Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXLVIII—Monetary Systems, Thermodynamics, and Ecological Overshoot, Part 2.
“…the economy is an energy system, and not a financial one. Money is a human artefact used to exchange the goods and services that constitute economic output, but all of these are products of energy. Our economic history is a narrative of how we have applied energy to improve our material conditions.”
-Dr. Tim Morgan, The Objective Economy, Part One (2020)
In Part 1 of this two-part Contemplation (see: Website Medium Substack), I established the operational mechanics of modern money creation, demonstrating that over 90% of the broad money supply is created by private commercial banks issuing loans, with shadow banking and retail credit amplifying the credit cycle without creating new money. This architecture has a structural dependency on perpetual growth because interest is not created alongside principal — requiring ever-expanding debt to service existing claims. The symbiotic relationship between commercial banks, shadow lenders, retail credit providers, and the state was then examined, revealing that governments are not passive enablers but active, dependent partners whose tax revenues and fiscal solvency rely on continuous credit expansion. Finally, the thermodynamic constraints were introduced: the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, Odum’s Maximum Power Principle, Catton’s concept of ghost acres, and Tainter’s diminishing returns on complexity — all of which demonstrate that perpetual growth on a finite planet is mathematically and biophysically impossible.
With this foundation in place, Part 2 traces the dynamic consequences of these structures as they collide with biophysical limits. Four interconnected feedback loops show how the symbiotic trap of state-backed credit creation operates in motion: debt driving low-EROI extraction, falling net energy trapping monetary policy, ecological overshoot destroying financial collateral, and technological complexity becoming unserviceable. The analysis then broadens to examine the deeper historical and ontological dimensions of our predicament — exploring money as a technology of representation, the pre-market precedents of currency debasement, and the distinction between capitalism as a symptom versus the growth imperative as the underlying disease. Finally, the conclusion addresses the boundary conditions of our predicament, the likely behaviour of the ruling elite as consequences become increasingly apparent, and the question of whether any technological breakthrough — including “clean” or infinite energy — could alter the trajectory, concluding that the problem is not the source of energy but the structure that demands its continuous expansion.
If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview.
See my free book offer to readers at the end of this Contemplation…
The Feedback Loops in Motion
With the institutional driver established in Part 1 — the symbiotic trap of state-backed commercial banking, shadow lending, retail credit, and the state — the following feedback loops show how this structure operates in motion, driving the system toward biophysical limits.
Let me lay out the feedback loops explicitly:
Loop 1 — Debt Drives Extraction: Cheap credit finances low-EROI extraction. Gross energy throughput remains high, but net surplus falls. Monetary growth is sustained temporarily at the cost of eroding the energy base.
Loop 2 — Falling Net Energy Traps Policy: As net energy declines, real GDP growth slows. The debt stock, however, continues compounding. Central banks face an impossible choice: raise rates to protect the currency, triggering widespread defaults and a credit contraction; or lower rates to service debt, inflating the money supply against a shrinking energy base, producing stagflation. This is precisely the predicament many central banks find themselves in today, trapped between inflation and recession with no clear path through. Neither option resolves the underlying mismatch.
Loop 3 — Ecological Overshoot Destroys Collateral: Loans are secured against physical collateral — real estate, infrastructure, farmland. The various symptom predicaments of ecological overshoot, however, systematically devalue this collateral. Climate instability contributes to floods, fires, and drought. Soil depletion and desertification reduce agricultural productivity and land values. Aquifer drawdown undermines long-term water security for entire regions. Biodiversity collapse and pollinator decline threaten crop yields. Ocean acidification and fisheries collapse deplete marine resources. Pollution and toxin accumulation degrade human health and increase healthcare costs, which are themselves a drain on economic surplus.
All these forms of ecological degradation are simultaneously devaluing the physical collateral that backs the global debt structure. Banks respond to falling collateral values by tightening credit, which contracts the money supply. This credit contraction occurs precisely when physical scarcity is driving food and energy prices upward, producing a deflationary debt spiral coexisting with inflationary supply shocks — historically the most destabilizing combination.
Loop 4 — Complexity Becomes Unserviceable: The global financial system does not operate on air; it operates on massive server farms, undersea fiber-optic cables, semiconductor fabrication plants, and satellite networks — all requiring rare earths, uninterrupted high-grade electricity, and constant high-tech maintenance. This technological substrate is itself a product of the hydrocarbon-fuel age. The algorithms that execute high-frequency trades, the settlement systems that clear cross-border transactions, and the databases that track collateral valuations all depend on a physical infrastructure that must be continuously manufactured, powered, and replaced.
