On Doomists and Realists
What should we call this age in which our thoughts and ideas have been formed? How should we characterize it?
“Men first feel necessity, then look for utility, next attend to comfort, still later amuse themselves with pleasure, thence grow dissolute in luxury, and finally go mad and waste their substance.” —Giambattista Vico
Like most people interested in what we call “the polycrisis,” I’m trying to navigate some complex domains of interest to understand it—it’s not easy.
Circumstances will dictate when and how we do things differently. Circumstances are prime movers of evolution.
I just read Steve Genco’s post on Medium, “There Is A Big Difference Between Doomers and Doomists.” I agree with the distinction between doomers and doomists according to his definitions and logic.
In contrast, Doomists don’t want to save themselves. They don’t build bunkers in the woods. They believe such actions are futile. They are firmly convinced nobody can be saved, because they believe extinction, or something very close to it, is inevitable. They are true believers in the Church of Doomism, which promotes its own gospel, the gospel of “radical acceptance”.
I’m also on board with what Mr. Genco says about radical acceptance.
This would not be so bad if there were not another significant difference between Doomers and Doomists: Doomists, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, are proselytizers. They are recruiters for the Church of Doomism. While Doomers just want us to get off their lawn, Doomists want us to join them in radically accepting the end we all face.
That being said, I haven’t met many doomers or doomists. I’m sure they exist, but I don’t think it’s a thing. Rolling coal is a thing. MAGA is a thing. Genocide is a thing.
I think doomers and doomists are few and far between. I’m guessing more people talk about the propaganda on the news or watch prepper shows on YouTube than there are preppers and doomists. Worrying about doomers and doomists is like being obsessed with WOKE or some other insignificant (compared to the dire challenges we face) culture war issue made popular by talk show hosts like Joe Rogan.
Joining the Church of Doomism offers another bonus: an opportunity to share in Doomists’ feelings of intellectual superiority as they look down on all the clueless people running around trying to do something to address any of the major challenges we face. By “do something” I mean invest in actions that diminish our CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions. That is Job #1 for humanity today. The list of efforts that can contribute to this goal is quite long (e.g., source), they are all ongoing, but they all involve hard work, significant costs, uncertain prospects of success, less than universal adoption, and dedicated political opposition standing in their way. Yet people … some people … persist. But for Doomists:
I’m sure hedge funds will invest in solutions as soon as those investments are immensely profitable.
A brief history of our kind
It’s generally accepted that there have been at least 21 recognized species of hominins. There was once much greater human diversity, with multiple hominid species coexisting on Earth. As recently as 15,000 years ago, Homo sapiens shared caves with Denisovans. I have some Neanderthal DNA in me. New fossil discoveries continue to reveal previously unknown hominid species, adding to the complexity of our family tree.
Today, experts’ best guess, based on fossil evidence and our molecular clock, is that hominids arose around 6 to 7 million years ago. The emergence of the first hominid wasn’t a sudden event. It was a gradual process with a series of intermediate forms. And all save Homo sapiens are extinct—no polycrisis required. We could discuss why they are extinct, but let’s leave that for another time. Not one of these creatures was a doomer or a doomist.
Our species, Homo sapiens, is surprisingly young compared to the long history of hominids. Current evidence suggests that Africa’s earliest anatomically modern humans emerged around 300,000 years ago. Even within our species, evolution is an ongoing process. Human populations have continued to adapt and change over time. While anatomically modern humans appeared around 300,000 years ago, the development of complex behaviors and symbolic thought, often referred to as “behavioral modernity,” likely occurred around 160,000 to 70,000 years ago.
The first civilizations are generally thought to have emerged around 3500 to 3000 BCE, marking a significant turning point in human history. This period saw the development of complex societies with organized governance systems, social structures, and advancements in various fields. People began living in cities, leading to increased population density and infrastructure development. Advances in farming practices allowed for food surpluses, supporting larger populations and specialized labor. Societies became more hierarchical, with different social classes and divisions of labor. Emporers, mystics, and priests created Big God stories. Organized government systems emerged, with rulers, laws, and administrative structures. The development of writing systems allowed for record-keeping, communication, and the transmission of knowledge—new technologies developed in areas such as metallurgy, pottery, and construction.
