In fact, in Cambodia and Thailand, everything is not so bad yet. It is a real hell when there is no way out, and you are a rat in a cage that is lowered over the fire. As soon as you hear about plans to expand the existing army, leave without thinking, because then the exit may be closed. Do not think that the conflict will stop with rising prices and fuel shortages. On the contrary, everyone who cannot work and live will become expendable material, this is already a fact where I live. Another fact will be that people will continue to live in cognitive dissonance: on social networks they will talk about "powerful aid packages", "indestructibility" and other national and patriotic appeals, calls to destroy and fight, but in fact, when mobilization affects them, they will try to avoid it. This is also the reality here. In our country, the government cannot provide decent financial support to soldiers who fight for $2,000 a month if you are in a combat position at the very "zero" of the conflict (on the front line in the vanguard) and a paltry $500 if in more remote parts. The average life expectancy of an assault fighter or defender of a position at zero is 16 days. and you are either a half-dead "vegetable" or, if you are lucky, you will be reunited with your relatives "in the other" world. The patriotic part of the war lasts about a year and a half (active) when thousands die per week, then comes pseudo-patriotism, when they "fight from the couches" on social networks, and hide from mobilization, then the stage of manipulation and distortion, when no one wants to fight, in all cities and villages the police, like cattle, catch people to the front, and calls for struggle, destruction and genocide in the event of a front collapse continue on television. Some part of the population left and in fairly safe conditions continues to inflate propaganda, the other part of the population was not affected (women, pensioners) and life continues as it was, and with their answers and activity they distort the real state of affairs and those who are men of mobilization age become worse than slaves. In a highly digitalized society, like in the country where I live, this is death, because they block your card, restrict all services, etc. Ltyshe autonomy saves, but our society is also low in autonomy, so the only way out is death or mutilation through mobilization and war. This will not be stopped by the widespread collapse of infrastructure (now in the capital it is -18 degrees Celsius, there is no heating, light for 22 hours a day and in some places no water supply). In other regions it is a little better, but this is not normal life. This is a collapse, 4 million people live in the capital, this is a complete collapse, but the war goes on and there is no end in sight. There is already a shortage of goods, even bread and drinking water. Total losses (with the wounded, I think already more than 1 million people) 400 thousand people (together with civilians) are considered missing, on the other hand, losses of 3 million. 50% of the country's GDP goes to military efforts, and this is not even the country's money, but loans and agreements on the transfer of minerals and assets. The infrastructure is destroyed, the railway, quite extensive and resistant to war and during, works with great delays and interruptions, there is a critical shortage of weapons, 80% of the income of soldiers is spent on their own means of survival, new ammunition and clothing, transport, fuel and equipment, heating systems. There is terrible corruption and banditry everywhere, even in the highest echelons of power. And the primate people continue to believe and spread propaganda, blind and short-sighted. The BM-21 "Grad" installation is not an old weapon, believe me, it is as deadly as a Mosin rifle or a Thompson machine gun, unfortunately the war has shown that only the mass use of artillery and "human flesh" (infantry) matters. Even without equipment, the war machine will send soldiers with rifles, AK-47s and grenades into the attack if there are generous payments or worthy trophies. The other side shows this, they sign contracts there, because for a monthly (!) payment you can buy an apartment or a house, and for a year you can ensure life until death (If you survive, of course, which is very unlikely :D ). Greed, selfishness and the thirst for money will kill all rationality of survival and well-being in the majority. Drones, drones are an artillery shell that is looking for you to destroy, and drones-shaheeds and missiles are deadly weapons at a distance. ABOUT 120 THOUSAND long-range weapons of destruction (long-range drones and missiles) have already been launched against us, about 10 thousand missiles have been launched over 4 years of war. Read if you want what X101, X-22, the Caliber missile are, what a three-ton aviation guided bomb or thermobaric ammunition is. All these border clashes will seem like a joke, just a warm-up before the real carnage. Imagine the destruction of a cottage with 800 inhabitants in a frost of -15 Celsius, when everything collapsed like September 11 in the USA, and this every week! Sleeping families simply die in the rubble, freezing to death deep in the rear.
So yes, modern war must disappear and the sooner it happens the better, nation-states, empires and other highly organized societies must be broken up into small communities, only then will understanding, humility and restraint come.
I forgot to add that all this will be fueled by foreign "metropolitan powers" that seek only to benefit, the USA, the EU, China, foundations, corporations, and other local national elites.
Thank you so much for your detailed "insider" response - truly horrible, I can't even imagine. I'm at a loss for words, really. Yes, the border conflict here is just the very beginning, and it will get a lot worse. It is terribly saddening that people fall for it again and again, all over the world. Everyone who has experienced war first hand knows that there is nothing "heroic" about all this senseless slaughter.
My grandmother was a refugee during the second World War, she fled from Bessarabia "home into the Reich," as the Nazis euphemistically called it. I remember vividly the stories all my grandparents told about this time (like when the night sky turned as bright as during sunrise when the city 50km away was bombed by the Allies and burned for days, the never-ending drone of bomber planes overhead, etc. ...), and it showed me without a doubt that war is the most horrific thing we humans ever came up with. It's disgusting to see how war gets glorified by the media and (especially) Hollywood.
And warfare has only gotten more "effective" at inflicting damage and suffering. I'm particularly concerned about drone warfare, as we're still within the effective range.
