Try guessing the common glue that connects the following topics often covered on this blog in recent years:
- The Sixth Mass Extinction is a scary prospect
- Space colonization is a fantasy
- Agriculture and subsequent inventions spell bad news
- Meat-brains are not all that impressive
- Dualism drives a sense of separateness
A clue to the glue is that one word will do. And it’s not in the title, exactly. Have I spoiled the challenge with too many hints? Well, in any case, the word is: ecology.
Obviously, the first item is an ecological concern. The second is borne of total ecological ignorance. The third marks a turning point in our ecological relationships—from embedded participants to would-be masters. Our most consequential mental shortcoming is believing we can invent replacements for ecology that have long-term sustainable potential. And the last gets at the philosophical (metaphysical) underpinning that accompanies our ecological estrangement.
This post highlights yet another failure on the ecology front that has overlap bearing on these themes. That failure is the EcoSphere aquaria. An EcoSphere is a desktop curio containing a small, sealed community of life meant to sustain itself for long periods. And it does, sort-of: for a whole hundred-thousandth of timescales relevant to ecology and evolution. Yay? Only 99.999% more to go! You’re almost there!
What Are EcoSpheres?
Commercial EcoSphere units centered on an exceptionally-resilient species of shrimp, combined with algae and bacteria in a roughly-balanced symbiotic triangle. Snails were part of the mix in earlier units to keep the glass clean, but were later dropped. Admittedly, the idea is cool, attractive, and not a total flop. Except the business folded in 2022. And the “products” all die in relatively short-order.
From the Wikipedia page:
The main conceptual interest of these objects lay in the fact that they were materially closed ecological systems which were self-sustaining over a period of years. At room temperature, and with only low inputs of light, the algae produced oxygen which supported the shrimp and bacteria. Bacteria broke down the shrimps’ wastes. The breakdown products provided nutrients to the algae and bacteria upon which the shrimp fed. The manufacturer stated that shrimp lived in the EcoSphere for an average of 2 to 3 years but were known to live over 12 years.
The page goes on to clarify:
Closed jar systems like the Ecosphere degrade with time. They are “self-sustaining” only in comparison to systems which degrade much more quickly.
Yeah: impressive only when compared to even more ridiculous attempts to create artificial living communities. Although reproduction of the shrimp can happen within the EcoSphere, it is apparently rare. Members of the chosen shrimp species are long-lived: up to 20 years when safe from predation. So, the lifetime of the experiment is mostly down to individual survival, not generational cycles. In fact, if the average viability of EcoSphere is 2–3 years for critters that can live up to 20, the impoverished environment constitutes an early-life death sentence: quite opposite a miracle of sustainability!
The same page also mentions freshwater–mud analogs originally teeming with diverse life of the tiny variety. After an early mass extinction (in which all multi-cellular life is eliminated—gulp), what remains can live for whole decades. Wow. Is that a lot?
Get Real!
No attempt in the history of human meddling has resulted in a “closed” ecology capable of lasting even a century—usually well short of a decade. The famous Biosphere 2 project that included humans had to break the seal after just 16 months. I put “closed” in quotes above because the sun (sold separately) is a ponderous but critical component, easily dominating the mass of the entire experiment.
But think about the failure, here. Not even a very hardy variety of shrimp (cockroaches of the sea?) has been accommodated in a small, closed environment for a small fraction of a human lifetime—even with all the resources and biodiversity on Earth within easy reach, and enjoying benign ambient conditions (comfortable temperatures and low radiation levels).
Now tell me: how exactly is it that sane individuals can believe that humans—far higher-maintenance than cockroaches/shrimp—could possibly be supported for human lifetimes (let alone multiple generations) on an alien, hostile, (effectively) lifeless planet? It’s beyond crazy. What’s more, this mother-of-all-challenges isn’t even a significant focus of the clueless enthusiasts, who obsess instead over the form of conveyance. Talk about putting the cart before the horse! They’re so far out of their depth as to invite pity, and will unquestionably fail to realize their juvenile dreams (though may not live long enough to be convinced of its failure). Too bad we can’t simply distract them with ice cream.
