k) and US (10k) of which a big part from the infrastructure and other "hidden" sources
like transport of food/goods across the planet for our appetite and convenience. The "global south" is
considered to make it on 500-1500W. 8B humans at "subsistence" would demand 8tW continuous and at US
rates, 80tW continuous.
I haven't resolved this against DaveW's numbers but I take his to be
order-of-magnitude accurate on principle. As we add supersonic and orbital-vacation
transport I suspect we might jack that another 10X... not to (even) mention
power-hungry crypto/AI demands? GPT (ironic no?) helped me guestimate 40w/user
(engaged) continuous *currently*. A significant fraction of a carbon-frugal
"budget" and a measurable plus-up on our gluttonous US (and even EU or CH)
versions?
</peak-oil>
<EV-enthusiasm>
I'm a big fan/early adopter (tinkerer really) of "electric
vehicles" and renewable energy, but the numbers just don't work. I was hypermiling
my Honda CRX (fit my oversized frame like a slipper or roller skate) long before there
were viable production electrics or hybrids. I had the back half of a donor CRX ready
to receive the rear differential of a miata or rx7 (same stance, similar suspension
mounts) with a 90's brushless DC motor as well as a pair of VW cabriolets (running but
one lame) as well for the same conception (early 2000s) when I scored a year1/gen1 Honda
Insight (and a friend spun the CRX out in the rain)... so I gave up on my hypermiling
(70mpg RT to Los Alamos, power up, coast home) for thoughtful Insight-driving. All
three of these models were order 2k lbs. Most vehicles are/were 3k-6klbs.
Along came the Chevy Volt (2011) and in 2016 I picked one up which had
been used up... or at least the hybrid battery (at 166k miles). A used (95k mile)
battery and a lot of tech work and it was back to full function. The VWs never
broke 40mpg hypermiling, the CRX clocked 70mpg in ideal conditions, the Insight
topped 50-55mpg with careful driving (hard to hypermile a CVT), and with the PHEV
nature of the volt I can still pull >70mpg if I ignore the input from the grid.
The old battery is offering about 10kWh of capacity for a homestead scale PV I'm
assembling from $.10/W used solar panels mainly to buffer for the PHEV charging.
Unfortunately the replacement Volt battery is finally getting lame and replacement
is such a huge effort this 15 year old vehicle will go the way of many other 200k
mile plus vehicles. I've backfilled with a low(er) mileage 2014 Ford C-Max PHEV
with only about 10 miles (compared to new-30 in the volt) PHEV which I'm getting
roughly the same effective MPG (still ignoring the grid input).
I'm looking for a Gen2 Volt which had 50mile EV-only range (otherwise very
similar to Gen1) as I might move *all* my semi-local miles to Electric (and
supply them with used PV staged through the upcycled EV batteries?).
FWIW, the anti-EV stories about the extra weight yielding
accelerated brake/tire wear is specious in my experience. My *driving habits*
in an EV (or hypermiled conventional/hybrid) obviate excess tire wear (no
spinouts, no uber-accelleration/braking) and even a thoughtless driver likely
gets more from regenerative braking than any excess weight abuse... I also
claim that being MPG/consumption attunes my driving habits to
fewer/shorter/slower trips. I have owned a few gas-guzzling vehicles in my
life, including one I commuted too far in for a while... the 32 gallon tank
convolved with peaking gas prices and a 60 mile RT commute that year should
have warned me off... but instead I just closed my eyes and ran my plastic
through the card reader 1.5 times per week... my housing cost differential paid
the bill but without regard to the planet. I did give over to a carpool in a
30mpg vehicle (shared 3 ways) for a while which really beat the 15mpg 1-person
I was
doing otherwise. I went through a LOT more tire rubber and brake
pads in that context than I ever did in years of hybrid/EV ownership. Did I
say specious? Or at least apples-orangatans?
</EV-enthusiasm>
<Alt/Transport ideation>
I also have my 750W (foldable) eBike which is (currently) impractical to me
(closest services 10 miles of 4 lane) for anything but recreation/exercise and a 300W
lower-body exoskeleton, each of which has much better "mpg" in principle (esp
eBike) when hybridized with human calorie-to-kinetic conversion. I've a friend (10 years
my senior) whose e-Recumbent-trike with similar specs is his primary mode of utility
transport (under 20 miles RT).
All that said, I don't think electromotifying 4-6klb hunks of steel
and glass with environmental control suitable for 0F-120F comfort for 4+ people
while traveling at 60+mph and making 0-60 accellerations in under 6 seconds is
really a viable strategy for the 8B folks on the planet we want to sell them to.