Most people, whether in Ukraine, Russia, Thailand, Cambodia or elsewhere in the world just want to go on with their lives, do decent work, eat good food, provide for their families, and build a future - but "higher powers" (i.e. elites) couldn't care less.
Are you living secluded? Do you think that remoteness makes survival a bit "easier" and increases your chances of survival?
I hope you and your family will make it through all of this, without too much suffering & loss...
I don't know if this increases survival, but life in the conflict zone is simply impossible. Cities are turning into piles of construction debris, and the captured "allies" and the opposing side are trying to push all sorts of abominations from depleted uranium shells to highly toxic explosives and rocket fuel. You can see the photo by entering in the photo search "Часів Яр місто 2025", "Авдіївка руйнування", "Вовчанськ сьогодні". Of course, this is not Gaza with its dense construction (although Gaza would be an identity), but these are just a couple of examples.
As always, brilliantly written and (unfortunately) very very true and wise words.
I pray that you, your family and your land will not be directly affected (or at least not for a while) by the conflicts and that you will be able to live out your dream for as long as possible.
Thank you so much for reading and for your support, old friend.
I hope the same for you, as from what I can gather it looks like war is on the horizon again in Europe. Who would have thought it will come to this...
One of the things that I feel were a massive privilege for us growing up in Germany is that we at least had the opportunity to develop the capabilities needed to see through the charade of nationalism and militarism. It was impossible for me to feel proud of my home country, knowing what we did. This realization is a crucial lesson from having lost two world wars - and imagine that THIS IS WHAT IT TOOK for at least a noteworthy part of the population to realize that we should do EVERYTHING to avoid going down that road again.
But now it seems many people have once again forgotten that fire is hot, so to speak. Historical amnesia, one might call it. The hardest part is not merely witnessing it, but being unable to do anything about it.
Im curious, do you argue for the return of hunter gathering? Thats your pinned post but you also speak in favour of homesteading and Swidden agriculture .
Also, do you believe that a return there is inevitable, or that you hope we return there?
It's not that straightforward, and I don't argue for one particular form of subsistence over all others (which wouldn't make much sense, since there is no way a substantial part of the global population could "return" to hunting and gathering or shifting cultivation - or even permaculture). Subsistence modes can be placed on a spectrum from the most regenerative to the most destructive. On this spectrum foraging and indigenous horticulture would be towards the former extreme, and industrial agriculture on the latter end of this spectrum. What I advocate for is not any particular place on the spectrum, but more like the *general direction* one is moving in. If you're slowly moving from "more destructive" to "less destructive" (or to "less regenerative," or to "more regenerative") you're doing the right thing IMO. It's a slow and difficult process, though.
Hunting and gathering is definitely the most admirable subsistence mode/lifestyle - the ultimate role model of a species well-integrated into its natural habitat - and the one that represents the norm for the vast majority of our species' history.
Indigenous horticultural systems (such as swiddening) mark an intensification, but one that is well integrated into the local ecology and tends to increase key ecological factors (biodiversity, soil carbon content & water retention capability, etc.) over time. (It is important to note that *any* form of plant cultivation is highly dependent on predictable seasons and a stable climate, more on that in a minute.)
"Homesteading" per se is not the optimal way forward, though, mostly because it's a concept steeped in individualism, based on North American expansionist agriculture. If we want a shot at survival, we will have to rediscover community (and community-based subsistence modes). Homesteading is mostly still dependent on machinery and other industrial products that will become increasingly difficult to acquire in the future. It can still be a wholesome and ecologically sound way of living, though.
As for your final question, I both *hope* that some of us will be able to return to a mobile foraging way of living, and I also believe that this return is pretty much inevitable - if we were to survive, that is. If we don't, we will go extinct.
Agriculture (and, by extension, civilization) was only possible in the (relatively) stable climate of the Holocene, that's the reason why there weren't any civilizations before. If you plant crops, you do need some confidence that you're gonna be able to predict the weather and eventually reap a harvest. Once that stops working well, the system will fall apart. We have left the stable climatic regime of the Holocene and now find ourselves in a chaotic new epoch termed the "Anthropocene".
The climate of the Anthropocene will likely be similarly erratic as the Pleistocene was, just a few degrees hotter. Agricultural harvests are already starting to decline, and this will accelerate greatly in the years to come. Most people are stuck in their old ways, and in evolutionary terms that's a pretty self-eliminating strategy. If conditions change, you either adapt or you die out. Foraging is one such adaptation that has been time-tested successfully for millions of years by our ancestors.
For a scientific exploration of this question, I highly recommend the following paper:
Ahh, the Gowdy essay. I'd like to raise some of the myriad issues with it, since it seems to be the thing most people arguing for the death of agriculture point to. I'll focus on sections 3 and 4 here, since they're the ones arguing for a return to the erratic Pleistocene. Quote: Climate change projections are increasingly alarming as they become more accurate by, for example, refining the effects of sunlight reflected by clouds as the earth warms, and modifying projections using past warming events to calibrate the interactions among CO2, temperature, sea level rise, and feedback effects.2 Brown and Caldeira (2017) suggest that there is a 93 % change that temperature increases will exceed 4 °C by the end of this century."
The Brown and Caldeira paper doesn't actually say this, it's from the press release that says "It makes sense that the models that do the best job at simulating today’s observations might be the models with the most reliable predictions,” Caldeira added. “Our study indicates that if emissions follow a commonly used business-as-usual scenario, there is a 93 percent chance that global warming will exceed 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century. Previous studies had put this likelihood at 62 percent.”"