Here’s another stark framing. Actual (land) cockroaches are unpopular for EcoSphere-like experiments, as few people would want to show off a cockroach on their desk. Miniature shrimp are at least cute—or in any case do not suffer the same negative cultural associations as cockroaches. It seems safe to assume that enclosing cockroaches into a small, sealed “ecology” would fail as fast or faster than the ones using shrimp. We thus find that the artificial ecosphere designed by humans is more deadly to cockroaches than it is commonly assumed nuclear Armageddon would be. Think about that! An artificial colony on Mars—where the outcome is almost certainly total extinction—is more deadly to Earth life than nuclear war!
The Wise Folk
Now consider this thought experiment. Imagine showing pictures of the Martian or lunar surface to a person who has lived their whole life as a traditional hunter-gatherer embedded in an ecological community. Then offer the proposition: “Just say the word and we’ll send you to live there free of charge.” How would they respond?
Presumably, they’d look at you like you’re totally nuts. They might say “That place has no life: no ecology into which I might tuck in. It’s certain death. A barren rock like that has nothing for me to be a part of—no stories to guide and support me.”
On the flip side, it isn’t hard to conceive of a non-hunter-gatherer (modernite; agriculturalist) saying “Yeah, I could work with that.” The mentality here is that (ecologically detached/ignorant) humans exert control over nature: shape it to our needs. Members of modernity exalt the moxie inherent in rising to such challenges. Our culture defines itself by this god-power “over” nature.
The point is that the hunter-gatherer (presumably) puts ecology first, looking for ways to fit into a Community of Life, as an unquestionable part of it. The (dualist) modernite perceives themselves to be transcendent; apart; separate; able to innovate anything they need out of limitless brains—so the mythology goes.
The hunter-gatherer knows instinctively in their bones that separating oneself from ancient ecology is bonkers. Listen to them.
This framing more closely associates the modern agriculturally-based mentality with unhinged space fantasy than with a sense of ecological rootedness that accompanies the only human cultures demonstrating true longevity on the planet over ecologically-relevant timescales. Once humans started wholesale manipulation of environments (plowing, eradicating), the mentality changed significantly: separation sequence initiated. The millennial countdown commenced 10,000 years ago: ten, nine, eight…
Thanks to my friend, Craig, for pointing me in the direction of these failed shrimp baubles.
Views: 1885
Now consider this thought experiment. Imagine showing pictures of the Martian or lunar surface to a person who has lived their whole life as a traditional hunter-gatherer embedded in an ecological community. Then offer the proposition: “Just say the word and we’ll send you to live there free of charge.” How would they respond?
Presumably, they’d look at you like you’re totally nuts. They might say “That place has no life: no ecology into which I might tuck in. It’s certain death. A barren rock like that has nothing for me to be a part of—no stories to guide and support me.”
On the flip side, it isn’t hard to conceive of a non-hunter-gatherer (modernite; agriculturalist) saying “Yeah, I could work with that.” The mentality here is that (ecologically detached/ignorant) humans exert control over nature: shape it to our needs. Members of modernity exalt the moxie inherent in rising to such challenges. Our culture defines itself by this god-power “over” nature.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous, as you’re imagining all agriculturalists ever as space-age modernity disciples. What if you give the photo to an Amish person, or a traditional asian farmer?
If you went back to the days of Chinese dynasties and gave them the same photo, they’d ask: How does the water flow there? Does it obey the patterns I know fit my crops (and environment) well? Where are the rivers for irrigation? What are the cycles of night and day, sun and rain? Whats the terrain and the soil like”?
Now thay I look at it, it seems agriculturalists, at least then, weren’t so out of tune with their (semi-)natural environments after all…
Note that I refrained from painting with a broad brush, such as: "all agriculturalists" or the like—just that one would not need to look as hard to find a game agriculturalist (especially these days) vs. a hunter gatherer willing to take on the challenge. The overall point/contrast still stands. Increasingly, we *make* water flow the way we want, shape the terrain, augment the soil. Technology is always playing catch-up to the attitude of control.
