Resilience.org is running a series of posts capturing a conversation between myself and energy transition advocate Dave Murphy—moderated by Ben McCall. The entire conversation (from back in 2023–2024) involved eight exchanges. I echo the conversation on Do the Math, with additional commentary. The first three rounds were presented in Part 1 and Part 2, while this installment covers the fourth and fifth rounds (appeared on Resilience on May 6).

The relevant portion of the original content is replicated below, followed by additional comments from me that are not addressed in the exchange itself. Within the text, links within [square brackets] point to content further down the page. At the end of each addition, another link returns to the paragraph of origin (or use browser “back” navigation). If preferring not to interrupt the flow, those additional comments are always waiting at the bottom to scoop up any time.

Fourth Exchange: Inexhaustible Flows

Ben: We’ll come back to the near-term (decadal) question of modernity and ethics, but let’s focus for now on the mid-term (centurial/millennial) scale that Tom mentions. Dave, what do you think we can confidently assert about what a “sustainable” civilization would look like on the ~1000 year timescale? Are you inclined to agree with Tom’s perspective, or are there substantive points of disagreement here?

Dave: The population of the Earth was roughly 300 million in 1000 AD. One thousand years later it is 26 times greater, at 7,800 million. I doubt that the population of the planet will be 26 times greater in 1000 years, at 202,800 million. That is about all I can confidently assert. [More on limits to confidence] I don’t think future societies will be anything like the past. I agree that we are now in a precarious position with a society that was built upon stocks that are running low, but we are also transitioning to flows that are inexhaustible [Really?]. The system we are moving towards is also much more efficient. What we disagree about seems to be less about whether the future will be different, but more about what we know and don’t know about the future and also what we are to do about it now. So I see possibilities, but how those possibilities unfold is unknown.

So when presented with this type of situation, I strangely think of the hawkish former Secretary of State and friend-to-few-scientists, Donald Rumsfeld, whose musings about such prognostications are without parallel [Agreement on Rumsfeld]:

Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.

Borrowing this analytical framework, I might suggest the following:

Known-Knowns: There are planetary limits.

Known-Unknowns: The scale and duration at which modernity can continue in the future based upon renewable energy.

Unknown-Unknowns: I feel as though there is much unknown about the future and we should be humble in our approach (e.g. nobody foresaw with any accuracy the timing and scale of the war in Gaza [Gaza?], or the rate of adoption of solar power). But I get the impression that the doomer’s perspective leaves less doubt. There is little room for anything unknown when the fate of modernity is “basically guaranteed” [Guaranteed?].

This conversation also reminds me of something I heard at a Peak Oil conference years ago. An investor was asked “how do you think about long-term investing?” The investor’s reply was “I tend to think about getting the short-term right, and, over time, that means I get the long-term right as well” [On following your nose].

I bring this up simply to say that we need to think about civilization today and in the future, and hold them both equally. Just because it is hard to predict what might happen in the “messy decades-scale” view, doesn’t mean we should abandon hope for people today. Aren’t decisions made today civilization-relevant as well?

Ben: I definitely want to return soon to the topic of decisions being made today, and near-term impacts! But for now I’d like to stay focused on the long term — I think if we can come to a shared understanding of the constraints that planetary limits place on the long-term, that will help inform better/appropriate near-term decisions.

The picture Dave has implicitly painted here, of the possibility of a “neomodern” civilization that can persist for thousands of years relying on inexhaustible flows rather than depleting stocks, is certainly an appealing one! Dave has suggested that “the scale and duration at which modernity can continue in the future based upon renewable energy” is a known-unknown. Tom, I sense that you would disagree with that suggestion, or that you would at least say there are known-known constraints on that scale/duration. Am I right?

Tom: Right—I think we can say more about what is likely to succeed or fail. By definition, unsustainable systems (like modernity, I would say) are guaranteed to fail. Even centuries ago, when the scale of human activity was lower by orders-of-magnitude, we were already ecologically unsustainable as accumulating declines began to become apparent. The trends are now alarmingly steep: more decidedly unsustainable and thus unambiguously marching toward failure.