This "commonly used BAU scenario is rcp8.5, which assumes GDP TRIPLING by 2100, GROWING fossil fuel emissions past the end of century.
The modern-day successor to RCP 8.5, SSP 5-8.5, is itself reliant on extremely high economic activity.
Economic growth is rapid in developing countries and high in industrialized countries, with a strong convergence of income levels between countries. GDP per capita levels by the end of the century are projected to increase by factors of 5 (OECD; annual average growth of 1.8%/yr) to 28 (MAF; 3.8%/yr) relative to 2010, reaching 120 thousand (MAF) to 160 thousand (OECD) US Dollars per year in 2100 (in purchasing power parity (PPP) units; Dellink et al., 2017).
This translates into a rapid increase of global economic output from 67 trillion USD in 2010 to 360 trillion USD in 2050 and 1000 trillion USD (PPP) in 2100
"Developing future climate projections begins with choosing future emissions scenarios. While scenarios are often based on storylines, here instead we produce a probabilistic multi-million-member ensemble of radiative forcing trajectories to assess the relevance of future forcing thresholds. We coupled a probabilistic database of future greenhouse gas emission scenarios with a probabilistically calibrated reduced complexity climate model. In 2100, we project median forcings of 5.1 watt per square meters (5th to 95th percentiles of 3.3 to 7.1), with roughly 0.5% probability of exceeding 8.5 watt per square meters,"
"The very long-term consequences of climate change have received relatively little attention (Bala, Caldeira, Mirin, Wickett, & Delire, 2005; Gowdy & Juliá, 2010; Kasting, 1998). Most projections of global warming focus on either the year 2100 or the effects of a doubling of CO2 (from the pre-industrial level of 275 ppm–550 ppm)." Granted, true, but if we do collapse as you say, emissions go to 0 and warming straight up stops(mostly).
The lack of attention to the very long run is a serious shortcoming, since integrated carbon-climate models project that if CO2 from current in situ fossil fuel resources continues to be released into the atmosphere, the peak concentration of atmospheric CO2 could exceed 1400 ppm by the year 2300 and the average global temperature could warm by 8 °C or more (Bala et al., 2005; Kasting, 1998). A CO2 level of 1400 ppm would increase the risk of a rise in temperature as high as 20 °C which will certainly have catastrophic consequences for all life on Earth. It is sobering to consider that current levels of CO2 are higher than at any time in the last 15 million years
EROI implausible
Now, the biggest mistake, and the reason I'm stupefied that this essay passed peer review.
With the future climate instability already locked into the system by recent human activity we will most likely return to the climate volatility of the Pleistocene. Climate change will adversely affect agriculture in a number of ways including sea level rise, higher average temperatures, heat extremes, changes in rainfall patterns, and the loss of pollinators. Less understood changes include the effects on agricultural pests, soil composition, and the growth response of crops to rising CO2 levels. Fig. 2 shows the possible volatility in climate if the Earth returns to the climate regime of the last few thousand years of the Pleistocene. Future volatility will not, of course, follow exactly the same pattern but Fig. 2 represents a rough guess as to what might occur. Agriculture was impossible in the past because of climate/weather instability and it is likely to again be impossible if similar conditions return.
Figure 2, as you've seen, is his lynchpin for the entire "back to the Pleistocene"
argument. You'd expect it to be from a Journal like Nature, PNAS, Science, right?
Nope, it's from a bloody Danish school Debate Club. WTF? (I looked into it further, the debate club itself cites climate deniers so...)
By 2050, under a typical middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, you’re looking at a doubling of the volatility for grains in the mid-latitudes. In places like China, the U.S., Europe, Ukraine—the breadbasket countries of the world—the volatility from year-to-year just from natural climate variability at a higher temperature is going to be much higher. The impact on crops is going to be greater and greater.
Fair enough, but from more recent studies :
Well how about a paper that says plenty of land will be arable at 6 degrees?
he ability of agriculture to adapt to climate change will depend on the rapidity of changes as well as their severity. Intensively growing high-tech crops on the massive scale required to support billions more people will be prohibitively expensive just in terms of the energy required. The feasibility of massively moving crops North to avoid warmer temperature is limited because of poor quality soils in places like northern Canada and Russia. Also, temperature fluctuations will be greater toward the poles. Much of the evidence is anecdotal, but there are already indications of climate instability more than offsetting the advantages of longer growing seasons in northern regions, For example, although longer summers in Greenland have increased the growing season by two weeks, they are becoming drier and rainfall has become more unpredictable with adverse effects on crops and livestock (Kintisch, 2016).
That Kintisch cite is from a news article, by the way,not exactly the type of source viable for such a sweeping argument. In any case, I have one of my own:
"Relocating rice expansion eastward and implementing earlier planting increased yields by up to 50% but adversely decreased soybean and maize due to competition. " (I include the tradeoffs for fairness)
Sea level rise will be a major stress factor on agricultural output with the loss of agricultural land and increasing salinity from storm surges. According to Hansen et al. (2016): during the last interglacial, about 140,000 years ago, the earth was about 1 °C warmer than today and sea levels were 6–9 meters higher with evidence of extreme storms.
Fair enough, although the 2016 papers exponential fitm after 10 years is looking more like a quadratic fit, so that's good
Another threat to agriculture partially due to climate change, the loss of pollinators, is already underway (United Nations, FAO, 2019).