Well, fair enough I suppose, but it’s also to be noted that farming regimes became more ecologically integrated as time went on, not less. The environment of a rice paddy evolved to mimic natural ecosystems, as far as the farmers were able to do. Same for the three field method, where farmers literally let nature have the field 2/3s of the time
" Farming regimes became more ecologically integrated as time went on, not less. "
Well, present day industrial farming couldn't be less ecologically integrated. It's completely dependent on the energy input from fossil fuels, industrial infrastructure, the Haber-Bosch process to supply the "fixed" nitrogen, and finite potassium and phosphate deposits to supply the linear nutrient system that is now in place.
Sorry I should clarify: I meant BEFORE fossil fuels.
Okay. Let's look at before fossil fuels. We can cherry-pick some examples where agriculture is sustainable for a long period, maybe indefinitely.
River deltas where the soil is replenished annually, like the Mekong or as the Nile once was before the upstream dams captured the silt.
Swidden agriculture if the population is low enough and the time between forest pocket clearings is long enough. The Terra Preta system in the Amazon.
Those examples are overwhelmed by the endless examples of agriculture being a system of short-term exploitation of once -fertile soils.
The fertile crescent wasn't fertile for all that long before erosion and soil salination caused by injudicious irrigation in an unsuitable climate
changed a once-bountiful ecosystem into a desert. The limestione hills of the Mediteranean were once forested with deep soil.
I can go on forever. There are books full of examples. If the rate of soil erosion on the area being cultivated is greater than the rate of soil formation, there is a downward spiral of declining fertility.
Sorry for the long comment, but I wasn't going to let this comment pass unchallenged.
I'm glad you did offer these important examples. Also key is that even one expansionist, unsustainable agricultural practice has a way of overwhelming other modes (hunter-gatherer or temporarily-more-benign agriculture). Cancer might take a long time to metastasize, but it has a reputation for instability.
I can't figure out what you mean by "more ecologically integrated." There's surely no doubt that farming destroys the ecosystem it takes over? Once destroyed, or, at best, highly perturbed, there is no way humans can manipulate it to a new climax state. That is what nature does (though the state is always temporary).
Perhaps you mean that farmers tried to do their best to regenerate nature around their farms? This still isn't integrated into a now perturbed ecosystem that is trying to find its new path.
For some reason, I can't place my comment as a reply to your general comment in farming. I believe you grossly exaggerate the perils of farming and how it has destroyed the environment. The track record is a lot better than what you portray. There are many agriculture systems that have thrived for a long time. For sure, there are also those that failed. But when you look closer into them there are often explanations to be found. Also, one has to separate the effect of "farming" as such as how farmers sometimes have been forced by overlords to deplete both themselves and their soils.
"Our work suggests that over 2,000 years of increasing European biodiversity was generated because of – not in spite of – humans. But why? And what lessons can we learn from this for managing biodiversity now, when land being converted into farmland is driving biodiversity losses?
Population growth and technological innovations pushed agricultural activities into previously unused lands over the first 1,300 years of the common era. Unlike today – where crop monocultures are dominant – mixed agricultural systems were the norm over the majority of the last 2,000 years. Across Europe, a diverse lattice of farmlands and farming practices were typically separated by woods, rough grazing lands and uncultivated plots, often enclosed by hedgerows or trees. " https://theconversation.com/the-black-deaths-counterintuitive-effect-as-human-numbers-fell-so-did-plant-diversity-277386
I personally would have replaced "agriculturalist" with suburbanite.
It's mostly white salary class center-leftists that espouse that anyways.
I use agriculturalist mostly in the sense of cultures based on an agricultural foundation—not necessarily a literal farmer. I am, for instance, an agriculturalist rather than a hunter-gatherer—in practice. The reason to call it out is that agriculture instills a different mentality in relation to the world: as separate masters vs. integrated members.
On a more practical, personal scale, the facts as laid out here also demonstrate why bunkerism is idiotic and the concept of "generational ships" utterly delusional.
We do not have the tech to sustain either process for anywhere near the amount of time either would need to be active for. We will never develop it either because it is impossible for us to.