As net energy declines, maintaining this digital-industrial base becomes prohibitively expensive. Spare parts, specialised repair skills, and rare minerals become scarce as global shipping contracts and mining operations become unviable. When the technological infrastructure supporting the financial ledger begins to degrade — whether through power shortages, mineral scarcity, or breakdowns in global supply chains — the ledger itself becomes unreliable. Settlement delays, data loss, and hardware failures cascade into counterparty defaults and sovereign debt crises, further contracting credit and accelerating the unraveling. The marginal benefit of this technological complexity turns negative when the energy cost of maintaining it exceeds the value of the transactions it enables.
The Anthropological Reset
This brings us back to the anthropological baseline. For 99% of human history, we operated on reciprocity (gift and obligation) and redistribution (central collection and reallocation). These systems were embedded within kinship, ritual, and ecology. They did not demand perpetual growth in the way modern, debt-based money does. They tracked seasonal abundance and scarcity.
It is important to note, however, that large complex societies — states and empires — did emerge and expand within these redistribution systems long before market exchange dominated. The Inca, the Roman Empire, the Maya city-states, and various dynastic Chinese empires all grew through territorial conquest, tribute extraction, and the mobilization of surplus agricultural production. They did not rely on bank-created debt money, but they did require growth in the sense of expanding their territorial base, population, or agricultural output to sustain their bureaucratic and military apparatuses. When tribute flows diminished or agricultural yields declined — often due to soil depletion, deforestation, or climate shifts — these empires experienced fiscal crises, political fragmentation, and, in many cases, collapse.
Tainter’s diminishing returns applied to them as much as it applies to us. The difference is that their growth was constrained by current solar income: the annual photosynthetic productivity of their agricultural base. They could expand only as fast as land, labor, and water allowed, and their collapses were typically regional, leaving surrounding ecosystems and simpler societies intact. Their technologies, too, were locally sourced — irrigation canals, bronze and iron tools, sailing vessels — requiring materials and repair knowledge that were regionally available and could be maintained within a relatively low-energy, decentralised social framework.
Beyond Exchange: Money as a Technology of Representation
Before proceeding to the market era, it is worth acknowledging a deeper critique that this Contemplation has thus far only gestured toward. The analysis above treats money as a mechanism — a tool that enables exchange, amplifies leverage, and accelerates drawdown. But money is more than a mechanism; it is a technology of representation. It renders the world commensurable, translating diverse forms of life, labour, and matter into a single metric of value.
This is not a neutral act. When a forest is represented as board-feet, an aquifer as water rights, or a human lifetime as labour hours, something is lost — not just in quantification, but in ontology. The act of representation alienates value from its social and ecological context. It makes the world fungible. And in making it fungible, it enables the kind of instrumental rationality that treats ecosystems as resources to be optimised, rather than as communities to which we belong.
The shift from reciprocity to market exchange was not merely an economic transition; it was an ontological one. In reciprocal systems, value is embedded in relationships, rituals, and obligations. It is inalienable — bound to the specific people, places, and times that give it meaning. In market systems, value becomes abstract, portable, and accumulable. It can be stored, transferred, and compounded across time and space. This abstraction is the precondition for the growth imperative that this Contemplation has traced.
What this suggests is that the problem is not merely how we use money, but what money is. The very project of representing value through a universal equivalent is inseparable from the logic of domination that enables ecological destruction. Money does not just incentivise extraction; it renders extraction thinkable. It transforms the biosphere into a balance sheet.
This is not an argument that money is inherently evil, nor that we can simply “return” to a pre-monetary world. It is an acknowledgement that any meaningful response to our predicament must grapple with the ontological foundations of our economic system — not just its incentives, but its assumptions about what counts as valuable, and who gets to decide.
Money, Markets, and the Deeper Pattern
It is also worth clarifying a point that may otherwise be misunderstood before examining the modern market era. So far, I have focussed heavily on the monetary system — its mechanics, its institutional drivers, and its thermodynamic consequences. This emphasis might suggest that money itself is the root cause of our predicament. But that would be a misreading.
Money and markets are not the origin of the human tendency to maximize power throughput and build complexity. That tendency is far older, and it is observable across the pre-market empires already discussed. What money and markets have done is accelerate and amplify this ancient pattern, making it global in scale and unprecedented in its ecological consequences.