I wish I could share optimism for inexhaustible flows and continued efficiency improvements—to great personal relief! But many factors intercede, for me. Energy—while very important to modernity—is only one part of the story. If any element critical to modernity is exhaustible, then it won’t matter if another is inexhaustible. For instance, even tireless energy flows like sunlight, wind, and the hydrological cycle are diffuse and require an enormous amount of “stuff” in the form of non-renewable materials to capture, convert, and store the energy. Ecologically harmful mining would therefore need to continue indefinitely (incompatible with planetary limits), to replace worn devices. Recycling is not an everlasting answer: it might extend the clock a few more centuries, but can’t change the end result. Meanwhile, efficiencies already tend to be within a factor of two of theoretical limits, so not much gain remains in that quarter.

Beyond the confines of energy, modernity relies upon rapidly declining stocks and overtaxed flows in the form of aquifers, soils, materials, forests, and fish (to name a few)—sadly resulting in permanent, accelerating species loss. Meanwhile, enormous waste and pollution streams (beyond CO2) overwhelm the assimilative capacity of the ecosphere. Not only does the chimera of inexhaustible energy fail to address these dimensions, it is precisely the availability of large amounts of energy that drives these destructive trends. Powering modernity by alternate means could easily end up hurting more than helping, where it counts [Does this get traction?].

It is true that biology has figured out how to make indefinite use of inexhaustible flows, using a bare minimum of common minerals. But artificial systems are nowhere close to achieving such a feat in energy or any other domain. I don’t see us getting there, and certainly not soon enough to matter. To illustrate the gap, we are utterly incapable of running a controlled artificial ecosystem that can support human life—even for months, let alone indefinitely. Relatedly, the space station routinely replenishes its oxygen via costly rocket delivery from the surface so that inhabitants can breathe (aggressive recycling can’t keep up).

Humans are a powerful species, clearly capable of planetary exhaustion. It seems the only way we can live sustainably is by putting ecological health first and—through this lens— either rethink or abandon every human (cultural) construct [becomes a theme]. I doubt the result is something we would still call modernity.

As for feeling our way forward, I would prefer to avoid likely dead-end paths that could simply dig the hole deeper. My hope lies not in technological provision of the very energy that destroys environments, but in deciding that other goals are more important for humanity.

Fifth Exchange: Horses and Whales?

Ben: Dave, what do you see as the flaws in Tom’s argument here? [Note: for the moment, I’m keeping the focus on the millennial timescale…we will soon come to near-term timescales!]

Dave: I am sorry to disappoint, Ben, but Tom’s perspective leaves little room for agreement.

First, energy and technology are neutral [Are they?]. The statement “precisely the availability of large amounts of energy that drives these destructive trends,” is incorrect. The existence of donuts doesn’t drive weight gain, the decision to consume them does. The availability of large amounts of energy may enable destructive trends, but it does not drive them. Humans are steering the modernity spaceship. We are the ones choosing overexploitation of nature and trading that for short-term growth in GDP. We created these mental constructs and we can create new ones that are more harmonious with nature.

Second, the statement “If any element critical to modernity is exhaustible, then it won’t matter if another is inexhaustible,” is clever trickery. The statement is true when taken in the abstract, but apply that as a hypothesis to the past 250 years and it fails miserably.

For example, let’s propose this hypothesis:

H1: Horses are the most powerful tool in agricultural production.

If testing this hypothesis in 1650 A.D., we would probably support the hypothesis, but testing it today would clearly result in a rejection.

Or, for another example, take this:

H2: Whale oil is critical for modernity.

Well, if this hypothesis was posed in 1850 A.D., then H2 would similarly be supported. Today? Not so much. [Did this response do the job?]

The point is this: the economy is evolutionary and adaptive, and an element that is critical today might not be critical in 30 years, and this ability to shift resources has been shown time and time again over the past centuries. Why do people keep ignoring the ability of the economy and human society to adapt to constraints? [Technology saves us?] And before I get cast aside as a techno-utopian, let me state my views on this. I do not think that technology can solve humanity’s biggest challenges, but I don’t see them as limiting them either. I simultaneously hold the views that technology can alleviate many (if not most) of our resource and technical barriers to sustainability, while also holding that the biggest challenges we face are not solved by technology. They are not mutually-exclusive views. Can these technologies provide a sustainable future? Yes — they can. Will we get there via technological invention alone? No.

