Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXLV
Overlooking the Biophysical Basis of Human Societies.
On June 4th, 2026, economist Thomas Piketty and a large team of collaborators unveiled a proposal that is, in its scope and ambition, unlike almost anything in contemporary economic discourse. Outlined in detail on the Global Justice Project’s (GJP) website, the plan is built on three interlocking pillars (a summary can be found here).
The first is a progressive global carbon tax, conceived not merely as an emissions penalty but as the financial engine of a “just transition”. Its revenues would flow into a newly created Global Justice Fund, explicitly designed to shield low-income countries and households from the costs of decarbonisation.
What is immediately striking about this framing is how thoroughly it reflects a carbon tunnel vision that has come to dominate climate policy discussions, as though the planetary predicament were reducible to a single gas. The proposal appears almost entirely silent on the other planetary boundaries that humanity is currently transgressing — biodiversity loss, nitrogen and phosphorus loading, land-system change, freshwater use, and the release of novel entities into the biosphere to name a few.
A global carbon tax, however progressive, addresses only one dimension of a multidimensional overshoot crisis, and the revenues it generates could easily be deployed in ways that seemingly alleviate carbon emissions while accelerating damage elsewhere, such as through the mining and processing of transition minerals or the expansion of biomass energy systems that compete with food production and intact ecosystems.
To be fair, the third pillar’s welfare Gross Domestic Product (GDP) metric does gesture toward a broader environmental accounting, but the plan’s revenue-generating mechanism remains singularly focused on carbon, and the earlier silence on other planetary boundaries suggests that carbon, not overshoot, is the operational centre of gravity. A genuine whole-system approach would integrate all boundaries from the start rather than relegating them to a secondary accounting adjustment. The plan’s narrowness on this point is not a minor oversight; it is symptomatic of a broader failure to grasp that climate disruption is but one symptom of the overshoot dynamic, not its master cause.
The second pillar is a progressive global tax on wealth and income, targeting the world’s largest fortunes and most profitable corporations. This would permanently fund a massive expansion of development aid, health systems, and education, institutionalising a continuous flow of resources from the global rich to the global poor.
Here the proposal drifts into territory that can only be described as a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. Even setting aside the political implausibility of such a tax regime, the plan treats the expansion of health systems, education, and development aid as unalloyed goods, without pausing to consider the broader ecological consequences of such an expansion. Indeed, the plan may actually widen the rupture in the Titanic’s hull given that much of the wealth held by the ruling elite is on paper whereas the proposal would propel such paper wealth into a significant expansion of money being directly funnelled into material throughput.
Modern healthcare and education systems are themselves materially intensive enterprises, dependent upon equipment, infrastructure, digital technologies, and the energy to power them — all of which carry significant ecological footprints. Expanding these systems to a global scale, however morally compelling the case, would increase material and energy throughput at precisely the moment when throughput must contract.
A degrowth advocate might counter that health and education could be redesigned to be far less materially intensive — more preventative, community-based, and low-tech. The difficulty is that the GJP proposal offers no such redesign; it simply projects an expansion of existing institutional models, leaving their resource demands intact and assuming that redistribution alone can substitute for the deep structural reimagining that genuine degrowth would require. The proposal seems to imagine that redistribution can substitute for reduction, as though a different distribution of the pie eliminates the need for a smaller pie. It does not.
The third pillar is a conceptual redefinition of prosperity: the proposal envisions replacing conventional GDP with a new measure of “welfare GDP,” which subtracts environmental damage and adds the value of unpaid care work and health improvements, making the hidden costs of growth visible in the very arithmetic of national success.
The accounting question that begs to be asked is whether this new measure would include the “costs” of the significant expansion of services the proposal itself argues for. Would the material footprint of building thousands of new hospitals, the energy demands of expanded educational systems, and the resource extraction required to manufacture the infrastructure of a globally-scaled welfare apparatus be entered on the debit side of the welfare GDP ledger? If so, the net benefit might prove embarrassingly modest, even negative. If not, the entire exercise becomes a rhetorical device for dressing up continued material expansion in the language of post-growth accounting. Either way, the redefinition of prosperity, however well-intentioned, risks becoming an elaborate means of hiding the biophysical contradictions at the heart of the plan rather than resolving them.
If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview.
See my free book offer to readers at the end of this Contemplation…
Regardless of some of the oversights I immediately noticed and commented upon above, the practical implications of the GJP’s proposal are stark. Wealthy nations would be expected to slow their economic growth in a very deliberate fashion and reduce their material and energy consumption radically, converging toward a globally-shared, ecologically-bounded standard of living. For “advanced” economies this would mean a dramatically shorter working week, deep cuts in industrial and construction activity, and a reorientation of consumption patterns away from resource-intensive goods.