..Evidence for the view of a generalized pollinator decline is strongly biased geographically, as it mostly originates from a few mid-latitude regions in Europe and North America. Mounting evidence indicates, however, that pollinator declines are not universal; that the sign and magnitude of temporal trends in pollinator abundance may differ among pollinator groups, continents or regions; and that taxonomic and geographical biases in pollinator studies are bound to limit a realistic understanding of the potentially diverse pollinator responses to environmental changes and the associated causal mechanisms.
....
Previous studies that have examined long-term trends in honeybee colony numbers from a wide geographical perspective have consistently shown that (i) the total number of honeybee colonies is increasing globally and in every continent; (ii) well-documented instances of honeybee declines are few and geographically restricted; and (iii) in the thoroughly investigated European continent, honeybee declines have occurred in mid-latitude and northern countries, while increases predominate in the south.
...The analyses presented in this study show that honeybee colonies have increased exponentially over the last 50 years in the Mediterranean Basin, comprising areas of southern Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa. The latter two regions are prominent examples of ecologically understudied areas and, as far as I know, have been never considered in quantitative analyses of bee population trends. The empirical evidence available supports the view that the ‘pollination crisis' notion was at some time inspired by the decline of honeybees in only a few regions. Such generalization represented a prime example of distorted ecological knowledge arising from geographically biased data.
...It does not seem implausible to suggest that, because of its colossal magnitude and spatial extent, the exponential flood of honeybee colonies that is silently taking over the Mediterranean Basin can pose serious threats to two hallmarks of the Mediterranean biome, namely the extraordinary diversities of wild bees and wild bee-pollinated plants.
Or indeed, here is a British study which shows that while the rare, native pollinators have declined, the ones directly used in agriculture have increased.
Pollination is a critical ecosystem service underpinning the productivity of agricultural systems across the world. Wild insect populations provide a substantial contribution to the productivity of many crops and seed set of wild flowers. However, large-scale evidence on species-specific trends among wild pollinators are lacking. Here we show substantial inter-specific variation in pollinator trends, based on occupancy models for 353 wild bee and hoverfly species in Great Britain between 1980 and 2013. Furthermore, we estimate a net loss of over 2.7 million occupied 1 km2 grid cells across all species.
Declines in pollinator evenness suggest that losses were concentrated in rare species. In addition, losses linked to specific habitats were identified, with a 55% decline among species associated with uplands. This contrasts with dominant crop pollinators, which increased by 12%, potentially in response agri-environment measures. The general declines highlight a fundamental deterioration in both wider biodiversity and non-crop pollination services.
I could go on and on, but hopefully this is enough to get you to critically evaluate the paper.
Also, FYI, hotter periods are stabler than colder ones. The eocene with temps 5-8c held on like that for 50 million years due to the lack of ice sheets, which are melting as we speak
Okay, that reply came quickly - I guess, you expected something like that. I don't have the time (or motivation) to start a study duel with you, so I'll just refer you to my earlier essay about agriculture and diminishing returns (https://animistsramblings.substack.com/p/agriculture-diminishing-returns).
Gowdy's paper is in no way meant to be a precise prediction, it just outlines a general trend. (Same goes for the image he used.)
Understandably the implications are rather scary, so I understand the need to stick to a story that feels better, but my personal experience (both as a plant cultivator and a long-time inhabitant of agricultural regions) has shown that the trend we're observing is obvious: we're in the final period of the Age of Agriculture. There is no way the dominant culture can continue as it has, and there is no way the current food system can survive the coming climatic changes.
Yes, things are super complicated, multi-faceted and ambiguous, but any climate chart showing the Holocene in relation to earlier climate regimes (and the point at which we are now!) is reason enough to believe Gowdy makes a pretty good point.
Sorry for the double comment, but I read that essay and my objections still stand.
You state that”The climate of the Anthropocene will likely be similarly erratic as the Pleistocene was, just a few degrees hotter”
That’s not how the climate works. The pleistocene was only as erratic as it was BECAUSE it was cold, allowing huge ice sheets to form and manipulate albedo randomly enough to get large swings in temperature, allowing the volatility. The Anthropocene as you call it physically cant have that becaude the ice sheets are all melted. The Plio/Eocene would be a better analogy and those were warmer but remarkably stable.
It’s a shame that you don’t want to engage with the sources and rely on anecdotal experience instead(compelling but anecdotal nonetheless), but you do you. Good luck on thr farmstead
The social media feedback loop accelerating nationalism is chilling to watch. Your observation about how conflict footage gets closer until you're filming it captures the collapse trajectory perfectly. What strikes me most is how digitial illiteracy makes people unable to seperate AI slop from reality, creating parallel worldviews that make reconciliation impossible before the first shot is even fired.
It is madness. Large swathes of the population are like in a craze due to being brainwashed & radicalized online. People readily believe AI slop is real if it confirms their preexisting biases. How anyone ever thought it might be a good idea to release all that new technology without the slightest concern for unintended future side effects & consequences is beyond me. Social media and gen-AI are major accelerators of collapse.
I sympathize with your experience.