I could spend the next 10 pages writing about all of the analyses that have been done over the past few years indicating that there are no major material constraints to the energy transition, that we have more than enough technology and “know-how” to provide stable grids with intermittent power, that we can produce enough water and food via ecologically friendly agro-ecological practices to feed the billions on earth, that most of the challenges we face in modernity are human-created and therefore human-fixed. But, to what end? [On the skirmish over materials]

We are avoiding the heart of the matter, which is summed, I think, in the following two questions:

First, what does it mean to be sustainable from Tom’s perspective? Inferring what I can from his comments, it seems that any human perturbation to natural ecosystems is unsustainable, or perhaps another way, any interruption to the natural energy flows through a natural ecosystem is inherently unsustainable. Modernity was unsustainable before the industrial revolution, according to his perspective, and now is even more so. Not only is there no space in this view for what is described herein as modernity [Why is that?], there isn’t space for humans or any type of human society [Oops: swept too broadly]. Until we have a clear picture of what sustainability means we will simply talk in circles.

Second, I posed these questions earlier and they went unaddressed and yet I think they are core to our disagreement, so I will repeat them here: “Do we have an ethical obligation to other members of that Spaceship, i.e. society? Does each of us have an obligation to “love thy neighbor?” If so, what does it mean to love thy neighbor in this context?”

The ultimate question, which brings us around to the beginning of this conversation, is whether we as a species and society can adapt in the future to become more sustainable, and perhaps at some point, just plain-old “sustainable.” Tom and I agree on one point, and that is that getting there will require cultural change. It is the “how” and the “what” that causes discord. That is, how human society will shift to a sustainable version of itself and what that sustainable version looks like [Can it just do that?]. I disagree that we need to rethink or abandon all human cultural heritage. I think the solutions will come from building on that accumulated cultural knowledge, particularly from, for example, indigenous communities that lived in harmony with nature for millennia. What do we humans gain from abandoning human culture, which is perhaps the defining characteristic of our species? [Don’t abandon Indigenous culture!]

Ben: Tom, I’m sure there’s a lot in Dave’s remarks here that you’d like to respond to, and in the fullness of this conversation we can get to all of that. But for the moment, I’d like to turn our attention to the two questions that sum up the “heart of the matter” for Dave. Let’s begin with his first question: What does it mean to be sustainable? Is any human perturbation to natural ecosystems, or any interruption to the natural energy flows through an ecosystem, unsustainable? Where is the space for humans, or human society, in this context?

Tom: To me, sustainable means living in a way that does not lead to rapid declines in ecological health or non-renewable resource stocks. The timescale for defining “rapid” must be in the context of evolution, which probably means at least tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Proponents of modernity would likely call this timescale outlandish, which is actually part of the present problem. Humans have been on the planet for millions of years, and Homo sapiens for hundreds of thousands. So the number has a basis.

At a gentle-enough pace of change, the community of life has a fair chance of adapting. Sustainable does not mean static: evolution is never static. Perturbations happen all the time, accompanied by adaptation. Sometimes perturbations are enormous enough to cause mass extinctions, the sixth of which appears to be underway. One could make the argument that—like volcanoes and asteroids—humans are of this world and that causing a mass extinction is fair play: it’s all just nature doing its thing. Maybe, but I won’t label that outcome as sustainable. [Is anything outside nature?]

Humans obviously have a place on the planet, as part of nature. Human societies and cultures have a place. Nothing excludes this, and indeed human cultures have coexisted in a more-or-less sustainable fashion for eons. The statement that “there isn’t space for humans or any type of human society” goes too far, in my view, as we have loads of evidence to the contrary, unless Indigenous people do not qualify as any type of human society.

