Advent of use of hydrocarbons for energy production has accelerated everything

Question:

Is there general agreement the advent of hydrocarbons for energy production has accelerated “everything”?

Chat GPT sez:

Yes, there is a broad consensus among historians, scientists, and economists that the widespread use of hydrocarbons (like coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy production has significantly accelerated many aspects of human civilization. This acceleration manifests in several key areas:

1. Industrial and Technological Development

• The energy density and scalability of hydrocarbons powered the Industrial Revolution, enabling the rapid mechanization of industries and transportation. This led to exponential growth in manufacturing, agriculture, and infrastructure development.

2. Economic Growth

• Cheap and abundant energy from hydrocarbons fueled unprecedented economic expansion, facilitating globalization, urbanization, and the rise of consumer economies.

3. Population Growth

• With improved agricultural efficiency (e.g., mechanized farming and synthetic fertilizers derived from hydrocarbons), food production surged, supporting rapid population growth.

4. Transportation and Connectivity

• Hydrocarbons revolutionized transportation (e.g., steamships, automobiles, and airplanes), shrinking the world by enabling fast, long-distance travel and trade.

5. Scientific Advancement

• The availability of concentrated energy sources has allowed for the advancement of technology in fields such as medicine, computing, and materials science.

6. Environmental Impact

• The extraction, refinement, and burning of hydrocarbons have also accelerated environmental changes, particularly through greenhouse gas emissions, leading to global climate change.

While hydrocarbons have catalyzed significant progress, they’ve also introduced complex challenges, such as environmental degradation, resource depletion, and geopolitical conflicts over energy resources. These dynamics underline the dual-edged nature of their impact on human development.

Question: And is there significant consensus the growth curve is parabolic, and thus in danger of a relatively rapid period of regression?

GPT sez:

Yes, the parabolic growth curve fueled by hydrocarbons has significant implications, particularly regarding the potential for a rapid regression. This concern arises from the unsustainable nature of exponential growth in a finite system. Key areas of concern include:

1. Resource Depletion

• Finite Supply: Hydrocarbons are nonrenewable resources. While advances in technology (e.g., fracking) have extended their availability, the extraction of fossil fuels will eventually become economically or physically unviable. The tapering supply could cause a sharp decline in energy availability, leading to cascading effects on industries, transportation, and economies reliant on cheap energy.

• Critical Materials: Many other resources essential to modern technology (e.g., rare earth elements) are also being depleted at an unsustainable rate, compounding the issue.

2. Economic Instability

• Dependency on Growth: Modern economies are structured around continuous growth, driven in large part by cheap energy. A decline in energy availability or affordability could destabilize financial systems and lead to economic contraction.

• Debt and Collapse Risks: Many nations and corporations have built significant debt under the assumption of perpetual growth. A regression could lead to widespread defaults, market crashes, and economic turmoil.

3. Climate and Environmental Feedback Loops

• Climate Crisis: The same hydrocarbons that enabled rapid growth have also caused climate change, with increasingly severe consequences (e.g., extreme weather, rising sea levels, and ecological disruptions). These feedback loops could exacerbate resource scarcity and social instability.

• Biodiversity Loss: The strain on ecosystems from human activity has already led to mass extinctions, reducing the resilience of natural systems that support human survival.

4. Social and Political Instability

• Geopolitical Tensions: Competition for dwindling resources may spark conflicts between nations, as well as within countries.

• Inequality: The benefits of growth have been unevenly distributed, and regression could widen disparities, fueling unrest.

5. Energy Transition Challenges

• Scale of Transition: Moving from hydrocarbons to renewable energy is a massive undertaking, requiring decades of investment and innovation. A sudden energy shortfall could outpace efforts to transition, leading to systemic shocks.

• Energy Return on Investment (EROI): Renewables generally have lower EROI compared to hydrocarbons, which could reduce the overall energy surplus available to society.

Potential for Rapid Regression

The danger lies in the interconnected nature of modern systems. A disruption in one area—such as energy supply or climate stability—could trigger cascading failures across others, leading to a steep decline rather than a gradual one. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as “Seneca’s Cliff,” reflects the idea that growth tends to be slow and steady, but collapse can be rapid.

Avoiding Collapse

To mitigate these risks, societies must:

• Invest in sustainable energy systems.

• Reduce dependency on continuous growth models.

• Promote resource efficiency and circular economies.

• Enhance resilience through localized systems and diversification.

In summary, while hydrocarbons have enabled explosive growth, the parabolic nature of this curve implies a vulnerability to regression. Proactively managing the transition to sustainable systems is crucial to avoiding a rapid and destabilizing collapse.

Modifying Aggression out of Humans

It can theoretically be done...now that we've cracked the riddle of the genome. It would come at a cost however, "drive" instinct, in other words survival instinct, would be blunted to one degree or other. So, in order for the species to continue, aggression modification could not be done to governing classes.

But is it actually true that this sort of modification can be done at all? The genome is, after all, incredibly more complex than is understood at this point. We do well to remember it is a "machine" we didn't invent. 

