Galactic Time

How old is your dog in galactic years? I mean, we have dog years and cat years for expressing time in the context of human lifetimes. Why not go big?

Many of our time units derive from astronomical cycles. The day is based on Earth rotation. The month hails from the lunar orbit (loosely…forcing an integer number into a year). The year, of course, clocks an orbit around the sun. After that, our ten-finger fetish creates decades, centuries, and millennia. Isn’t it interesting that no such convenient names are available for timescales longer than written human history? If that isn’t diagnostic of myopia, I’m not sure what is! Deep time is obsolete, to the modern. It’s like saying only the thin film of oil on top of the ocean holds any interest.

But back to the main thread, two other prominent astronomical timescales relevant to Earth arise once peering deeper into time. The first is precession. The Earth’s axis is tilted approximately 23.5° to the orbital plane, currently pointing darned close to Polaris (will be even closer in 2100, within half-a-degree). But the axis itself rotates around the line perpendicular to the orbital plane, tracing a loop on the starry sky with a period of about 26,000 years. Half-a-cycle from now, Vega will be the “north star,” albeit not nearly as close as Polaris gets (enjoy this golden age in the north!).

The other natural scale is the period of the solar system’s orbit around the galactic center, as the stars comprising the galaxy swirl under the grip of gravity. The period is about 225 million years.

Let’s cast significant developments in terms of these longer astronomical periods. It isn’t the first time I’ve made temporal analogs, and the reason I come back to it now is that it’s super-important to attain a grip on timescales that really matter. Otherwise, our culture’s extreme emphasis on the recent imposes a hyper-hyper-hyper myopia on us, keeping us utterly ignorant on the ecological front.

Continue reading

Views: 332

A Lawful Anarchist

You know me: I’ll go after almost any aspect of modernity, including technology, agriculture, or even written language. Let’s now take a big swipe at “The Law.” But first, we’ll need to get a few common reactions out of the way.

When I suggest that a rigid, codified legal system is an abomination that humans are better off not suffering, strong objections instantly arise on the basis that a lawless modernity would be a chaotic nightmare for all sorts of reasons.

I totally agree: modernity absolutely needs a legal system in place. So, sure: anarchy is no way to run modernity, but here’s the catch: modernity is no way to run humanity, or life on Earth more generally. Modernity, it appears, initiates a sixth mass extinction, and is thus effectively synonymous, just as unsustainable is synonymous with failure. Modernity has no deep-time ecological vetting, and is a transient offshoot that has—in a relative eye-blink—caused tremendous disruption to the prospects for a happy life for countless members of the Community of Life, including, of course, future humans.

So, ask not what modernity needs, because doing so is basically asking what the sixth mass extinction needs. As far as anyone knows, and certainly as the actual evidence reveals, the two are inseparably part of the same phenomenon. So, let’s get over prioritizing what modernity needs. Laws are among those “necessities” of the sixth mass extinction—a.k.a. modernity.

Continue reading

Views: 1256

Cerebral Disconnect

Cerebral contents pale in complexity and significance within the greater ecological universe.

Why are worldviews so drastically different? Why is it that obvious truths to one person can seem like unhinged insanity to another? The incongruity can be especially pronounced when pertaining to divergences among people who are clearly smart and well-educated.

The last month or so has been dedicated to posts airing the moderated conversation I had with Dave Murphy about whether technology saves modernity or the whole enterprise lacks viability. The net result is probably best described as an impasse: neither of us seemed to move very far from discordant starting positions.

This post contains a bit of musing about the foundations underpinning the disconnect. Because it comes out of my meat-brain, it’s likely all wrong—but it’s the best I can come up with. Maybe the general principle advanced here applies to other disconnects we encounter with others, to some degree. In a sense, it’s all in our heads.

Continue reading

Views: 1163

Two Murphys, Part 5

This kitten’s pre-analytic vision for what the unicorn can do is likely to come up short. Vroom!

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 six rounds were presented in Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 while this installment covers the final two rounds (also appeared on Resilience on May 26).

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.

Continue reading

Views: 1350

Two Murphys, Part 4

By Calvin pro7 (Wikimedia Commons)

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 five rounds were presented in Parts 1, 2, and 3, while this installment covers the sixth round (also appeared on Resilience on May 19).

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.

Continue reading

Views: 1467

Two Murphys, Part 3

Photo from Monash Universiry

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.

Continue reading

Views: 1759

Two Murphys, Part 2

Rapture predictions keep failing (by Robert Course-Baker on Pxhere).

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—the first two of which were presented in Part 1, while this installment covers the third exchange (appeared on Resilience on April 27).

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.