Before getting to future possibilities, I should address megafauna extinctions. I don’t want to paint pre-agricultural humans as angels: we are now and always have been no more or no less than animals on this planet. Humans represented a significant evolutionary perturbation. In Africa, the co-evolution of humans and other animals allowed megafauna to persist—understanding this gangly ape to be deceptively dangerous. Elsewhere, migration of humans outpaced evolutionary adaptation—but such things are not unique to humans in evolutionary history, and the result was still “by the rules.” Today, the pace of extinction is orders-of-magnitude higher. Importantly, I can’t as easily excuse the current behavior, as we now know better.

So yes, I classify modernity as (woefully) unsustainable based on the ecological nosedive and its substantial reliance on numerous non-renewable resources. I classify Indigenous hunter-gatherer cultures as being demonstrably sustainable—at least effectively so. That doesn’t mean these are the only two choices. What’s exciting to me is that we might yet invent new modes that perhaps blend elements of both with new ideas: I’m not calling to “abandon all human cultural heritage.” But to be sustainable, we may have to reject a majority of modernity’s tenets, and would do well to build on a worldview closer to that of our sustainable ancestors—at least in adopting humility as foundational in our relationship to the community of life.

We have demonstrated ample capacity to destroy ecological health. Given this, success (synonymous with sustainability) requires prioritizing the health of the more-than-human world above human concerns—as incongruent as that notion is with modern cultural values.

End of Part 3

This third post covers the fourth and fifth of eight exchanges (Resilience truncated at 4.5, but I let a bit more slip through to complete the round). We’ll pick up the conversation in the next installment. The sections that follow offer additional commentary that was not part of the initial exchange. Turns out, I had more to say.

Limits to Confidence

I will admit that Dave is more open-minded than I am in some respects. He limits his confidence to the statement that he doesn’t think Earth will support as many as 200 billion humans. My number would be perhaps four orders-of-magnitude smaller (having some basis in millions of years of evidence involving humans living within ecological bounds).

But he does immediately say that he doesn’t think future societies will be anything like the past. Does this mean he’s confident that humans will never again live in a hunter-gatherer mode? Here, perhaps I’m the more open-minded. (Return to conversation)

Inexhaustible

I was knocked a bit sideways by the framing that we are in the process of switching from finite stocks (e.g., fossil fuels) to inexhaustible flows (e.g., solar and wind). It seems like a bit of fantasy: that we are about to unlock infinity.

I briefly address this disconnect in the published response, but it’s a big topic, which inspired a post a few years back. (Return to conversation)

Rumsfeld

Despite ideological disagreements, I will admit that Rumsfeld had some wisdom to offer. Besides the known/unknown landscape, I also appreciated the “go to war with the army you have, not the army you want” statement. It’s bowing to material reality over idealism. The “knowns” framing has close parallels in experimental sciences in which uncertainties come in various flavors: known/measurable quantities; known/calculable random/sampling uncertainties, and unknown systematic uncertainties outside the scope of measurement (e.g., the apparatus doesn’t measure what you think it does, or some relevant influence is absent in your model). (Return to conversation)

Gaza

Wait: did he mean Iran? No, this exchange took place back when Israel went into Gaza with deadly force. (Return to conversation)

Guarantees

A key sticking point is the purported “guarantee” that unsustainable fails. To me, that’s a tautology. It follows by definition. In the Rumsfeldian framing, different people may possess different understandings of where the boundaries are between the known and unknown. An experimenter may be unaware of apparatus limitations that the builder of the apparatus knows all too well. This is only to say that some unknowns can be sketched out with a bit of analysis. If someone has never spent time assessing millennium-scale material (e.g., metal) availability in the context of finite stocks and realistic recovery rates for recycling, then no constraints are apparent on this score, and conveniently remain wholly unknown (to the brain in question). Words like “recycling” substitute for nitty-gritty practicalities. Chipping away at ignorance results in chipping away at the menu of viable options. If one has not internalized the sixth mass extinction, and is unappreciative of deep ecological interdependencies, then many more options seem possible in the seemingly-unconstrained space. (Return to conversation)

Follow Your Nose

Dave offers the wisdom of an investor, who claims assurance at getting the long term right by getting the short term right. Likewise, a planet has no “plan” to complete an orbit, but by following “local” laws, will end up doing so—time after time.