Civilizations developed relatively independently, with unique characteristics and contributions to human history. Their emergence marked a crucial transition from smaller, nomadic groups to larger, more complex societies that laid the foundation for further advancements and the world we know today.
Our species lived for thousands of years before becoming domesticated and civilized. Humans migrated around the globe in trepidation and survived. I imagine these prehistoric people communicated with nature and thought everything was sacred.
Then, after the fossil-fueled industrial revolution:
Modern Fossil-Fueled Technoindustrial capitalist, neoliberal, neoconservative, financialized global consumer culture is so recent and happened so fast that we hardly understand it. Although we have libraries of books from many related domains that shed light on what we call the polycrisis, most people don’t even know the first thing about what they take for granted.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a powerful tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of a product, process, or service throughout its life cycle. It is a “cradle-to-grave” analysis, scrutinizing every stage, from raw material extraction to final disposal, for potential environmental effects. OMG, I’m flying off on tangents where everything is tangential and interrelated simultaneously!
The polycrisis is a complex thing having much to do with psychosocial, sociopolitical, cultural, material… Holy good gosh, the list is long; I’d better stop here.
Oh, and many aspects of the polycrisis represent civilized, human-generated existential threats.
Electrification is a broad topic with many facets involving multiple domains.
Numerous books delve into the lives and works of pioneers such as Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Benjamin Franklin, and Michael Faraday.
“Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify the World” by Jill Jonnes
“The Electric Life of Michael Faraday” by Alan Hirshfeld
“The Age of Edison: Electric Light and the Invention of Modern America” by Ernest Freeberg
“Electric Universe: How Electricity Switched on the Modern World” by David Bodanis
Countless textbooks and handbooks cover the principles of electricity, electrical engineering, power systems, and related fields. These are essential resources for students and professionals. Books focusing on specific aspects like power generation, transmission, distribution, and electrical safety are abundant. We have dozens of books exploring how electrification has transformed societies, economies, and daily life. We have works examining the environmental implications of electricity generation and consumption, including renewable energy and sustainable practices. There are libraries of books and papers addressing the policy and regulatory frameworks surrounding electricity markets and infrastructure. We have libraries of documents, studies, scientific papers, and books focusing on the latest advancements in grid technology and decentralized energy systems. We have a lot of information concerning electric vehicles’ rise and impact on the automotive industry and transportation systems.
I can imagine a documentary in 2030 titled “Who Killed The Chinese Electric Car.?
Or how about a film called “Electricity! WOW!”
Power comes in many forms. Human power relations are crucial to the subject at hand.
Let’s have some fun with some Vaclav Smil quotes. Vaclav Smil is a prolific writer and interdisciplinary scientist known for his insightful and often contrarian views on energy, environment, and technological change.
“Our increasingly electrified, electronic, and data-driven society places steadily rising demand on reliable baseload power—that is, on electricity available 24/7/365.”
“The history of energy use is a sequence of transitions to cheaper, cleaner, and more flexible sources.”
“I live in a province where we have the cheapest electricity in North America—indeed, in the Western world—but all of it is perfectly renewable because we have beautiful Manitoba Hydro. We can put a river dam every few tens of kilometers. Bingo. One gigawatt here. One gigawatt here.”
“Energy is the only truly universal currency, and nothing (from galactic rotations to ephemeral insect lives) can take place without its transformations.”
“An abundance of useful energy underlies and explains all the gains—from better eating to mass-scale travel; from mechanization of production and transport to instant personal electronic communication—that have become norms rather than exceptions in all affluent countries.”
“I am probably one of the last people on the planet without a cell phone.”
Smil often uses his lifestyle choices to illustrate his skepticism towards technological hype and consumerism.