Esp with a useful lifetime of <15 years?(planned obselescence aside?). Maybe
robo-taxi/rideshare versions in the context of (mostly) walkable cities (nod to
JennyQ) and public transport and general local/regionalism is (semi) viable.
</Alt-Transport ideation>
<Local/Regionalism>
I've got strawberry plants making me (from compost and sunlight)
fewer berries in a season than I just bought at the grocery imported from MX for
<$3 (on sale)... and my while I wait for my 3-sister's plantings to produce a
few months of carbs/protein at-best the modern fossil-fuel/pollution global
marketplace offers me the same for probably several tens of dollars? As a
seed-saving, composter with a well (that could be pumped by solar but isn't) my
impact on planetary boundaries could be nil to positive... but it is hard to scale
this up even for myself, much less proselytize and/or support my neighbors in
matching me. I cut Jeff Bezos off from my direct support (via Amazon purchases)
when he aligned himself with the other TechBros aligning with the Orange Tyrant,
so I may well have reduced my manufacturing/transport appetite/consumption a
little (small amounts of that appetite moved to local traditional store-forward
versions as well as direct-mail
purchases from non-Amazon/big-box distributors).
</Local-Regionalism>
<TechnoUtopianism>
I am a reformed technoUtopian... I grew up on "good old-fashioned future" science fiction
(starting with scientific romances from the early industrial age) and studied and practiced my way into a science
education and a technical career/lifestyle and wanted to believe for the longest time that we could always kick the can
down the road a little harder/smarter/further each time and/or just "drive faster". And we are doing that
somewhat effectively *still*, but in my many decades I've got more time glancing in the rear-view mirror to see the
smoking wreckage behind us, as well as over the horizon to see how many of the negative consequences of our actions
land on other folks who never came close to enjoying the benefits of that "progress". I guess that means
this erstwhile libertarian has become a "self-loathing liberal".
Or a convert to the Buddhist ideal of "Skillful Means"?
</TechnoUtopianism>
On 6/1/25 10:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I think you are underestimating how much progress has been made
with batteries in recent years.
California has large solar resources, and it is not unusual that
during the day the whole grid is powered by solar. Here is from last week.
Note the huge surge of battery usage in the evening. Tens of gigawatts of
generation power are planned for offshore wind too.
Generally, though, I agree that much of the planet is completely
addicted to oil, and there’s no technology that will yet handle air travel.
Hydrogen might work, but it will take time.
The way to break an addiction is to have the addict hit rock bottom.
There need to be some scary climate events. The prices for energy
need to increase before people change their ways. Redirecting energy into AI is
one way to bring that to fruition.
A chart of different colors Description automatically generated
*From: *Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> on
behalf of Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>
*Date: *Sunday, June 1, 2025 at 8:27 AM
*To: *friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com>
<mailto:friam@redfish.com>
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth
Unfortunately, it is almost certain that there will never be enough
'fossil fuel free power stations' to supply needed energy for electric vehicles.
Data centers, driven in large part by AI demands and cryptocurrency
will leave nothing left over.
Some numbers:
Three Mile Island, which is being recommissioned to supply power to
a couple of Microsoft Data Centers, has a capacity of 7 Terawatt hours(T/w/h)
per year.
In 2022 data centers, globally, consumed 460 TWh, by 2026 this is
estimated to be 1,000 Twh. By 2040 projected demand is 2,000-3,000 TWh.
Crypto adds 100-150 TWh in 2022, 200-300 in 2030, and 400-600 in
2040.
Nuclear is unlikely to provide more than 25% of this demand.
Between now and 2040, it will be necessary to build 100
TMI-capacity nuclear plants to supply that 25%.
If solar is to supply the other 75%, it will require between 66,000
and 80,000 square miles of solar panels. (Don't know how many batteries, but
the number is not trivial.)
Wind power, for that 75%, will require 153,000 to 214,000 turbines,
each requiring 50-60 acres of space beneath them. (Also the problem of
batteries.)
It takes 10-15 years to build a nuclear plant like TMI, have no
idea now many dollars.
Neither solar nor wind, nor combined, can be installed fast enough
to meet this demand and, again, have no idea of cost.
Nothing left over for cars, the lights in your home and office, or
to charge your phone: unless, of course we continue to rely on oil (shale and
fracking), natural gas, and coal.
davew
On Sun, Jun 1, 2025, at 6:24 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
This is why I’m so excited about electric vehicles—I feel like
a kid waiting for Christmas! Add clean fossil fuel free power stations into the
mix, and voilà: abundant clean energy, no miracle inventions required. Just
some clever tech and a whole lot of charging cables!