This works as long as the rules/context don’t change. An investment strategy that works during boom-time on a quarterly basis is likely to work for years or decades if the context is approximately steady or evolves smoothly in a similar overall direction. But a strategy that works in the short term in one context may be diametrically opposite prudent action in the case of a fundamental reversal. Investors alive today have never known decades-long systemic contraction, so take their wisdom with a grain of salt. Dave gets this, in other contexts, as he later acknowledges that horses are no longer as important to transportation as they once were. The best horsemanship practices (getting the short term right) weren’t going to set one up for being right about the longer term reality.

But one other swipe at the investor. Let’s say there’s a healthy market for sawdust. The more you can make, and the faster, the more reward you’ll reap. Short term focus says: make as much sawdust as you can. Except what if the sawdust comes from sawing the branch you’re standing on (between you and the tree)? You won’t get the long term right if the short term has perverse incentives. I’d say that modernity is one giant bolus of perverse incentives! Gizmos are the sawdust, derived from ripping the living world apart, as if just “resources” that play no substantive role in our underlying support. (Return to conversation)

Broaden Boundaries

I tried to expand the boundaries of the conversation beyond the energy sector, but to little effect. It also seems that my overarching point that the very use of energy at scale—in any form—is the problem produced no engagement beyond refutation (see Neutrality, two points below). (Return to conversation)

Rethink or Abandon

Just a quick note that this phrase: “rethink or abandon every human (cultural) construct” is later referenced with a main emphasis on abandonment. (Return to conversation)

Neutrality

It seems a bit fashionable in erudite (post-modern?) circles to declare technology (and energy) to be neutral. Guns don’t kill people, right? It’s perfectly reasonable to manufacture them as paper weights. Nuclear bombs are innocent: could just as well be purely decorative, even if fully armed. Fossil fuels don’t have to be used for combustion: they could fill swimming pools for slippery fun. Have as many guns and bombs as you want, and don’t blame the fossil fuels: they didn’t ask to be burned—just as the donuts didn’t ask to be eaten. That’s not what they’re made for: they’re made as neutral objects with no target use-case, right?

Confusingly, while abdicating any inherent intent when it comes to “neutral” technology, the underlying position here is that humans are firmly in charge: at the helm—expressed as: “We created these mental constructs and we can create new ones that are more harmonious with nature.” We don’t do things just because we can (or to make a buck), but act with full intent. Consequences don’t happen to us, but by our permission. Even in this (IMO flawed) framing, why not cast my efforts as exactly this: a call to discard the idea of modernity as a desirable way of being, in order to integrate more compatibly into the Community of Life? Why is it that only efforts that stick to modernity qualify as valid helmsmanship? I’d say the modernity-preserving options are all ultimately forms of fantasy, anyway: not something we can choose. (Return to conversation)

Horses and Whales

I was certainly not intending to engage in trickery. It seems that if a system requires many components, scarcity in any one component will be the limiting factor even if another is “inexhaustible.” If Mars had thousands of times more fossil fuels than Earth (it doesn’t), the lack of free (atmospheric) oxygen would render this “inexhaustible” supply unavailable for the purposes of combustion. Inexhaustible sunlight isn’t going to make electricity without non-renewable (exhaustible) stuff to make that happen.

I admit to being confused by the “counter” examples. They do not appear to point to a critical “weak link” in a practice. They just indicate that transitions happen. I can see why these are attractive arguments for why it might not be prima facie absurd to imagine solar and/or wind replacing fossil fuels, but where is the dependence on non-renewable substances to make it work? It doesn’t seem to address the main point I was trying to make.