And is the word machine even applicable to biology?

Imagine now how intelligent "biology" has to be to "invent" biological structure to begin with, being, as it is, incredibly rare in the known universe. Human hubris, the hubris that may eventually destroy us all, is essentially (unconsciously and mythologically) the presupposition that we can invent, or at least modify, biology because we have invented wonderous things.

But those things are all mechanical. Technological. And now we have hubristically coined the term "biotech", as if we can begin to successfully invent biology itself.

We humans have great imaginative capacity, beginning in our early days, with mythology, and tool making. Mythology is by definition a fiction, and toolmaking is the beginning of science and technology, which is not a fiction.

We have also created a literary genre called science fiction. In our imaginations we blur these two opposites together as if they were one, in an illustration of the continuing power of mythology to capture our imagination. Mythology is an important part of our survival instinct called "hope", and it would not be there to begin with if it was not an important part of survival. Hope drives us forward.

Ideally, however, we would develop the capacity to see and understand our hubristic tendencies, and use that perspective to understand the division between fiction and fact a bit more clearly, in real time, before we do something so stupid as to cause our collective self-immolation.

We do not have to give up hope in order to do that, in fact it would be impossible, and very likely will remain impossible, regardless of whatever the hubrist genetic fiddlers want to believe.

What we want to achieve is a tempering of "hope" in a purposeful recognition of our tendencies to not only create mythologicals, but believe in them wholeheartedly. Let's continue to believe in them, but more cautiously.

Is there a God who created the unimaginably intelligent biology that is earth? "Science" more or less refuses to believe this. But many of the great scientists through history were also mystics, perhaps occurring concurrently with their genius, and many of these were in full recognition of that mystic "knowledge", and grateful for that understanding.

Einstein is thought to have said several things along these lines. One example:

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive".

Human females are genetically designed to birth and nurture new humans, and continue the species, and males are genetically designed to fight for survival, and if necessary, wage war. And the biggest males are considerably larger and stronger than the largest females. So obviously we are "hardwired" for radically different functions, and between these two functions the tribe survives.

Einstein is also thought to have said:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Which implies humanity will need to get it's act together if we are to survive as a technological species. 

Is it even possible? Who knows...the extremely rapid ascent of advanced technology is dizzying...about 200-250 years compared to the appearance of homo sapiens on Earth, about 150,000 years ago. In the context of this very rapid ascent can we even see where we are?

Many humans actually think our survival depends on escape to another planet. If that were even possible (it isn't) it would most certainly knock the hubris right out of us. Meanwhile technology has blinded many of us to the continuing miracle that is Earth.

If we humans do continue it will very likely include developing the capacity to see and understand our hubristic tendencies, and using that perspective to understand the division between fact and fiction a bit more clearly.

A cancer study that will never happen

Chemotherapy is carcinogenic. A study to determine if that's true, and to what degree it's true, could hypothetically be designed to give the full course of chemotherapy to people who are perfectly healthy. Of course that will never happen, so this musing takes the form of a thought experiment. This imaginary study would also have no formal control group, for the obvious reason placebo's are meant to be benign, and since chemotherapy knocks the stuffings out of those who get it, it would be obvious to the control group they were not getting chemotherapy.

Now there is such a thing as a "nocebo" effect, where a control group has uncomfortable reactions due to power of suggestion. But mechanicals begin to trump psychologicals at some point, which we can see in another thought experiment: A group is told they are being given a newly discovered and radically more effective vitamin that has the potential to eliminate common diseases. Image that, a single pill a day. But instead they are given a fatal poison. (To repeat, it's a thought experiment.) Would psychologicals trump mechanicals in this instance?

But a larger control group is possible, healthy people of the same profile as those healthy people who received chemotherapy, with follow-ups over time, comparing what percent of healthy people who got chemo came down with cancer compared to  those who didn't get chemo.

There are alternative modalities of cancer treatment that are as (or more) effective than chemo, and they boil down to the basic things that are the cause of health.

To begin, numero uno is the discontinuation of the ingestion of all toxins, which is a longer list than most are aware of. Second would be to consume only foods of a high nutrition to calorie ratio. Here again, most are unaware this is even a "thing", as the normal diet we follow is stuffed with the opposite: a high calorie to nutrition ratio...the high calories make us fat, and the lack of real nutrition makes us sick. And there are other basic things: rigorous movement of the body, loving relationships, great sleep, clean air and water, and meditative practices to relieve stress.

Taken together it can actually be shocking how quickly the body becomes robustly healthy when making these significant changes. But that's biology for ya...when not degraded, it's a miracle.

Reviewing again the mRNA children's trial suspension

This is worth reviewing for the single reason the same type of safety signals occurring in this children's trial were also occurring in large numbers during the initial mRNA rollout that we were told was safe and effective.

Let that sink in for a moment. Safety signals were occurring in large numbers all over the developed world (where the vaxx was primarily targeted) and we were not told this by the authorities at the time. Or since then for that matter. But now this trial in infants is halted and publicly announced.