The historical record offers a revealing precedent. Empires throughout history engaged in currency debasement — reducing the precious metal content of coins while maintaining their face value — as a way to finance military campaigns, bureaucratic expansion, and monumental construction. The Roman Empire provides the most documented example: from Nero onward, emperors systematically reduced the silver content of the denarius until, by the late third century, it was barely 5% of its original value. The result was predictable: prices rose, purchasing power for the masses collapsed, and trust in the currency eroded. The Byzantine Empire debased its gold solidus in times of crisis; Chinese dynasties periodically issued paper money that quickly became worthless through over-issuance. In each case, the functional dynamic was similar to modern monetary expansion: the state expanded the money supply beyond the real wealth it represented to finance its complexity, with predictable consequences — inflation, social unrest, and a loss of confidence that further complicated the state’s ability to sustain itself.
This historical pattern does not map perfectly onto modern fiat currency — historical debasement involved reducing the physical backing of coins, whereas modern money creation is purely digital — but the functional dynamic is similar. The growth imperative is not solely a product of modern banking; it is a structural feature of complex states that require surplus to maintain their organization. When that surplus becomes insufficient — whether through ecological degradation, external pressure, or internal dysfunction — rulers have repeatedly turned to the expediency of expanding the money supply.
The modern monetary system is simply the most potent and global expression of this ancient pattern. It has enabled us to pursue the assumption of endless expansion more efficiently than ever before, but it did not create that assumption. The deeper problem is that we have built a global civilization on the belief that we can continue to increase complexity and energy throughput indefinitely — an assumption that thermodynamics declares impossible.
This does not absolve the monetary system of its role. It is, after all, the primary mechanism through which the growth imperative is operationalised today. But it does situate the monetary critique within a broader understanding of human ecology and history — one that recognises that we are not the first civilisation to overshoot, only the first to do so at a planetary scale with the tools to make the overshoot catastrophic.
On Capitalism as Root Cause
This analysis is often read as an indictment of capitalism, and it is — in part. Hopefully my argument demonstrates that capitalism’s core logic — perpetual growth, compound interest, and the commodification of nature — is structurally maladaptive and accelerates ecological overshoot. In this respect, it aligns with the anti-capitalist critique.
However, it would be wrong to conclude that capitalism is the root cause. As the historical examples above illustrate, the pattern of expansion, resource drawdown, diminishing returns on complexity, and collapse predates capitalism by millennia. The Inca, the Roman Empire, the Maya, and dynastic China all overshot their ecological bases without a single share of stock or fiat currency. The underlying driver is not an ideology but a biophysical reality: complex societies require continuous energy input to maintain their organisation, and that requirement drives expansion until it hits limits.
Capitalism is the most potent expression of this pattern to date — an extraordinary amplifier of the human tendency to maximise power throughput. But it is a symptom, not the disease. If capitalism vanished tomorrow and were replaced by a socialist or communist system that also demanded perpetual growth in GDP and energy throughput, we would still face the same thermodynamic constraints.
The implication is humbling. No political system can escape the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The problem is not capitalism alone; it is the civilisational project of endless expansion on a finite planet. Confronting this requires not just a new economics, but a new ontology — a different way of understanding value, progress, and our relationship to the biosphere.
Market Exchange and the Hydrocarbon Fuel Inheritance
Market exchange — impersonal, price-driven, disembedded from social obligation — is the recent aberration. But even market exchange only achieved its extraordinary growth rates because we gained access to an enormous, one-time inheritance of “fossilised” sunlight. This hydrocarbon energy subsidy allowed us to expand not just territory and population, but energy and resource throughput itself, at rates and scales unimaginable to pre-industrial empires. This inheritance was then amplified through the state-bank symbiosis, which channelled the energy surplus into an ever-expanding structure of debt claims, further accelerating this unprecedented growth. The Roman Empire could not double its GDP in a decade; modern economies can, because they are drawing down millions of years of stored photosynthesis in a single century.
The technologies that enable this are radically different: globally interdependent, hyper-complex, and requiring a vast, invisible mining and manufacturing apparatus that spans continents. They cannot be repaired with local knowledge or materials. A broken semiconductor cannot be fixed with blacksmithing; a dead undersea cable cannot be replaced with local timber. This technological hyper-complexity is the backbone of our monetary growth; without it, the financial system cannot coordinate even basic transactions. When the energy subsidy contracts, this technological superstructure will be the first to show structural failure, because its maintenance requires inputs that are no longer available at scale.