In fact, in Cambodia and Thailand, everything is not so bad yet. It is a real hell when there is no way out, and you are a rat in a cage that is lowered over the fire. As soon as you hear about plans to expand the existing army, leave without thinking, because then the exit may be closed. Do not think that the conflict will stop with rising prices and fuel shortages. On the contrary, everyone who cannot work and live will become expendable material, this is already a fact where I live. Another fact will be that people will continue to live in cognitive dissonance: on social networks they will talk about "powerful aid packages", "indestructibility" and other national and patriotic appeals, calls to destroy and fight, but in fact, when mobilization affects them, they will try to avoid it. This is also the reality here. In our country, the government cannot provide decent financial support to soldiers who fight for $2,000 a month if you are in a combat position at the very "zero" of the conflict (on the front line in the vanguard) and a paltry $500 if in more remote parts. The average life expectancy of an assault fighter or defender of a position at zero is 16 days. and you are either a half-dead "vegetable" or, if you are lucky, you will be reunited with your relatives "in the other" world. The patriotic part of the war lasts about a year and a half (active) when thousands die per week, then comes pseudo-patriotism, when they "fight from the couches" on social networks, and hide from mobilization, then the stage of manipulation and distortion, when no one wants to fight, in all cities and villages the police, like cattle, catch people to the front, and calls for struggle, destruction and genocide in the event of a front collapse continue on television. Some part of the population left and in fairly safe conditions continues to inflate propaganda, the other part of the population was not affected (women, pensioners) and life continues as it was, and with their answers and activity they distort the real state of affairs and those who are men of mobilization age become worse than slaves. In a highly digitalized society, like in the country where I live, this is death, because they block your card, restrict all services, etc. Ltyshe autonomy saves, but our society is also low in autonomy, so the only way out is death or mutilation through mobilization and war. This will not be stopped by the widespread collapse of infrastructure (now in the capital it is -18 degrees Celsius, there is no heating, light for 22 hours a day and in some places no water supply). In other regions it is a little better, but this is not normal life. This is a collapse, 4 million people live in the capital, this is a complete collapse, but the war goes on and there is no end in sight. There is already a shortage of goods, even bread and drinking water. Total losses (with the wounded, I think already more than 1 million people) 400 thousand people (together with civilians) are considered missing, on the other hand, losses of 3 million. 50% of the country's GDP goes to military efforts, and this is not even the country's money, but loans and agreements on the transfer of minerals and assets. The infrastructure is destroyed, the railway, quite extensive and resistant to war and during, works with great delays and interruptions, there is a critical shortage of weapons, 80% of the income of soldiers is spent on their own means of survival, new ammunition and clothing, transport, fuel and equipment, heating systems. There is terrible corruption and banditry everywhere, even in the highest echelons of power. And the primate people continue to believe and spread propaganda, blind and short-sighted. The BM-21 "Grad" installation is not an old weapon, believe me, it is as deadly as a Mosin rifle or a Thompson machine gun, unfortunately the war has shown that only the mass use of artillery and "human flesh" (infantry) matters. Even without equipment, the war machine will send soldiers with rifles, AK-47s and grenades into the attack if there are generous payments or worthy trophies. The other side shows this, they sign contracts there, because for a monthly (!) payment you can buy an apartment or a house, and for a year you can ensure life until death (If you survive, of course, which is very unlikely :D ). Greed, selfishness and the thirst for money will kill all rationality of survival and well-being in the majority. Drones, drones are an artillery shell that is looking for you to destroy, and drones-shaheeds and missiles are deadly weapons at a distance. ABOUT 120 THOUSAND long-range weapons of destruction (long-range drones and missiles) have already been launched against us, about 10 thousand missiles have been launched over 4 years of war. Read if you want what X101, X-22, the Caliber missile are, what a three-ton aviation guided bomb or thermobaric ammunition is. All these border clashes will seem like a joke, just a warm-up before the real carnage. Imagine the destruction of a cottage with 800 inhabitants in a frost of -15 Celsius, when everything collapsed like September 11 in the USA, and this every week! Sleeping families simply die in the rubble, freezing to death deep in the rear.
So yes, modern war must disappear and the sooner it happens the better, nation-states, empires and other highly organized societies must be broken up into small communities, only then will understanding, humility and restraint come.
Thank you for your interesting post!
I forgot to add that all this will be fueled by foreign "metropolitan powers" that seek only to benefit, the USA, the EU, China, foundations, corporations, and other local national elites.
Thank you so much for your detailed "insider" response - truly horrible, I can't even imagine. I'm at a loss for words, really. Yes, the border conflict here is just the very beginning, and it will get a lot worse. It is terribly saddening that people fall for it again and again, all over the world. Everyone who has experienced war first hand knows that there is nothing "heroic" about all this senseless slaughter.
My grandmother was a refugee during the second World War, she fled from Bessarabia "home into the Reich," as the Nazis euphemistically called it. I remember vividly the stories all my grandparents told about this time (like when the night sky turned as bright as during sunrise when the city 50km away was bombed by the Allies and burned for days, the never-ending drone of bomber planes overhead, etc. ...), and it showed me without a doubt that war is the most horrific thing we humans ever came up with. It's disgusting to see how war gets glorified by the media and (especially) Hollywood.
And warfare has only gotten more "effective" at inflicting damage and suffering. I'm particularly concerned about drone warfare, as we're still within the effective range.
Most people, whether in Ukraine, Russia, Thailand, Cambodia or elsewhere in the world just want to go on with their lives, do decent work, eat good food, provide for their families, and build a future - but "higher powers" (i.e. elites) couldn't care less.
Are you living secluded? Do you think that remoteness makes survival a bit "easier" and increases your chances of survival?
I hope you and your family will make it through all of this, without too much suffering & loss...
All the best to you, my friend.