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 at 12:57, Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net>
wrote:
I believe we all have a slighty distorted view because we
were all born long after industrialization has started and have seen nothing
but growth. Industrialization started around 200 years ago in Great Britain and
spread shortly after to America and Europe. First by exploiting coal and steam
engines, later by oil and petrol engines. Tanks, warplanes, warships as well as
normal cars, planes and ships all consume oil.
Richard Heinberg writes in his book "The End of Growth":
"with the fossil fuel revolution of the past century and a half, we have seen economic
growth at a speed and scale unprecedented in all of human history. We harnessed the energies
of coal, oil, and natural gas to build and operate cars, trucks, highways, airports,
airplanes, and electric grids - all the esential features of modern industrial society.
Through the one-time-only process of extracting and burning hundreds of millions of years
worth of chemically stored sunlight, we built what appeared (for a brief, shining moment) to
be a perpetual-growth machine. We learned to take what was in fact an extraordinary situation
for granted. It became normal [...] During the past 150 years, expanding access to cheap and
abundar fossil fuels enabled rapid economic expansion at an average rate of about three
percent per year; economic planners began to take this situain for granted. Financial systems
internalized the expectation of growth as a promise of returns
on investments."
https://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book
Heinberg argues the time of cheap and abundant fossil fuels has come to an
end. There 1.5 billion cars in the world which consume oil and produce CO2. Resources are
depleted while pollution and population have reached all time highs. It is true that humans
are innovative and ingenious, especially in times of scarcity, necessity and need, and we are
able to find replacements for depleted resources, but Heinberg argues in his book "Peak
Everything: that "in a finite world, the number of possible replacements is also
finite". For example we were able to replace the whale oil by petroleum, but finding a
replacement for petroleum is much harder.
https://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/peak-everything
Without oil no army would move, traffic would cease, no
container or cruise ship would be able to go anywhere and therefore
international trade and tourism would stop. On the bright side no more plastic
and CO2 pollution either.
In his book "End of Growth" Heinberg mentions "transition
towns" as a path towards a more sustainable society and an economy which is not based on
fossil-fuels.
https://donellameadows.org/archives/rob-hopkins-my-town-in-transition/
French author Victor Hugo wrote 200 years ago that "the paradise
of the rich is made out of the hell of the poor". If rich people start to realize
this and help to find a way to a more sustainable, livable society it would be a start.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Pieter Steenekamp <piet...@randcontrols.co.za>
Date: 5/31/25 5:46 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth
I’ve always loved the Simon-Ehrlich bet story—two clever
guys betting on the future of the planet. Ehrlich lost the bet, but the debate
still runs circles today.
https://ourworldindata.org/simon-ehrlich-bet
This article nails it: over the long term, prices mostly go down, not
up, as innovation kicks in. We don’t "run out" of resources—we get better at
using them. Scarcity shifts, but human creativity shifts faster.
The Limits to Growth folks had good intentions, but the
real limit seems to be how fast we can adapt and rethink. And so far, we’re
doing okay—messy, uneven, but okay.
Turns out, betting against human ingenuity is the real
risky business.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 at 21:51, steve smith
<sasm...@swcp.com> wrote:
REC -
Very timely... I did a deep dive/revisit (also met the
seminal work in college in the 70s) into Limits to Growth and World3 before the
Stockholm workshop on Climate (and other existential threats) Complexity Merle
wrangled in 2019.... and was both impressed and disappointed. Rockstrom and
folks were located right across the water from us where we met but to my
knowledge didn't engage... their work was very complementary but did not feel
as relevant to me then as it does now.
In the following interview, I felt he began to address
many of the things I (previously) felt were lacking in their framework
previoiusly. It was there all the time I'm sure, I just didn't see it and I
think they were not ready to talk as broadly of implications 5 years ago as
they are now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6_3mOgvrN4
Did anyone notice the swiss village inundated by debris and
meltwater from the glacier collapse uphill? Signs of the times or "business as
usual"?
- SAS
On 5/30/25 12:16 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
https://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com/2025/05/20/limits-to-growth-was-right-about-overshoot-and-collapse-new-data/
I remember the Limits to Growth from my freshman
year in college. Now Hackernews links to the above in which some people argue
that we've achieved the predicted overshoot for the business as usual scenario
and the subsequent collapse begins now. Enjoy the peak of human technological
development.