As that inheritance diminishes, the market system’s ability to coordinate complex, long-distance trade contracts with it. The historical pattern Tainter observed is consistent: when energy surpluses shrink and complex redistribution schemes fail, societies simplify. They shed costly layers of hierarchy, abandon marginal cities, and revert to localised reciprocity networks. This pattern applies across both pre-market redistribution systems and our modern market-based system. The difference this time is the global scale of the overshoot and the depth of ecological degradation. However, it is worth considering whether this pattern can repeat at the scale and severity of the current overshoot. Previous collapses occurred within regional boundaries — the Maya, the Roman Empire, the Anasazi — leaving surrounding ecosystems and simpler societies intact to which survivors could adapt. In each case, there was an “outside” where agricultural knowledge, wild food sources, and less degraded land persisted. Today, there is no intact outside.
The overshoot is global. The ecological degradation is planetary. The knowledge and skills required for self-sufficient subsistence have largely been lost or are concentrated in a shrinking population of practitioners. The technological knowledge that sustains our current society is even more concentrated and fragile; without a functioning global supply chain, even the repair of basic infrastructure — water pumps, medical equipment, electrical grids — becomes impossible for most communities.
Dependency on energy-intensive supply chains, industrial agriculture, and centralized water and healthcare systems is near-universal. The simplification may therefore be deeper and more permanent than historical precedents suggest. It may not be a restructuring to a viable smaller-scale complexity, but rather the end of large complex societies altogether, replaced by fragmented, low-energy, low-population subsistence communities with limited capacity to rebuild the knowledge base or infrastructure required for higher complexity.
The global monetary system is simply the most complex redistribution mechanism we have ever built. Its failure will not be the end of human existence, but it may be the end of human civilization as we have known it.
Conclusion
I cannot predict the timeline for a return to baseline. The exact trigger — whether a credit event (the commercial real estate sector), a climate shock (the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation), an energy bottleneck (the Strait of Hormuz), or all simultaneously — is unknowable. But the boundary conditions are not. Perpetual compounding of debt claims on a finite planet with declining net energy is mathematically and thermodynamically impossible. Technology cannot escape this; it is the accelerator, not the bypass.
The monetary system accelerates peak oil by forcing low-EROI extraction. Peak oil undermines the surplus required to service debt. Ecological overshoot destroys the collateral backing that debt. Technological complexity, dependent on that same shrinking surplus, becomes unserviceable and begins to fail, taking the financial ledger down with it. And when the whole apparatus becomes too costly to maintain, the system fragments into exactly the kind of localised reciprocity that dominated human existence before the age of hydrocarbon capital — but unlike past transitions, the ecological damage and loss of knowledge may preclude a return to even that baseline.
That is not a prophecy of annihilation. It is a description of a thermodynamic and historical pattern repeating itself at a planetary scale, but under conditions far more degraded than any previous instance. The question is not whether the simplification will happen–it will–but how rapidly and how violently the transition occurs, and how far the descent will carry us. Based on pre/historical precedents, combined with the unprecedented scale of overshoot, the answer is likely more rapid, more violent, and more permanent than most would prefer. The baseline — smaller, poorer, more local, and embedded in real relationships — may remain viable, but there is no guarantee of that. Technology will not save humanity from this fate; it is the vehicle by which we consumed the inheritance, and its failure is part of the descent. The only honest position is uncertainty, bounded by thermodynamics and guided by pre/historical precedent.
The Hydra’s Response
Given the analysis above, a reasonable question emerges: if the monetary system is structurally bound to thermodynamic impossibility, what will those who currently benefit from it — the ruling elite in government, central banking, finance, and major corporations — actually do as the consequences become increasingly apparent?
The honest answer is uncomfortable. They will not voluntarily dismantle the system. They cannot. The symbiotic trap described earlier is not a conspiracy they could choose to exit; it is a structural cage. Their power, wealth, and identity are inseparable from the credit machinery they oversee. To dismantle it would be to dismantle themselves.