I don't know if this increases survival, but life in the conflict zone is simply impossible. Cities are turning into piles of construction debris, and the captured "allies" and the opposing side are trying to push all sorts of abominations from depleted uranium shells to highly toxic explosives and rocket fuel. You can see the photo by entering in the photo search "Часів Яр місто 2025", "Авдіївка руйнування", "Вовчанськ сьогодні". Of course, this is not Gaza with its dense construction (although Gaza would be an identity), but these are just a couple of examples.
Thank you! I hope to survive...
As always, brilliantly written and (unfortunately) very very true and wise words.
I pray that you, your family and your land will not be directly affected (or at least not for a while) by the conflicts and that you will be able to live out your dream for as long as possible.
Keep up the good work and stay safe!
All the best from Germany!
-H.
Thank you so much for reading and for your support, old friend.
I hope the same for you, as from what I can gather it looks like war is on the horizon again in Europe. Who would have thought it will come to this...
One of the things that I feel were a massive privilege for us growing up in Germany is that we at least had the opportunity to develop the capabilities needed to see through the charade of nationalism and militarism. It was impossible for me to feel proud of my home country, knowing what we did. This realization is a crucial lesson from having lost two world wars - and imagine that THIS IS WHAT IT TOOK for at least a noteworthy part of the population to realize that we should do EVERYTHING to avoid going down that road again.
But now it seems many people have once again forgotten that fire is hot, so to speak. Historical amnesia, one might call it. The hardest part is not merely witnessing it, but being unable to do anything about it.
Best greetings from the rainforest!
Im curious, do you argue for the return of hunter gathering? Thats your pinned post but you also speak in favour of homesteading and Swidden agriculture .
Also, do you believe that a return there is inevitable, or that you hope we return there?
Hi Ian, thanks for the question.
It's not that straightforward, and I don't argue for one particular form of subsistence over all others (which wouldn't make much sense, since there is no way a substantial part of the global population could "return" to hunting and gathering or shifting cultivation - or even permaculture). Subsistence modes can be placed on a spectrum from the most regenerative to the most destructive. On this spectrum foraging and indigenous horticulture would be towards the former extreme, and industrial agriculture on the latter end of this spectrum. What I advocate for is not any particular place on the spectrum, but more like the *general direction* one is moving in. If you're slowly moving from "more destructive" to "less destructive" (or to "less regenerative," or to "more regenerative") you're doing the right thing IMO. It's a slow and difficult process, though.
Hunting and gathering is definitely the most admirable subsistence mode/lifestyle - the ultimate role model of a species well-integrated into its natural habitat - and the one that represents the norm for the vast majority of our species' history.
Indigenous horticultural systems (such as swiddening) mark an intensification, but one that is well integrated into the local ecology and tends to increase key ecological factors (biodiversity, soil carbon content & water retention capability, etc.) over time. (It is important to note that *any* form of plant cultivation is highly dependent on predictable seasons and a stable climate, more on that in a minute.)
"Homesteading" per se is not the optimal way forward, though, mostly because it's a concept steeped in individualism, based on North American expansionist agriculture. If we want a shot at survival, we will have to rediscover community (and community-based subsistence modes). Homesteading is mostly still dependent on machinery and other industrial products that will become increasingly difficult to acquire in the future. It can still be a wholesome and ecologically sound way of living, though.
As for your final question, I both *hope* that some of us will be able to return to a mobile foraging way of living, and I also believe that this return is pretty much inevitable - if we were to survive, that is. If we don't, we will go extinct.
Agriculture (and, by extension, civilization) was only possible in the (relatively) stable climate of the Holocene, that's the reason why there weren't any civilizations before. If you plant crops, you do need some confidence that you're gonna be able to predict the weather and eventually reap a harvest. Once that stops working well, the system will fall apart. We have left the stable climatic regime of the Holocene and now find ourselves in a chaotic new epoch termed the "Anthropocene".
The climate of the Anthropocene will likely be similarly erratic as the Pleistocene was, just a few degrees hotter. Agricultural harvests are already starting to decline, and this will accelerate greatly in the years to come. Most people are stuck in their old ways, and in evolutionary terms that's a pretty self-eliminating strategy. If conditions change, you either adapt or you die out. Foraging is one such adaptation that has been time-tested successfully for millions of years by our ancestors.
For a scientific exploration of this question, I highly recommend the following paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328719303507
I hope this answers your questions!
Ahh, the Gowdy essay. I'd like to raise some of the myriad issues with it, since it seems to be the thing most people arguing for the death of agriculture point to. I'll focus on sections 3 and 4 here, since they're the ones arguing for a return to the erratic Pleistocene. Quote: Climate change projections are increasingly alarming as they become more accurate by, for example, refining the effects of sunlight reflected by clouds as the earth warms, and modifying projections using past warming events to calibrate the interactions among CO2, temperature, sea level rise, and feedback effects.2 Brown and Caldeira (2017) suggest that there is a 93 % change that temperature increases will exceed 4 °C by the end of this century."
The Brown and Caldeira paper doesn't actually say this, it's from the press release that says "It makes sense that the models that do the best job at simulating today’s observations might be the models with the most reliable predictions,” Caldeira added. “Our study indicates that if emissions follow a commonly used business-as-usual scenario, there is a 93 percent chance that global warming will exceed 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century. Previous studies had put this likelihood at 62 percent.”"
This "commonly used BAU scenario is rcp8.5, which assumes GDP TRIPLING by 2100, GROWING fossil fuel emissions past the end of century.