Continue reading

Views: 1919

Two Murphys, Part 1

This graphic could either represent insulin or the two Murphys. Do these curls make me look fat? (By AtikaAtikawa on Wikimedia Commons.)

Reslience.org is publishing a series of posts capturing a conversation between me and Dave Murphy facilitated by Ben McCall (three of the five co-founders of the Planetary Limits Academic Network). Here, I repeat the original content, and provide additional commentary [linked within the document inside brackets] on points that I did not fully address in the dialog. Clicking on the [additional content] links will send you further down this same post, where you’ll also find a link to return to the paragraph of origin (or use “back” navigation on your browser). Thus, you have the option to read commentary as you go, or save for later once reading the captured exchange. Either way works. Okay: here we go!

A Tale of Two Murphys: an interview, conducted in 2023–2024, by Ben McCall of two founders of the Planetary Limits Academic Network (PLAN): Dave Murphy, a prominent scholar of the energy transition movement, and Tom Murphy, a physicist who focuses on how fundamental principles can be applied to the Earth system as a whole. In this interview, we explore the continuum of perspectives within PLAN along a spectrum that might be labeled “doomer” on one end and “techno-utopian” on the other. Neither of the conversation’s participants could be labeled as either of these extremes, although it will be clear that they each lean more toward one side than the other.

Continue reading

Views: 2736

Babylonian Banter

Tower of Babylon (by Jankaka on Wikimedia Commons).

In November I gave a seminar talk for the Planetary Limits Academic Network about why I believe modernity to be a dead-end, while also touching on underlying attitudes that drive us in this destructive direction. When presenting the narrative that sequential development of agriculture, writing, money, science, and fossil fuels collectively constituted a decisive trap leading us to the current state, I got pushback from a few in the audience over the notion of determinism. See my Time on the River post for a flavor of this narrative.

Fans of Graeber & Wengrow’s Dawn of Everything (and there are many, especially in the left-leaning academic circles from which I hail) tend to be—like the authors—allergic to suggestions of determinism. They find the notion very appealing that we could just as well have designed and conjured the ideal technological society: egalitarian, global, peaceful, prosperous, clean, and all the rest. See Abundance as recent example of such eco-modernist fantasy. I was honestly stunned by the gross simplifications in Graeber & Wengrow’s book, which elicited a sharp critique from me.

The moderator of the seminar prodded Chris Smaje, in attendance, to comment on my negative portrayal of agriculture. Chris has written, among other books, A Small Farm Future, runs a blog of the same name, and is generally an advocate of a small-scale agrarian response as a path to exit modernity—which in itself I believe is a fine (transitional) strategy.

The discussion prompted Chris to draft a blog post, which he passed by me to avoid misrepresentation and to solicit comments. We had an engaging e-mail exchange for a bit, and last week his post (By the Rivers of Babylon: debating agrarianism with Tom Murphy) went live. This post offers my follow-up response on the subject.

Continue reading

Views: 4919

Ditching Dualism #3: The Divorce

Dualists have a foot in each camp, precariously.

Having prefaced this series on dualism with a clarifying exaltation and a grounding in animism, we’re ready to roll up our sleeves and trace the origins of dualism.

Animist tendencies have to be stamped out of children in our culture, who display a natural proclivity to treat the entire world around them as alive and full of potential friends. They soon learn from acculturated adults the sin of anthropomorphism. “Stop talking to that stool and inviting it for tea! Don’t dare project human greatness onto mere ‘things’—or even animals. No, not even Boots, the family pet. Yes, technically humans are animals, but that’s just a quirky fact, not how we should act.” Indeed, we do a number on our kids, molding them into fine little human supremacists.

Viewing rocks and weather and rivers as part of a single, unified co-dependent Web of Life, animists are somewhat allergic to both supremacy and hierarchy. Humility is the watchword. We don’t and can’t understand enough to call ourselves superior, voiding any case for ranking. Many cultures recognized humans’ newbie status and explicitly looked for wisdom in our elder relatives: the plants and animals, who knew how to live in “right relationship” with each other and with the planet—tested over eons.

This aversion to hierarchy went hand-in-hand with “fiercely egalitarian” social practices—wherein everyone had essentially equal access to food and its means of procurement. Various “leveling mechanisms” were employed deliberately and explicitly to prevent the emergence of instability resulting from power concentration. Demand-sharing and jocular meat-shaming were common practices in this vein, all the way to banishment or death for dangerous aggrandizers (see also earlier, related work from Hayden). As Christopher Ryan phrases it in Civilized to Death, “There’s plenty of ferocity in the ‘fierce egalitarianism’ of foragers.”

So, what happened to upset this long-standing social order?

Continue reading

Views: 3990