What they are likely to do follows a predictable pattern consistent with historical precedent and behavioural psychology:
Phase 1 — Denial and Doubling Down: In the face of mounting evidence — inflation that won’t relent, energy bottlenecks, climate-driven collateral destruction — the initial response will be to apply more of the same medicine. Central banks will cut rates, expand quantitative easing, and backstop failing institutions. Governments will increase spending, issue more debt, and subsidise industries deemed “too big to fail.” This phase is already well underway. The belief that policy tools can engineer a soft landing persists despite accumulating evidence to the contrary.
Phase 2 — Scapegoating and Distraction: As the tools fail, attention will shift to blame. The elite will identify external enemies: foreign powers, speculative hedge funds, profiteering corporations, illegal immigrants, or unruly labour. Geopolitical tensions will escalate. Trade will fragment. Rhetoric will intensify. This serves a dual purpose: it diverts public anger away from the structural failures and it justifies authoritarian measures that would otherwise face resistance–measures aimed at sustaining status quo power and wealth structures.
Phase 3 — Managed Retreat and Selective Protection: At a certain point, the elite will acknowledge (privately, if not publicly) that the system cannot be saved in its entirety. At this juncture, their behaviour will shift to self-preservation. This is not a conspiracy; it is a rational response to perceived threat. We can expect:
· Asset shielding: Wealth will be moved into physical assets — land, precious metals, agricultural holdings, water rights — that retain value independent of the financial ledger. The elite have already been doing this for years.
· Citizenship diversification: Multiple passports, residences in less vulnerable jurisdictions, and physical escape routes will be secured.
· Information control: Narratives will be managed to maintain order. Official accounts will downplay the severity of crises while quietly preparing for them. This is already observable in the gap between public statements and internal planning documents.
· Selective bailouts: Not all institutions will be saved. Those deemed strategically valuable (e.g., military supply chains, energy infrastructure, food systems) will receive support; others will be allowed to fail.
Phase 4 — Authoritarian Stability: As social unrest mounts — driven by food and energy scarcity, collapsing public services, and widening inequality — the elite will increasingly rely on coercion. Surveillance, policing, and military force will be deployed to maintain order. This is a well-worn historical path: when material conditions deteriorate, those in power cannot preserve their position through consent alone. This phase is already visible in the trend toward authoritarian governance across many nations, justified by appeals to security, sovereignty, or stability.
Phase 5 — Abandonment or Simplification: At the terminal stage, when the energy surplus falls below the threshold required to maintain globalised governance, finance, and military projection, the elite face a choice — or, more accurately, their choice is made for them. Some will attempt to retreat into fortified enclaves: gated communities, secure agricultural estates, or offshore jurisdictions. This is the “fortress” model, documented by scholars like Naomi Klein in her analysis of elite survivalism.
However, the fortress model is unlikely to succeed at scale. The elite are as dependent on the global supply chains they preside over as anyone else; their fortresses require fuel, medicine, spare parts, and skilled labour — all of which will become increasingly unavailable. When the technological substrate fails, the ability to enforce the fortress diminishes.
The more likely outcome is that the elite, like the institutions they commanded, are swept away in the simplification. They will not be exterminated, but they will be reduced. Their wealth in financial claims will become worthless. Their passports may grant them access to a shrinking pool of resources, but not indefinitely. In the end, they will be subject to the same thermodynamic constraints as everyone else: the energy required to maintain their privilege will simply no longer exist.
A Note on Agency
This is not a deterministic forecast. It is a description of structural incentives. The elite will act as they are compelled to act by the system that produced them. Their behaviour is not rooted in malevolence but in the logic of self-preservation operating within a set of constraints they did not design and cannot escape — although there are certainly nefarious behaviours and actions at play as the-powers-that-be attempt to move their pieces on the grand chessboard. The two are not mutually exclusive: structural pressures shape the available moves, but the players still choose which moves to make.
What the analysis above suggests is that no one — elite or otherwise — will escape the thermodynamic reckoning that awaits humanity. The collapse, when it comes, is not a conspiracy; it is a convergence. The boundaries of the finite world will assert themselves, and all the authority, wealth, and power accumulated in the financial ledger will be insufficient to alter that equation.
It is worth addressing a common objection at this point. Some argue that technological breakthroughs — fusion power, advanced renewables, or some as-yet-undiscovered energy source — could rescue us from our predicament. But this misunderstands the nature of the problem. The issue is not the source of energy; it is the structure that demands its continuous expansion. If we developed a source of clean, effectively infinite energy tomorrow, the response would not be to reduce our throughput; it would be to increase it. The growth imperative would absorb that new energy and use it to finance more extraction, more production, more complexity, and more waste — only faster and on a larger scale than before.