“Meat eaters don’t like me because I call for moderation, and vegetarians don’t like me because I say there’s nothing wrong with eating meat. It’s part of our evolutionary heritage!”
Are Vaclav Smil, Naomi Klein, Alice J. Friedemann, Charles A. S. Hall, Elizabeth Kolbert, and their ilk doomists or realists doing their best to navigate the complex topic of energy in the modern world?
Here’s a definition of doomist. After a few more years of inaction, we’ll see what a usage dictionary says about the word.
A person with a gloomy, pessimistic attitude about the future; a doomsayer.
Wiktionary
We are supposed to believe in the fantastic teleology of progress.
Houston, we have problems, but let’s not focus on them now; let’s wait until after we win the wars.
Can I be a wishist and a realist at the same time? And I think to myself, what a wonderful world it would be if every complex polycrisis were an engineering problem. If we were all Libertarian Anarchocapitalists, our problems would soon be solved. There is nothing modern technoindustrial civilization can’t accomplish. Heck, think of The Manhattan Project.
Later, I will comb through Mr. Genco’s hyperlinks and read about all the cool tech and solutions companies are developing. I hope there are some links about fifth-generation micro-home-fusion reactors. I’m just teasing. I’m sure Steve has included interesting references supporting his perspective, and I will check his hyperlinks.
Can I be several things at once without exploding with the horror of my deeply held contradictions? How about denialist, willful ignorantist, hopist, true believerist or coordinationist, coheasivist, culturist, solutionsist, etc.? I shall not be a revolutionist; that’s dangerous.
Peacemaker—anyone, anyone? No, not the Colt Army pistol, the Estimated 750 US military bases in 80 countries, or the UN Peacekeeping forces. I’m referring to diplomacy and international cooperation in solving civilization’s existential challenges. Knowing there is an urgent need to engage in such work is not indulging in doom; it’s practical. So when will it begin?
China. America. Do these Nation-States exist in entirely different worlds? China is electrifying, so let’s go to war with China. America helped create modern China and is partially responsible for its success. America First means that Americans should electrify first. Someday soon, probably next year. It’s not that hard, and then the rest of the world can have American businesses and know-how come in and electrify it. These countries can pay the United States with their oil, gas, material resources and cheap labor. Thanks. Our problems are solved. Get with “The Rules-Based Order” now!
He’s not a doomist, he’s a conman. It’s not that hard. Live large now! Pump and Dump.
Leave NIMBY and political paralysis out of it. Anything is possible, perhaps, but not highly probable.
Later, after I have looked at Mr. Genco’s links, I can cherry-pick some links to companies offering solutions to the electrification process. Maybe I’ll start a Cool Solutions Podcast. The idea that electrification is the solution to the polycrisis has critics from dozens of domains. They raise valid concerns about the materials needed for batteries and renewable energy infrastructure and the energy required to produce them.
Electrification requires vast amounts of metals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements. Mining these materials can have significant environmental and social impacts, including habitat destruction, water pollution, and human rights abuses. Thank the good neoconservative hawks in Congress for those 700-odd military bases. The neocolonial project of acquiring and controlling those resources is a bloody business.
Is it doomist to acknowledge that some critical minerals are relatively scarce, raising concerns about their long-term availability and potential geopolitical tensions over their control? When will Elon’s Starships land on other planets to bring back the minerals? Indeed, now that he’s in the government, he can have The Fed (banks) create the money to finance it. When will we get our Dyson Sphere? How much will that cost in energy and materials? There must be a social construct that can produce a Star Trek replicator.
While recycling is crucial, current technology for recycling batteries and other components is not yet fully developed or widely implemented, leading to concerns about waste and resource depletion—not to mention Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) again.