All well and good in theory. To enforce this convergence, however, the proposal envisions trade sanctions and conditionalities administered by a new supranational body, overcoming what its authors see as the fatal weakness of voluntary climate agreements. The whole edifice is framed not as austerity but as a positive-sum reorganisation: poorer nations gain fiscal space and ecological room to develop, while richer nations gain time, equality, and well-being beyond GDP.
This is the blueprint that political economist Veronique de Rugy’s recent critique attacks with the full rhetorical arsenal of market liberalism. And what is immediately striking about her response is not its originality but its near-perfect repetition of a script that first aired more than fifty years ago, when another group of researchers published a study suggesting that endless material growth on a finite planet was a physical impossibility–there existed hard, physical limits to such a pursuit. A script, by the way, that others have followed as well to critique the GJP’s plan.
In 1972, a research team out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released The Limits to Growth, a summary of a number of different scenarios based upon a computer simulation of the interactions between population, industrial output, food, resources, and pollution. Its sobering message was that if existing trends continued, the twenty-first century would likely witness a substantial and involuntary decline in both population and industrial capacity. The backlash was ferocious and immediate, particularly from a range of economists.
The model was attacked as methodologically crude, its assumptions arbitrary, its data cherry-picked. The conclusions were painted as inherently authoritarian: any attempt to impose limits, critics said, would require a global technocracy with the power to dictate how people lived, worked, and reproduced. The researchers themselves were dismissed as privileged academics peddling a luxury belief that would, if taken seriously, condemn the world’s poor to permanent misery by denying them the growth that had enriched the West. Free markets, ingenuity, and the price mechanism, it was said, would push back every supposed boundary. The vocabulary of that counterattack, from William Nordhaus to Julian Simon, is almost indistinguishable from the language de Rugy deploys today.
She faults Piketty et al. for methodological errors and an implausible climate scenario. She warns that the scheme would demand a coercive world government with unprecedented authority over everyday life. She calls degrowth “the ultimate luxury belief,” concocted by tenured professors in comfortable apartments whose own security would never be jeopardised by the stagnation they prescribe. And she insists that dynamic, property-rights-protected, market-driven growth remains the only “proven” route out of poverty and into environmental improvement. Substitute the names and a few technical details, and the op-ed could have been published in 1973.
This historical mirroring is more than an anecdote; it reveals a civilisation structurally incapable of confronting the biophysical basis of its own existence and the limits inherent in this.
The Limits to Growth was not a policy programme but an attempt to model the dynamics of overshoot. Its most important insight was not that any single variable had been perfectly calibrated, but that the pursuit of perpetual material expansion on a finite planet is thermodynamically incoherent.
Over the subsequent five decades, global resource extraction, greenhouse gas emissions, and ecological degradation have tracked remarkably close to the model’s standard run (see here), yet the dominant political and economic culture absorbed none of this. It absorbed only the imperative to discredit the messengers so that growth could remain the unchallenged horizon of respectable policy.
What is happening now, with the reception of the GJP plan, is a second act of the same tragedy, though the roles have shifted. Piketty’s team is not primarily animated by biophysical boundaries but by inequality and climate justice, and the mechanism they propose — a supranational bureaucracy with enforcement powers and a global tax apparatus — is precisely the kind of hyper-complexity that archaeologist and collapse theorist Joseph Tainter would identify as deeply dangerous.
Tainter’s work suggests that societies unravel when the marginal returns on increasing complexity turn negative (see here), and it is difficult to imagine a structure more complex than a global body dictating working hours, production quotas, and trade sanctions while redistributing a fund twenty times the size of current development aid. De Rugy is right to sense the spectre of authoritarianism here, but she misidentifies its source.
The threat is not merely political; it is thermodynamic. A top-down management system of this scale would face catastrophic energy and information overheads, and its fragility would likely become yet another vector of collapse rather than a safeguard against it.
Yet her own solution suffers from the inverse delusion. De Rugy treats the existing global economy — with its finely tuned supply chains, its debt structures, its dependence on cheap and abundant energy — as a permanent feature of the landscape. She assumes that the resource base that arguably lifted millions out of poverty can be extended indefinitely, and that environmental repair will be financed by the very growth that deepens the damage.
In ecological terms, we are already deep in overshoot, consuming resources and generating waste far faster than the planet can regenerate or absorb. The historical correlation between growth and poverty that De Rugy depends upon for her argument unfolded in a relatively empty world powered by a one-time hydrocarbon-fuel endowment. To project that correlation forward without acknowledging the closure of the biosphere is to mistake a phase transition for an eternal law. De Rugy’s defence of growth is not a strategy for avoiding collapse; it is an emotional commitment to a status quo that is actively consuming its own foundations.