History already demonstrates this pattern: every major increase in energy availability, from coal to oil to natural gas to nuclear and renewable energy-harvesting technologies (which are themselves dependent upon non-renewable inputs), has led to more consumption, not less. A new energy source would be no different. It would simply accelerate the drawdown, compressing the timeline of overshoot rather than relieving it. The problem is not that we lack energy; it is that we have built a civilization that cannot function without an ever-increasing supply of it.
The only meaningful question is what happens in the transition. Will the elite use their remaining authority to manage a relatively orderly simplification? Or will they cling to power, prolonging the misery and accelerating the violence of the descent?
A dozen or so millennia of large, complex society trials suggest the latter. But history is not a script; it is a set of patterns. The patterns are clear, but the outcome is not predetermined. The only honest position, as stated in the conclusion above, is uncertainty, bounded by thermodynamics and guided by pre/historical precedent.
NOTE: Dr. Tim Morgan’s ongoing research on surplus energy economics, including his SEEDS (Surplus Energy Economics Data System) model, is available at his website. His work provides essential empirical grounding for the distinction between the financial economy and the energy economy that underpins this Contemplation.
Relevant articles:
Deflation Is Not the Villain — The Overleveraged Fiat System Is — Financial Underground
Functional Oligarchy — Iain Davis Substack
Infinite Growth Delusions Continue — For Now
Only 9 Days of Sour Crude Left in the US SPR?
Peak Oil: Specter and Substance — Ecosophia
Why Increases in Money Supply Can’t Create Economic Growth | Mises Institute
The New Fed Chair’s Plan to Cancel $39T Debt Crisis: Top Economist
The Man Managing $12 Trillion Just Admitted Where Your Money Is Really Going | Daily Pulse
They Fearmonger About “Communism” Because They Can’t Oppose Real Problems
America Spends More Money on Media and Propaganda — Why?
The Coming Crash in Private Equity
Empire Managers Invent Fake Threats So We Won’t Fight The Real Monsters
Special Offer
If you have made it to the end of this Contemplation, I have an offer for you. Send me an email at olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com requesting a copy of Part 1 of my trilogy and I’ll fire off a PDF of it to you for your “fictional” reading pleasure. If you like the beginning of the tale, please consider ordering the trilogy here: Purchase Book(s) — Olduvai.ca.
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.
Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my “fictional” novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the “profits” of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a “tip” on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…
https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. You have raised an important distinction—between a legitimate risk and an actual prediction—and I think the essay could have been clearer about where it stands on that spectrum.
I would frame it this way: the essay argues that a severe simplification is probable given the boundary conditions—declining net energy, compounding debt, ecological degradation—but it does not claim to know the specific form that simplification will take, its depth, or its duration. The language throughout the essay is carefully qualified: "may," "may not," "likely," "could," "there is no guarantee." These are not rhetorical hedging; they are honest acknowledgements of uncertainty.
The passage you quote—"may not be a restructuring to a viable smaller-scale complexity, but rather the end of large complex societies altogether"—is framed with "may not" precisely because the outcome is not certain. The essay does not predict that this will happen; it argues that this is a possibility that the evidence suggests is probable enough to warrant serious consideration, particularly given the unprecedented scale of the current overshoot and the absence of an intact "outside" that previous civilizations could retreat to.
To your point about timescales of hundreds or thousands of years: I agree entirely. The essay is not equipped to forecast across those horizons. What it does argue is that the risk of a deep and permanent simplification is severe enough that it should inform how we think about the present. Whether the descent is rapid or gradual, whether it bottoms out at a degraded baseline or stabilises at a viable one, is genuinely unknowable. The only honest position is uncertainty, bounded by thermodynamics and guided by historical precedent.
Thank you again for the comment. It has helped me clarify the distinction between possibility and probability, and I appreciate the opportunity to make that more explicit.
Great article!
I'd like to ask though, you state
Dependency on energy-intensive supply chains, industrial agriculture,...but rather the end of large complex societies altogether, replaced by fragmented, low-energy, low-population subsistence communities with limited capacity to rebuild the knowledge base or infrastructure required for higher complexity.
Do you frame this as a legitimate risk or an actual prediction? I think there's enough evidence for the former but not the latter, especially on the timeframes of hundreds/thousands of years