Abstract
Conventional Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods are able to assess environmental impact using significant resources (including time and data). However, due to the challenges associated with data collection these can still suffer from issues including representation accuracy, comparability, data availability, data quality, and uncertainty. This paper describes a new streamlined, high-level framework which seeks to solve these issues through rigorous and iterative application of existing standardised LCA methodologies whilst continually engaging with stakeholders. This new framework has been applied to an aviation case study, which seeks to investigate the potential environmental impact of implementing sustainable aviation fuel (including fuels based on used cooking oil, power to liquid technology, and hydrogen) and digitalisation of training regimes within a UK aircraft manufacturer. These are currently major areas of focus to enable the decarbonisation of the global aviation sector. The proposed framework allowed for efficient joint interpretation of results by different stakeholders, and therefore enabled effective strategic decision making without requiring the granular level of data detail demanded by conventional LCA frameworks. The case study has shown that each scenario offers potential reductions in global warming potential, fine particulate matter formation, and water consumption for an aircraft; but only when the associated supply chain is just as sustainable as the scenario in question. Overall, this research has shown that applying the new framework allows for rapid evaluation of decarbonisation technologies through rigorous environmental assessment to a degree accuracy which still enables strategic decision making, but without the use of unnecessary resources. Although this framework has been developed to work across product, platform, or system, further work should seek to apply it in different contexts as a LCA enabler within technological developments including exploration of other aviation decarbonisation pathways to achieve net zero.
Manufacturing batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and other electrification components often require significant energy inputs. Most of this energy comes from fossil fuels, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Embodied carbon refers to the total carbon emissions associated with a product’s entire life cycle, including its production. Critics argue that the embodied carbon of some electrification technologies can be substantial, offsetting some of their emissions-reducing benefits. Building the necessary infrastructure for electrification, such as transmission lines and charging stations, also requires energy and materials, further adding to the environmental footprint. Critics point out that solar and wind power are intermittent, requiring backup solutions or energy storage systems, which add complexity and cost.
Okay, back to Steve’s hyperlinks, I’m guessing they link to solutions; when do we invest in them and implement them?
NIMBY, Culture, Political Paralysis, War.
Upgrading and expanding electricity grids to handle the increased demand from electrification is a major undertaking with significant costs and potential disruptions. There are concerns that the benefits of electrification may not be evenly distributed, with potential for disparities in access and affordability for disadvantaged communities. Okay, but America First, right? And these kinds of processes are front-and-center concerns within American culture. Sorry, I guess not.
This new EV infrastructure will increase access and reliability to communities across the country and provides EV charging to light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles along designated highways, interstates, and major roadways. The funds are a part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s goals to support the growth of a convenient, affordable, reliable and Made-in-America national network of EV chargers so drivers can charge close to home, at work, and along significant corridors throughout the U.S.
Are people still rolling coal in America? MAGA rules the roost. No American president prioritized environmental concerns to a significant degree. Do Trumpists and the twin parties, the DNC and RNC, really care about infrastructure? How many years of lip service can we bear?
The military-industrial complex is already in place and profitable.
These criticisms don’t negate the importance of electrification. Many critics acknowledge that electrification is a crucial part of the solution to climate change. Their concerns highlight the need for careful planning, sustainable sourcing of materials, and continued innovation to minimize the environmental impact of this transition. (I’m sorry, I giggled, and that bit got italicized.) Efforts are underway to improve mining practices, develop more efficient recycling technologies, and transition to cleaner energy sources for manufacturing. However, electrification is not a silver bullet. It must be coupled with other strategies, such as energy efficiency, reducing consumption, and developing alternative technologies. I mean efforts that started 40 years ago before the climate polycrisis kicked into high, self-reinforcing feedback loops. Oh, 40 years from now? I’m confused. In what culture do we reduce consumption and plan growth within habitable limits? Global Culture! I am not advocating for a One World Government; that’s not what I mean; our problems are global now, on a scale that’s hard to comprehend.
