Anyone with a plan or a set of policies that will "fix" things is lying to themselves and to you. It's not a matter of "if" things go sideways, it's more a question of "when" and "how bad will it be?"
Great synopsis of Tainter. After this point of the lesson is usually a call to Appropriate Tech - a movement from the 1970’s that I embrace. But over the years, I see the collapse of Western Liberal Democracy and its particular economic system as not the end of empires. What comes next is destruction by barbarians and looting of our assets by foreign corporations and ethnic mafias. The New York Jewish Mafia, including Jeffrey Sachs, raped Russia after the fall of the USSR. This is what we should expect, pillaging by the Russian Jewish Mafia as well as Mexican Drug Lords and Chinese Corporations.
Dmity Orlov is a Russian American that has taken this view since his book “Reinventing Collapse”. Here is Dmitry speaking today.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've written, but I'll try a thought experiment: can a full-scale collapse be avoided by reducing the number of problems society is trying to solve? Tainter's thesis seems to assume civilizations will always attempt to solve more problems, but could that desire be arrested? A sort of "managed collapse" in complexity (but without the negative connotations)? It would involve taking away a large percentage of administrative middle-manager bureaucratic jobs, which of course poses it's own problem of what to do with those people's suddenly idle hours (so yeah, I see where Tainter's coming from). Military service? Turbo charge the Peace Corps? Space exploration? Leave them to their own devices and see what happens? There are no good options, I suppose, but perhaps there are less bad ones.
When the electric grid goes down, 25% of the population of any 1st world country will perish within 30 days. 50% in 6 months.
There are people in cities that will die of thirst when water stops coming from their kitchen faucets. The predatory underclasses they mollified with free stuff will quickly begin to prey upon those that kept them fed throughout their lives, because that is what they’ve trained for.
As you say, this probably isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but it’s coming.
Wonderful work on Tainter and Ellul, dovetails nicely with work done by Scheidel and, a long time before, by Gibbon, all of which greatly surpass the rather moronic takes of people like Diamond. Excellent writing, was a pleasure to read.
One of the interesting things I've been watching for the last 15 years is the rise of the maker movement. The intuition that the current civ is on a ticking clock is deep within the current class of not-quite elites, and the number of people who spend their days in high profile occupations and their nights doing metal work, re-learning and refining ancestral crafts, and learning how to re-localize--while not a mass movement--is quite striking. There are many secondary and tertiary areas of the United States, at least, that are better-and-better poised for a post-collapse soft-landing as time goes on.
Making history into a science is a tempting idea, but its as flawed as trying to turn sociology or economics into the new physics. Our actyal problem is we're too weak to admit that we have been conquered by a foreign caste who hates us. Remove them from power and we remove many of our problems.
Gave voice to a feeling deep within my bones. Higher education seems to me to be geared almost entirely to get people to run the system. Thanks for your writing this
I can't stop thinking about an article in our Norwegian state media I read the other day, about how a father and two teenagers lost their wife/mother because she dropped dead at her training studio. The focus was that they sat alone all evening, and no crisis team was available at night to help them at this difficult time. The implications were mind-boggling to me. It gave me an eerie end-of-the-world feeling, and not because of the SADS. This article explains why. Thank you!
Disasters or the potential for disaster are part of the general in breaking of God’s judgement on mankind. Until that big one comes there is still time to get right with God. Also, knowing the that these disasters will also bring material hardship, we should prepare and make ready for this as well.
It's ironic that many of the so-callled Rightwing double down on the "solutions" that got us here to begin with. What is interplanetary and interstellar travel except pushing the envelope of progress which so many of us already lament? Even so, the dream of spaceflight remains nostalgic to me. Can't quite let it go.
Excellent article, especially in combining Tainter and Elul. Thanks for publishing it. With regard to what the end will look like, I think the bad news is that it will be catastrophic—with high mortality—even if we try to deal with it as you suggest. The good news is that it may unfold over time slowly enough (e.g., as in the case of the Roman Empire, West and East) that while it will inflict misery on a massive scale, at least it won’t be all at once.
The most harrowing part of this (excellent) essay is definitely "Population will decline, perhaps steeply, to that which can be sustained on local resources."
I'm not sure most people realize just how drastic such a decline would have to be in order to be sustainable on local resources. I'd say, at a minimum, the entirety of the urban population. In both the U.S. and Canada, that's about 80%, though globally it's under 60%.
How exactly are we supposed to "prepare" for such a catastrophe?
We don't really have historical examples of this per se, unless the collapse referred can be akin to the Bolshevik revolution, Tokyo/Berlin 1945, decolonization, or various regime changes. Systemic collapse much more rare. Bronze Age collapse (of which we know very little, end of Roman Empire, what else? I understand the argument but wonder about the evidence.
This article gives a great exposition of Tainter’s argument but necessarily can only scratch its surface. Tainter examines in detail over a dozen civilizations around the world and throughout history, with lots of other examples brought in more briefly. He relies on compelling objective evidence (archaeological, financial, etc.) to make his argument, and the book has a works cited list that runs to 26 pages. It’s an eye-opening and convincing read—I highly recommend it.