The modern-day successor to RCP 8.5, SSP 5-8.5, is itself reliant on extremely high economic activity.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300711
Economic growth is rapid in developing countries and high in industrialized countries, with a strong convergence of income levels between countries. GDP per capita levels by the end of the century are projected to increase by factors of 5 (OECD; annual average growth of 1.8%/yr) to 28 (MAF; 3.8%/yr) relative to 2010, reaching 120 thousand (MAF) to 160 thousand (OECD) US Dollars per year in 2100 (in purchasing power parity (PPP) units; Dellink et al., 2017).
This translates into a rapid increase of global economic output from 67 trillion USD in 2010 to 360 trillion USD in 2050 and 1000 trillion USD (PPP) in 2100
from a newer study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52437-9
"Developing future climate projections begins with choosing future emissions scenarios. While scenarios are often based on storylines, here instead we produce a probabilistic multi-million-member ensemble of radiative forcing trajectories to assess the relevance of future forcing thresholds. We coupled a probabilistic database of future greenhouse gas emission scenarios with a probabilistically calibrated reduced complexity climate model. In 2100, we project median forcings of 5.1 watt per square meters (5th to 95th percentiles of 3.3 to 7.1), with roughly 0.5% probability of exceeding 8.5 watt per square meters,"
"The very long-term consequences of climate change have received relatively little attention (Bala, Caldeira, Mirin, Wickett, & Delire, 2005; Gowdy & Juliá, 2010; Kasting, 1998). Most projections of global warming focus on either the year 2100 or the effects of a doubling of CO2 (from the pre-industrial level of 275 ppm–550 ppm)." Granted, true, but if we do collapse as you say, emissions go to 0 and warming straight up stops(mostly).
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/2020/
The lack of attention to the very long run is a serious shortcoming, since integrated carbon-climate models project that if CO2 from current in situ fossil fuel resources continues to be released into the atmosphere, the peak concentration of atmospheric CO2 could exceed 1400 ppm by the year 2300 and the average global temperature could warm by 8 °C or more (Bala et al., 2005; Kasting, 1998). A CO2 level of 1400 ppm would increase the risk of a rise in temperature as high as 20 °C which will certainly have catastrophic consequences for all life on Earth. It is sobering to consider that current levels of CO2 are higher than at any time in the last 15 million years
EROI implausible
Now, the biggest mistake, and the reason I'm stupefied that this essay passed peer review.
With the future climate instability already locked into the system by recent human activity we will most likely return to the climate volatility of the Pleistocene. Climate change will adversely affect agriculture in a number of ways including sea level rise, higher average temperatures, heat extremes, changes in rainfall patterns, and the loss of pollinators. Less understood changes include the effects on agricultural pests, soil composition, and the growth response of crops to rising CO2 levels. Fig. 2 shows the possible volatility in climate if the Earth returns to the climate regime of the last few thousand years of the Pleistocene. Future volatility will not, of course, follow exactly the same pattern but Fig. 2 represents a rough guess as to what might occur. Agriculture was impossible in the past because of climate/weather instability and it is likely to again be impossible if similar conditions return.
Figure 2, as you've seen, is his lynchpin for the entire "back to the Pleistocene"
argument. You'd expect it to be from a Journal like Nature, PNAS, Science, right?
Nope, it's from a bloody Danish school Debate Club. WTF? (I looked into it further, the debate club itself cites climate deniers so...)
By 2050, under a typical middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, you’re looking at a doubling of the volatility for grains in the mid-latitudes. In places like China, the U.S., Europe, Ukraine—the breadbasket countries of the world—the volatility from year-to-year just from natural climate variability at a higher temperature is going to be much higher. The impact on crops is going to be greater and greater.
Fair enough, but from more recent studies :
Well how about a paper that says plenty of land will be arable at 6 degrees?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15871
or one that says yields go down an average of 4%/c?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09085-w
or one that increases variance by 7-19% per c?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ady3575
this one specifically and robustly accounts for floods, heatwaves and droughts so you can't say they were slipshod with it
continued below
he ability of agriculture to adapt to climate change will depend on the rapidity of changes as well as their severity. Intensively growing high-tech crops on the massive scale required to support billions more people will be prohibitively expensive just in terms of the energy required. The feasibility of massively moving crops North to avoid warmer temperature is limited because of poor quality soils in places like northern Canada and Russia. Also, temperature fluctuations will be greater toward the poles. Much of the evidence is anecdotal, but there are already indications of climate instability more than offsetting the advantages of longer growing seasons in northern regions, For example, although longer summers in Greenland have increased the growing season by two weeks, they are becoming drier and rainfall has become more unpredictable with adverse effects on crops and livestock (Kintisch, 2016).
That Kintisch cite is from a news article, by the way,not exactly the type of source viable for such a sweeping argument. In any case, I have one of my own:
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/how-canadas-farmers-are-producing-record-crops-despite-droughts-floods-2025-12-15/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023EF004063
"Relocating rice expansion eastward and implementing earlier planting increased yields by up to 50% but adversely decreased soybean and maize due to competition. " (I include the tradeoffs for fairness)
Sea level rise will be a major stress factor on agricultural output with the loss of agricultural land and increasing salinity from storm surges. According to Hansen et al. (2016): during the last interglacial, about 140,000 years ago, the earth was about 1 °C warmer than today and sea levels were 6–9 meters higher with evidence of extreme storms.