But let’s be honest: without a culture that prioritizes justice, health, and the integrity of our environment, progress in these areas won’t be fast enough to save us from our addictions. Is that doomist? Transforming culture is extremely difficult. Reforming our socioeconomic and political systems and structures while collaborating with nation-states worldwide seems highly improbable anytime soon. In the meantime, the omnicidal heat engine known as modern civilization is becoming more complex and harder to manage. Many bright and optimistic people even think modernity itself is collapsing. But don’t worry, the engineers and technocrats will fix it. It won’t matter if they have to take a pay cut; they will do their duty and save us with their innovative projects because it’s the right thing to do.
Do we have time? When do we do this? When does the culture demand it? What are we willing to sacrifice for it? Will you give up some screen time to organize and demand a structural and systemic makeover of the United States of America (a.k.a., The Empire)?
Shall I call the producers of Queer Eye and nominate the United States? It’s amazing how those guys can transform a person’s life in one week.
Let’s walk into the forest and admire the trees.
A fraction of a percent of people in the USA and China are preppers or have the slightest interest in the polycrisis. Our fearless, hubristic, chauvinistic leaders are too busy prepping for and making war to give a hoot about spending some diesel fuel on electrification. They are not planning for or addressing “the polycrisis.” They think that idea is a doomist conspiracy theory. Half the country would laugh at you for caring.
The COP meetings are a joke!
How do we create a culture that would do things radically differently? Does it have to be a competition? China wins, and the USA loses? Are government officials and our leaders of corporate institutions doomers or careerists? What do they do for money? The US economy is based on capital on capital returns, not on solving the world's existential problems.
Everyone loses if we continue with our bankrupt ideological beliefs.
The Players of The Great Game are playing a self-terminating game, and they won’t stop because, here, now, it’s exciting. What do you give a leader who has everything? More control. As Warren Buffett said, money is just a way of keeping score.
Yet the USA has all the resources to solve many of the problems in the basket of polycrisis. Why didn’t leaders in the United States start solving these problems decades ago?
The culture is pathological; don’t worry, I won’t start.
The foolish ideologues are wholeheartedly invested in the structures and systems where they are employed. Our leaders won’t change the systems and structures in which they were born, bred, and programmed/educated, making them wealthy and prestigious.
Will the people running DJT comb through the hyperlinks in Steve Genco’s post and redirect their efforts toward electrification? Will they suddenly have an epiphany? Will they start reading Buckminster Fuller and subscribe to The Venus Project after all these decades? Our leaders aren’t even auditing the polycrisis conversation on podcasts, and YouTube is a place for the plebs and proles go to feel smart, not to wage revolution.
These ideas have been around for a while.
The world can collaborate to make a space station, but we can’t make peace. We lack imagination. We need more imaginists, creativists, peacists. How do we develop a culture like that? We need more than fantasists, con artists, and arrogant careerists.
We can build hypersonic ballistic missile systems to deliver nuclear weapons to locations worldwide; we can do that; we are clever engineers, and we have the technology, the resources, and the modern monetary theory to make these weapons systems and deploy them.
Let’s leave out all the physics and material limitations—heck, any limitations within which we must work—and believe that someone, somewhere, will do something. That will be nice. Until then, let’s have the conversation; it’s a feel-good activity.
How do we change our culture? If we can’t do that, we probably don’t have time to solve the polycrisis. Let’s try, but I wonder if enough of us have the right stuff to go against the power structures that be. What constitutes “the right stuff” in a world of complex crises and existential threats? Its learned behavior, motivations, and skill sets differ from those needed to win the Cold War before anyone thought a crisis might end Western Civilization. Decades ago, we were more excited about congratulating ourselves on ending history.
Let business continue as usual, and we will see what business people come up with—a pound of catastrophe and an ounce of cure—as long as it’s lucrative and you have the right insurance.
I am not a doomist. Our species survived under very different circumstances for tens of thousands of years, and we will do the same when we reach our limits to this particular kind of growth. Indeed, we are clever enough for that. Until then, do what you can and prepare for a new world. A world we cannot imagine; if we could, we would have done things differently by now.