Does he talk about the possibility of solving problems by *reducing* complexity? It seems at least theoretically possible. In fact, it seems to be the essence of conservatism (not that that means anything). Tainter's enthymeme seems to be that there is a necessary coupling of material and immaterial complexity. But is it theoretically *impossible* that some immaterial complexity be introduced which globally reduces material complexity? A metaphysical argument to this effect would be most fascinating.
Yes, but that process usually involves the shrinking of the civilization back to manageable levels. For a global empire, that effectively means breaking the empire up into manageable pieces, which is effectively the same thing. The difference being the pace of the decline. A slow contraction or a precipitous collapse. Because all forces are set to push us always “forward” a managed decline does not seem in the cards. All signs point to us reaching a tipping point, a crisis that cannot be “managed,” at which point collapse will come on us quickly. People have little idea how complex and fragile “the system” is.
The key is this: "efforts to actively assert and maintain the legitimacy of the system. Increased propaganda use. Increased manipulation of legitimizing instruments."
If your technology, say, makes electricity cheaper or more plentiful, this is a simplifying effect, or certainly thr benefits increase freedoms and opportinities. If your technology is, say, compliance software (most people want "scalable" desk work) then you add complexity, and you even require other externalities to help legitimize the nee3d for your product.
Great article. Lot to think about. One of the things both Ellul and Postman didn’t/couldn’t predict was the emergence of the non-monistic, bottom up technical order, particularly in public discourse. While blockchain, AI, distributed media (etc, etc) are still from the technological society, they emerged out of a more localized order (low capital intensive). The globalist state is of course trying to subsume these things and the general public is willing to bow the knee to the hopium of the new thing, but there is some remnant of us who use the techniques to extend the reach of the individual, local and church community (non technically). A lot of tension/grey area to navigate the prophetic philosophy with appropriate local human action. It’s far too easy to see where we live as the center of collapse rather than it happening elsewhere (actually the case). What do we mean when we say collapse? What did Jesus mean when he said the Sun, Moon and stars would go out (in terms of being prepared)…
Great synopsis of Tainter. After this point of the lesson is usually a call to Appropriate Tech - a movement from the 1970’s that I embrace. But over the years, I see the collapse of Western Liberal Democracy and its particular economic system as not the end of empires. What comes next is destruction by barbarians and looting of our assets by foreign corporations and ethnic mafias. The New York Jewish Mafia, including Jeffrey Sachs, raped Russia after the fall of the USSR. This is what we should expect, pillaging by the Russian Jewish Mafia as well as Mexican Drug Lords and Chinese Corporations.
Dmity Orlov is a Russian American that has taken this view since his book “Reinventing Collapse”. Here is Dmitry speaking today.
https://youtu.be/HpzaXUww-K0?si=DVIDkIFW5dGF0bMM
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've written, but I'll try a thought experiment: can a full-scale collapse be avoided by reducing the number of problems society is trying to solve? Tainter's thesis seems to assume civilizations will always attempt to solve more problems, but could that desire be arrested? A sort of "managed collapse" in complexity (but without the negative connotations)? It would involve taking away a large percentage of administrative middle-manager bureaucratic jobs, which of course poses it's own problem of what to do with those people's suddenly idle hours (so yeah, I see where Tainter's coming from). Military service? Turbo charge the Peace Corps? Space exploration? Leave them to their own devices and see what happens? There are no good options, I suppose, but perhaps there are less bad ones.
When the electric grid goes down, 25% of the population of any 1st world country will perish within 30 days. 50% in 6 months.
There are people in cities that will die of thirst when water stops coming from their kitchen faucets. The predatory underclasses they mollified with free stuff will quickly begin to prey upon those that kept them fed throughout their lives, because that is what they’ve trained for.
As you say, this probably isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but it’s coming.
Not to mention the "underprivileged" they insisted on importing. It wasn't the working class who asked for that.
Most people cannot conceive of how hard life can become.
Wonderful work on Tainter and Ellul, dovetails nicely with work done by Scheidel and, a long time before, by Gibbon, all of which greatly surpass the rather moronic takes of people like Diamond. Excellent writing, was a pleasure to read.
One of the interesting things I've been watching for the last 15 years is the rise of the maker movement. The intuition that the current civ is on a ticking clock is deep within the current class of not-quite elites, and the number of people who spend their days in high profile occupations and their nights doing metal work, re-learning and refining ancestral crafts, and learning how to re-localize--while not a mass movement--is quite striking. There are many secondary and tertiary areas of the United States, at least, that are better-and-better poised for a post-collapse soft-landing as time goes on.
Yes. There are those who are starting to wake up and prepare.
Making history into a science is a tempting idea, but its as flawed as trying to turn sociology or economics into the new physics. Our actyal problem is we're too weak to admit that we have been conquered by a foreign caste who hates us. Remove them from power and we remove many of our problems.
Gave voice to a feeling deep within my bones. Higher education seems to me to be geared almost entirely to get people to run the system. Thanks for your writing this
You’re welcome!