If the insinuation is that someday solar panels will not need non-renewable substances (like copper, aluminum, ultrapure semiconductor materials), and can use renewable (self-growing, ecologically integrated) materials like plant matter, then it’s a big leap without any backup. Now that would be a clever trick! Oh wait: maybe it’s called a leaf, and as usual the living world beat us to it without once consulting meat-brains. But nature didn’t have leaves make electricity, so maybe it’s not so “smart” after all. (Return to conversation)

Techno-Can-Do

This earns the techno-optimist badge: “[T]echnology can alleviate many (if not most) of our resource and technical barriers to sustainability.” Yes, it is accompanied by an acknowledgment that it will take more than technology alone (presumably cultural factors as well). But it seems the lion’s share is imagined go be of technological provenance.

What is the basis for this faith, besides unexamined extrapolation? Is it mythology, or fact? Is it wishful, or analytical? Where’s the credible long-term plan that also addresses the sixth mass extinction and the myriad other impacts (unknown unknowns)? (Return to conversation)

Materials Skirmish

A pitched battle has transpired in the literature as to the material viability of an energy transition and subsequent upkeep. One can find peer-reviewed papers on either side. Perhaps the majority defend the viability of an energy transition (and subsequent carbon-free modernity forever), which isn’t surprising, culturally. The point is that arguments go both ways, making “the literature” an outlet for ineffectual posturing. None of the analyses build a sixth mass extinction (or other ecological concerns) into their models—because we cant: it’s beyond our capability. The incomplete and distorted map is certainly not the territory. (Return to conversation)

Excluding Modernity

Dave is critical of my exclusion of modernity as part of a viable future—as if by fiat. I can understand the frustration. But it’s not based on only a feeling.

At the risk of sounding condescending, I could replace the word “modernity” with “magic,” because both are tricks: temporary stunts. My worldview leaves no room for magic. I don’t feel particularly bad about that stance, if I define magic as something beyond physics, for instance. The asymmetry in evidence is staggering.

Is it any more legitimate to proclaim that modernity (or some recognizable version thereof) is sustainable? Can we just declare it as such? Do we have that sort of authority over the universe and over ecology? I do appreciate that many would reflexively say: “Yes.” But I believe my skepticism is justified.

To me, it is far less tenable to assert modernity as sustainable than as unsustainable. This is based on a lightning-short run (compared to relevant ecological timescales) and a rapid catastrophic toll on living communities—even before and without greenhouse gas contributions. (Return to conversation)

No Room for Humans?

Dave’s interpretation of my stance is that it “[leaves no] space for humans or any type of human society.” I struggle to reconcile this—especially in light of the fact that it doesn’t capture my views at all. Humans have been a part of ecologically-viable Communities of Life for millions of years. Of course there’s room! Every one of these humans were part of societies and cultures, in dizzying variety.

But if I replace “any type of human society” with the more restrictive “any type of society I would recognize as a sibling of modernity,” then maybe this is what I’m saying. Open the boundaries, and more becomes possible. (Return to conversation)

Transform Thyself!

The framing that we seek to understand “how human society will shift to a sustainable version of itself” seems to me to be trapped in a box, in that it is constrained to resemble itself through the process. That is: it is held to still be a form of modernity. The words “version of itself” carries all the implication, here.

I don’t think we can assert this condition, by fiat. My sense is that if humans are still around in 10,000 years, it will necessarily be in a form not recognizable to modernity. (Return to conversation)

Abandoning the Indigenous?

I was glad to see reference to “indigenous communities that lived in harmony with nature for millennia.” Note that it is exactly these Indigenous communities who had little or nothing to do with modernity. The less contact they had with modernity, the more successful they remained. These exemplary cultures indeed have much to teach us. Foremost: maybe abandon modernity!

This paragraph ends asking about the value of abandoning all human culture, which is not my proposal. As indicated, I believe we have much to learn from cultures that have steered clear of modernity’s influences. (Return to conversation)

Nothing Outside of Nature

As to “just nature doing its thing,” I should have included total nuclear destruction of the living planet as another way nature might very well work. I get to this in another context in the seventh round. But for now, I just wanted to point out the limits of the logical truism that nothing that happens in the universe is unnatural. So what? Are all things equally desirable because we can’t identify a line of separation? Lines are overrated. (Return to conversation)

Views: 108