Agreed: perfect parallels. Also, it seems likely the wheels will fall off the stunt-cart well before such a mastery would possibly obtain.
Reflecting back to your 2011 post on solar efficiency got my toe sized brain wondering if you had any post planned for this crazy data center explosion.
I won't let this develop into an off-thread topic (will not accept follow-ups), but just to say that I briefly did some numbers to compare the energetics of launch vs. running the CPUs (thermal constraints), and I came up with parity being reached (launch energy finally exceeded) after 25–50 years. Likely obsolete before then, so didn't seem to pencil out for an obvious win. On the other hand, it's not *so* prohibitive that some may still pursue as a stunt and then probably learn why it's not a good business model. Fools and their money…
Anyway, I was not inspired to do a post, as whether or not we go that way has little bearing on the larger story of modernity's failure.
Tom, have you or would you ever do posts on what you think a post modernity world might look like?
Subsistence farming? Back to hunter/gatherer tribes? Something else you have considered?
Thank you
Building a future scenario involves lots of assumptions and is generally a great way to illustrate mental incapacity (of any human). The universe will put so much more "thought" into it as to make any exercise at prediction seem silly. All I can really do is identify what does not seem to work (on 10,000–100,000 year timescales), note that human life 150,000 years ago seemed to do reasonably well (still in the originally-evolved niche), and offer my best guess that any successful long-term human future is more likely to resemble hunter-gatherer than agricultural lifestyles. But it can't be exactly the same, in ways I would feel foolish trying to predict. Some of what we've learned will be preserved if it is useful and not inherently destructive.
One guide is correcting "survival of the fittest" framing into "survival of the best fitting." What matters is fitting within an ecological context, in reciprocal relationship to a broader Community of Life. That's where support for longevity arises. It's then a little easier to ask: is X practice thoroughly integrated into the surrounding ecology, or is it trying to do its own thing by its own novel rules (novel meaning less than 100,000 year old: too fast for ecological pronouncement)?
Understood! I appreciate your response!
For whatever it is worth… I would love to see like a two or three or four hour discussion or debate between you and a “prominent” podcaster or individual
Like a Joe Rogan or a Tucker Carlson (blech)… or even: Steven Pinker
Pinker’s whole bit… and I am sure I am paraphrasing here… Is that more or less human progress has been on an upward trajectory since it started… And we can reasonably expect it to continue that way…
However, I think he and people like him are wrong, and out of the books I have read on this topic (Bill Gates, Vclav Smil),… you are the only person that makes any sense to me. Our entire frame of reference for the past 200 years or so (modern agriculture, electricity, Internet, entertainment, travel, etc., etc. etc.) is built upon a foundation of fossil fuels that we are rapidly depleting and cannot replenish or replace… And nobody’s answering the big question about what comes after that… and you have looked at it… And unlike most people you’re not trying to sell anything… You are genuine and actually care about the truth… And are intelligent… And you have realized, like you have said, modernity is a firework show… It will end… And the future will look like the thousands of years before all of this stuff… And it would just be interesting to hear you have a truly rational discussion with a techno optimist like Stephen Pinker …
Have a great day sir!
If it helps, in the circels I move in, they would say that you *vastly* underestimate the degree to which most of the world no longer believes in progress.
What I am seeing, more and more amongst those friends that deemed you a fascist, is the redefinition of the future to mean fancy gadgets and social justice (included in which is various "greenwashed futures" like solarpunk– I would be curious to see what you have to say about that one for sure), not space colonies and flying cars.
Somewhat cynically rephrased, "space colonies don't fly when colonial is a dirty word."
I believe I know the type: probably scant grounding in physics, biophysical reality/constraints (have they built anything physical that must work amidst many competing constraints?), systems analysis, ecology, evolutionary biology, deep-time anthropology—or history, even, if I can be slapped with a fascist label! Bonkers. To so many people today, the world is magic, and human ingenuity is effectively unlimited: we can do anything we put our powerful minds to. The things we like need not incur costs we dislike. Because, right? The underlying metaphysics is likely dualist if not leaning toward idealist (matter is dumb and oppressive and at best merely instrumental—if even real). Human supremacy lurks around every corner (human rights is a *huge* focus; never newt-rights). Not much hope there, in my view: no kinship with animism. It's yet another expression of modernity's failure: a raft of wholly un-grounded products of a sick culture.