IMHO we cannot say this worldwide disaster was caused by science since the actual rules of science were not followed. I think we can say however that rules are rarely followed when giant profits are in the mix.

But it does make one wonder how the medicopharma industry was able to rationalize this rollout, and why early seroprevalence studies were ignored that showed conclusively this virus was primarily dangerous to the elderly and infirm, and the odds of children being hospitalized by the virus were an effective zero. 

And now in this honest study of children we see the mRNA itself is causing all the damage. Does that also implicate the initial rollout given to a few billion earthlings? If you are curious about that you may want to watch this conversation about ongoing studies on that topic...but be forewarned this information is very disturbing.

Ed Dowd speaking with Brett Weinstein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trjv7-eUqt4

We've arrived at a strange place in the history of civilization where medical injuries of this scale were somehow rationalized, and allowed.

John Campbell again, in a refresher on where things stand at this point in time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVNMEfot9fQ

Reasonable Dowd: Ed Dowd's statistical analysis of the cause of the current rate of excess deaths

This is one of the most fascinating conversations I've posted on my blog, perhaps the most fascinating. It may (or may not) be difficult to integrate into one's personal worldview, which difficulty was essentially the underlying theme of the 1999 film The Matrix, where the red pill and blue pill represent a choice between reality and ignorance: Taking the red pill allows the character to see past the illusion of the Matrix and understand the truth. The red pill represents a path of critical thinking, science, and philosophy.

• 
  
• Here is Ed Dowd speaking with Brett Weinstein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trjv7-eUqt4

And here is Dowd's Humanity Project:

https://www.humanityprojects.info/

New mRNA trial suspended

This was a phase one trial of a Moderna mRNA vaccine intended to provide acquired immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, the trial participants were 2 year old children. The trial was halted when RSV severe lower respiratory tract illness was identified.

In other words the "vaccine" was causing the dangerous disease it was intended to prevent.

For more detail, John Campbell goes over the study here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJlq3sDL-BI

Humm. Rearranging the genome has never seemed like a good idea to most people. Isn't it obvious the genome is nature's perfection? Have we gone so far from nature we can't see it any longer?

The idea the many skyrocketing chronic diseases are genetically caused is clear as day stupid. Just try putting toxic food-like addictive substances in your body for years and see what happens.

Oh wait, we already did that. Now let's stop.

And finally, we may be interested in the value of Moderna as expressed in the company's stock chart from inception to present:

click for larger

Are Humans in control of the Earth, or is Earth in control of the Humans?

The answer to that question essentially boils down to whether we humans are in control of our instincts or whether our instincts are in control of us. The old saw we only use 10% of our brain is IMHO part true and part false. Most of the processing done by our brain and nervous system is completely unconscious. In other words we don't have to remember to breath to survive, and if we don't remember to sleep the brain/nervous system will force sleep upon us.

Etcetera, ad infinitum.

I asked an AI how many unconscious autonomic processes the brain/nervous system is running continuously, the answer below seems to infer this approximate number is not known:

>The brain and body are constantly running numerous autonomic processes, including heart rate regulation, breathing, digestion, blood pressure control, sweating, salivation, and the movement of food through the intestines, all managed by the autonomic nervous system without conscious thought; essentially, these processes are happening continuously without you needing to actively think about them.<

So let's just say then the neurological space required for running and maintaining the body is considerably larger than the neurological space the rational and reasoning conscious mind uses.

Is that a disturbing thought? Maybe for some who tend to think of the reasoning mind as all there is. We humans are, after all, the only rational species on Earth, and we have created advanced technologies. So on the whole we are in control of the Earth...right? But how much of this human creativity is built upon the precursor platform of the unconscious instinctual mind?

And the answer is, obviously, all of it. All of the product of our human mind comes forth from the biology of the Earth. Biology is itself, as far as we know, an unconscious process. And compared to the length of time we modern big brained humans have been here, biology has proven itself to be extremely durable. Several extinction events (of biology) have come and gone, and biological Earth has survived, and is still here.

And humans are anthropocentric - definition:

>To regard humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals.<

All of existence? A definition that would, ironically, make us God. Or only human existence? Which might make a modicum of sense...maybe.

Meanwhile, in the context of anthropocentrism, we seem to have collectively forgotten we are biology, and the product of biology, which is the only avenue by which we have arrived here, to begin with.

So, Earth birthed biology, and biology birthed humans. Biological Earth was here long before us, and will very likely be here long after we are gone.

That also means, BTW, that biology birthed technology, and the modern mythology that technology will make us a permanent fixture in the cosmos is the same basic mythology we humans have always created (ie, immortality).

Technology is a minor miracle, no doubt about it. The major miracle, biology, is the one we under appreciate.

So perhaps if we humans develop a little less hubris we might extend the duration of our time here a bit longer than we would otherwise.

Remembering the definition of hubris:

>A noun that means excessive pride or arrogance that can lead to failure or ruin.<