Fair enough, although the 2016 papers exponential fitm after 10 years is looking more like a quadratic fit, so that's good
Another threat to agriculture partially due to climate change, the loss of pollinators, is already underway (United Nations, FAO, 2019).
to copy a comment i found on reddit:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2657
..Evidence for the view of a generalized pollinator decline is strongly biased geographically, as it mostly originates from a few mid-latitude regions in Europe and North America. Mounting evidence indicates, however, that pollinator declines are not universal; that the sign and magnitude of temporal trends in pollinator abundance may differ among pollinator groups, continents or regions; and that taxonomic and geographical biases in pollinator studies are bound to limit a realistic understanding of the potentially diverse pollinator responses to environmental changes and the associated causal mechanisms.
....
Previous studies that have examined long-term trends in honeybee colony numbers from a wide geographical perspective have consistently shown that (i) the total number of honeybee colonies is increasing globally and in every continent; (ii) well-documented instances of honeybee declines are few and geographically restricted; and (iii) in the thoroughly investigated European continent, honeybee declines have occurred in mid-latitude and northern countries, while increases predominate in the south.
...The analyses presented in this study show that honeybee colonies have increased exponentially over the last 50 years in the Mediterranean Basin, comprising areas of southern Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa. The latter two regions are prominent examples of ecologically understudied areas and, as far as I know, have been never considered in quantitative analyses of bee population trends. The empirical evidence available supports the view that the ‘pollination crisis' notion was at some time inspired by the decline of honeybees in only a few regions. Such generalization represented a prime example of distorted ecological knowledge arising from geographically biased data.
...It does not seem implausible to suggest that, because of its colossal magnitude and spatial extent, the exponential flood of honeybee colonies that is silently taking over the Mediterranean Basin can pose serious threats to two hallmarks of the Mediterranean biome, namely the extraordinary diversities of wild bees and wild bee-pollinated plants.
Or indeed, here is a British study which shows that while the rare, native pollinators have declined, the ones directly used in agriculture have increased.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08974-9/
Pollination is a critical ecosystem service underpinning the productivity of agricultural systems across the world. Wild insect populations provide a substantial contribution to the productivity of many crops and seed set of wild flowers. However, large-scale evidence on species-specific trends among wild pollinators are lacking. Here we show substantial inter-specific variation in pollinator trends, based on occupancy models for 353 wild bee and hoverfly species in Great Britain between 1980 and 2013. Furthermore, we estimate a net loss of over 2.7 million occupied 1 km2 grid cells across all species.
Declines in pollinator evenness suggest that losses were concentrated in rare species. In addition, losses linked to specific habitats were identified, with a 55% decline among species associated with uplands. This contrasts with dominant crop pollinators, which increased by 12%, potentially in response agri-environment measures. The general declines highlight a fundamental deterioration in both wider biodiversity and non-crop pollination services.
I could go on and on, but hopefully this is enough to get you to critically evaluate the paper.
Also, FYI, hotter periods are stabler than colder ones. The eocene with temps 5-8c held on like that for 50 million years due to the lack of ice sheets, which are melting as we speak
Okay, that reply came quickly - I guess, you expected something like that. I don't have the time (or motivation) to start a study duel with you, so I'll just refer you to my earlier essay about agriculture and diminishing returns (https://animistsramblings.substack.com/p/agriculture-diminishing-returns).
Gowdy's paper is in no way meant to be a precise prediction, it just outlines a general trend. (Same goes for the image he used.)
Understandably the implications are rather scary, so I understand the need to stick to a story that feels better, but my personal experience (both as a plant cultivator and a long-time inhabitant of agricultural regions) has shown that the trend we're observing is obvious: we're in the final period of the Age of Agriculture. There is no way the dominant culture can continue as it has, and there is no way the current food system can survive the coming climatic changes.
Yes, things are super complicated, multi-faceted and ambiguous, but any climate chart showing the Holocene in relation to earlier climate regimes (and the point at which we are now!) is reason enough to believe Gowdy makes a pretty good point.
Sorry for the double comment, but I read that essay and my objections still stand.
You state that”The climate of the Anthropocene will likely be similarly erratic as the Pleistocene was, just a few degrees hotter”
That’s not how the climate works. The pleistocene was only as erratic as it was BECAUSE it was cold, allowing huge ice sheets to form and manipulate albedo randomly enough to get large swings in temperature, allowing the volatility. The Anthropocene as you call it physically cant have that becaude the ice sheets are all melted. The Plio/Eocene would be a better analogy and those were warmer but remarkably stable.
It’s a shame that you don’t want to engage with the sources and rely on anecdotal experience instead(compelling but anecdotal nonetheless), but you do you. Good luck on thr farmstead
The social media feedback loop accelerating nationalism is chilling to watch. Your observation about how conflict footage gets closer until you're filming it captures the collapse trajectory perfectly. What strikes me most is how digitial illiteracy makes people unable to seperate AI slop from reality, creating parallel worldviews that make reconciliation impossible before the first shot is even fired.
It is madness. Large swathes of the population are like in a craze due to being brainwashed & radicalized online. People readily believe AI slop is real if it confirms their preexisting biases. How anyone ever thought it might be a good idea to release all that new technology without the slightest concern for unintended future side effects & consequences is beyond me. Social media and gen-AI are major accelerators of collapse.
Bravo, David! Can't imagine where you find the time...
I sincerely hope this messy business does nothing to threaten the admirable endeavour you have both built up.