Doesn't sound bleak to me. Sounds lovely.
I can't stop thinking about an article in our Norwegian state media I read the other day, about how a father and two teenagers lost their wife/mother because she dropped dead at her training studio. The focus was that they sat alone all evening, and no crisis team was available at night to help them at this difficult time. The implications were mind-boggling to me. It gave me an eerie end-of-the-world feeling, and not because of the SADS. This article explains why. Thank you!
You’re welcome. Yes. The small canaries in the coal mine prophesy about what is coming. The time is now to get right with God and get ready.
I am not sure I follow your reasoning. Can you elaborate?
Disasters or the potential for disaster are part of the general in breaking of God’s judgement on mankind. Until that big one comes there is still time to get right with God. Also, knowing the that these disasters will also bring material hardship, we should prepare and make ready for this as well.
It's ironic that many of the so-callled Rightwing double down on the "solutions" that got us here to begin with. What is interplanetary and interstellar travel except pushing the envelope of progress which so many of us already lament? Even so, the dream of spaceflight remains nostalgic to me. Can't quite let it go.
It is a beautiful dream. But unfortunately, not one without a price.
Excellent article, especially in combining Tainter and Elul. Thanks for publishing it. With regard to what the end will look like, I think the bad news is that it will be catastrophic—with high mortality—even if we try to deal with it as you suggest. The good news is that it may unfold over time slowly enough (e.g., as in the case of the Roman Empire, West and East) that while it will inflict misery on a massive scale, at least it won’t be all at once.
The most harrowing part of this (excellent) essay is definitely "Population will decline, perhaps steeply, to that which can be sustained on local resources."
I'm not sure most people realize just how drastic such a decline would have to be in order to be sustainable on local resources. I'd say, at a minimum, the entirety of the urban population. In both the U.S. and Canada, that's about 80%, though globally it's under 60%.
How exactly are we supposed to "prepare" for such a catastrophe?
We don't really have historical examples of this per se, unless the collapse referred can be akin to the Bolshevik revolution, Tokyo/Berlin 1945, decolonization, or various regime changes. Systemic collapse much more rare. Bronze Age collapse (of which we know very little, end of Roman Empire, what else? I understand the argument but wonder about the evidence.
This article gives a great exposition of Tainter’s argument but necessarily can only scratch its surface. Tainter examines in detail over a dozen civilizations around the world and throughout history, with lots of other examples brought in more briefly. He relies on compelling objective evidence (archaeological, financial, etc.) to make his argument, and the book has a works cited list that runs to 26 pages. It’s an eye-opening and convincing read—I highly recommend it.
Thank you. I just got the audiobook and will listen.
Case in point, 21 paragraphs to describe the situation.
In the end, lawn care robots trimming the hedges with no people in the neighborhood will be the last bleep of civilization.
Does he talk about the possibility of solving problems by *reducing* complexity? It seems at least theoretically possible. In fact, it seems to be the essence of conservatism (not that that means anything). Tainter's enthymeme seems to be that there is a necessary coupling of material and immaterial complexity. But is it theoretically *impossible* that some immaterial complexity be introduced which globally reduces material complexity? A metaphysical argument to this effect would be most fascinating.
Yes, but that process usually involves the shrinking of the civilization back to manageable levels. For a global empire, that effectively means breaking the empire up into manageable pieces, which is effectively the same thing. The difference being the pace of the decline. A slow contraction or a precipitous collapse. Because all forces are set to push us always “forward” a managed decline does not seem in the cards. All signs point to us reaching a tipping point, a crisis that cannot be “managed,” at which point collapse will come on us quickly. People have little idea how complex and fragile “the system” is.
The key is this: "efforts to actively assert and maintain the legitimacy of the system. Increased propaganda use. Increased manipulation of legitimizing instruments."
If your technology, say, makes electricity cheaper or more plentiful, this is a simplifying effect, or certainly thr benefits increase freedoms and opportinities. If your technology is, say, compliance software (most people want "scalable" desk work) then you add complexity, and you even require other externalities to help legitimize the nee3d for your product.
Most of the complexity we see is the forces of competition trying to out-legitimize each other. If you don't mind me plugging my essay, it touches on this topic too. https://activisms.substack.com/p/compliance-with-vibes-is-the-primary?r=wbim
Great article.
Great article. Lot to think about. One of the things both Ellul and Postman didn’t/couldn’t predict was the emergence of the non-monistic, bottom up technical order, particularly in public discourse. While blockchain, AI, distributed media (etc, etc) are still from the technological society, they emerged out of a more localized order (low capital intensive). The globalist state is of course trying to subsume these things and the general public is willing to bow the knee to the hopium of the new thing, but there is some remnant of us who use the techniques to extend the reach of the individual, local and church community (non technically). A lot of tension/grey area to navigate the prophetic philosophy with appropriate local human action. It’s far too easy to see where we live as the center of collapse rather than it happening elsewhere (actually the case). What do we mean when we say collapse? What did Jesus mean when he said the Sun, Moon and stars would go out (in terms of being prepared)…