More or less.
These are the people who would also refuse to go to Mars or the Moon (ewwww, pasty whyteboy Elon Musk wants to go there– if you wondered why gizmodo suddenly published a hit piece on Mars colonization when SpaceX started blustering) but somehow have deluded themselves into thinking they can "manifest" a "bright green future" via…. wishful thinking and buying a vgean smoothie ig.
For a very brief tangent on genres, a brilliant piece of wit I found lying about:
"Cyberpunk was written by people with their fingers on the pulse of history.
Solarpunk is being written by people with their heads buried in its outhouse pit."
Amazing.
Yes, and when they hear you say ‘sick culture,’ it confirms their perception of you as a fascist.
Two other reactions I have heard when I point people to your blogs or pods:
(i) "Tom Murphy does not see this [the degrading effects of the capitalist system] or chooses not to see it, I believe the former. Perhaps to avoid being labelled a communist".
(ii) Another person I spoke to agreed at first with much of what you say, but was really upset about the pessimism and lack of solutions or suggestions for the future. When I suggested "do as little as possible, i.e. don't meddle, or when you have a choice chose "the community of life"" – all hell broke loose and the person stated that he rather committed to the AI and other technical solutions recommended by authorities.
Thanks for sharing these insights, which I admit are baffling to me. Why on Earth would I exempt capitalism as a key element of a sick culture? My Worst Inventions post even describes money in general as a terrible idea! Maybe some people interpret "culture" very narrowly as theater, arts, music, and gender fluidity—while to me it's the whole (human supremacist) package of mythology about who we tell ourselves we are: the overall customs by which we arrange our lives. The only reason I would object to being called communist is that I'm sooooo far left of communism that it seems right-wing and fascist-adjacent to me (see Marx–Hitler Spectrum post). I guess the lesson for me is to work on broadening people's definitions and scope.
Pessimism for modernity is not the same as pessimism for humans as an ecological organism, but getting upset reveals where values lie. You characterized the position well, but it's a huge threat to team modernity (team sixth mass extinction).
In (ii), it sounds like that person believes that there simply must be a solution because, well, there must be. We probably all want modernity to continue, at least whilst we're alive, so there must be a way for that to happen!
Reality doesn't care. Modernity is unsustainable and, so, must end.
https://mikerobertsblog.wordpress.com/2025/07/20/it-must-be-possible-it-just-must/
I have only in recent weeks stumbled upon your writing which opened my eyes to all the extra problems I never thought about with already ongoing problems of climate change and current arising crises of which I am aware for quite some time.
And yet it disturbs me less than knowing people willingly or ignorantly dismiss these worries and are counting on technology they don't understand, not that I am much or at all better in understanding basics or everything, to save them and that we will simply adapt to a whole new set of game rules while the cards are stacked against us.
I have my doubts about the future of hunter-gathering as well, maybe I'm no expert on radiation but one thing bothers me that seemingly everyone neglects to mention in post civilization breakdown. What's going to happen to all the toxic landfills or better yet, who is going to take care of Chernobyl and or other radioactive materials? The sarcophagus/arch won't last forever.
Humans are in no way guaranteed a future on the planet: lots could go wrong, given the enormous gut-punch the biosphere has taken. It seems certain the Earth can't support billions of humans without fossil fuels and other fragile dependencies. If the house of cards falls quickly, what little integrity is left in the wild may be quickly overcome (e.g., firewood/hunting). If, however, 7.9 billion humans disappeared in a flash (as a thought experiment), I would bet the resiliency is still present for recovery. Even places like Chernobyl appear to have fostered a boom in wildlife. What ills persist there are not overpowering, it would seem, and on the wane. So the question is how exactly the great transition plays out. Natural demographic decline—in progress—is the most hopeful possibility. But modernity's subsidence won't be as easy as all that, without a fair dose of tantrum/protest/death-throes.