There is a deeper layer to this impossibility, one that neither de Rugy nor the GJP’s team fully confronts, and which has been a recurring theme in my own reflections on degrowth. Even if a managed contraction of the global economy were biophysically desirable and technically coherent, there is little reason to believe that the governing institutions of complex societies would ever genuinely pursue it. Those with a significant vested interest in status quo arrangements being maintained have the resources, influence, and power to ensure such a path is never pursued.
The degrowth movement, for all its moral clarity, has long carried a freight of denial and bargaining — as if the right policies, the right leaders, or the right supranational framework could yet steer the world toward a soft landing. Such an approach may have had some purchase many, many decades ago, before the momentum of global human overshoot had locked in so many irreversible changes. Today, having travelled so much further down the path of planetary damage, and with the ever-enlarging avalanche of consequences already in motion, the window for a globally orchestrated degrowth has almost certainly closed.
This is not simply a matter of political will, but of structural interest. Complex societies, as they evolved over millennia, have always generated a ruling caste whose privileges depend upon the extraction and distribution of surpluses. Whether one adopts an Integrationist view — in which governing institutions arose to solve collective problems and the differential rewards to elites are the price of centralised coordination — or the Conflict Theory perspective that sees the state primarily as a coercive mechanism to maintain economic stratification, the outcome is the same. Growth is the lifeblood of that arrangement. It supplies the revenue streams, the shared economic interests, and the narratives of moral validity that allow the ruling few to maintain their position without resorting constantly to naked force.
The shift in recent decades toward the creation of fiat currency on an unprecedented scale has only deepened this dynamic, allowing taxation to be hidden within inflation while the blame is deflected elsewhere. A genuine degrowth programme, one that deliberately and permanently shrinks the material basis of the economy, would undermine the very foundation of elite privilege. It is, therefore, naive in the extreme to expect any government — least of all a supranational body of staggering complexity — to implement such a programme faithfully. The far more probable outcome is that the language of degrowth will be co-opted, certain palatable elements cherry-picked, and the whole enterprise repackaged as “green” or “just growth,” an agenda that sustains the status quo while marketing itself as salvation.
Underpinning this structural arrangement is a biophysical dynamic that ecologist Howard Odum termed the maximum power principle: the tendency of self-organising systems to select for configurations that capture and transform energy at the highest possible rate. Complex human societies are not exempt. They have evolved to maximise energy throughput, and the ruling caste functions, in effect, as the institutional embodiment of that imperative — directing resource flows, suppressing alternatives, and narrating the whole enterprise as progress. To expect such a system to power down voluntarily is not merely a political miscalculation; it runs against the thermodynamic grain of the system’s own organisational logic. Collapse, when it comes, may simply be what happens when the maximum power strategy encounters the hard ceiling of a finite planet.
Seen in this light, the GJP’s grand blueprint reveals itself as the most elaborate expression of the degrowth movement’s bargain yet produced — another in a long line of salvation narratives of the kind I have explored in recent contemplations (see: Website Medium Substack). The structure is by now familiar: identify a planetary emergency, propose a sweeping institutional remedy, and promise that with the right combination of taxes, funds, and enlightened global governance, humanity can yet engineer a just and orderly landing.
What distinguishes this version from the green-growth and techno-optimist varieties is its redistributionist vocabulary, but the underlying wager is the same — that political will and institutional design can override the biophysical trajectory of overshoot, and that the ruling caste will somehow preside over its own structural disarmament. It offers a story in which managed contraction is possible, even just, without ever seriously confronting the possibility that the moment for such a story has passed. Like all salvation narratives, it functions (intentionally or not) to soothe existential anxiety while preserving the illusion that someone, somewhere, is still in control and has the agency to save everyone and everything.
We are already witnessing this pattern. The ruling caste is cheerleading a transition to technologies and financial arrangements that they own, control, or benefit from, all the while asking the masses to trust them and not to scratch too hard at the surface. Consider the massive push for solar photovoltaic buildouts, which I examined in an earlier contemplation and which the GJP’s proposal supports and encourages (see: Website Medium Substack).
On its face, it presents as an urgent response to the climate emergency. Look closer, and it reveals itself as a vast reconfiguration of extraction and finance that leaves the core growth dynamic entirely untouched. The same conglomerates that profited from hydrocarbon fuels now position themselves to profit from the mining of rare earth minerals, the manufacturing of panels, and the construction of sprawling solar farms that consume arable land and disrupt ecosystems. The financial architecture — tax incentives, green bonds, carbon credits — channels public subsidies into private hands, all under the banner of salvation. This is not a conspiracy; it is the predictable behaviour of a class whose structural position depends on the continuation of growth, now adapting its narrative to a crisis that threatens to delegitimise it. The GJP plan, whatever its authors’ intentions, would almost certainly be captured by these same dynamics, becoming another instrument for prolonging business-as-usual under a different name.
Beneath the surface of this debate also lies a genuine confusion about inequality and poverty. De Rugy notes that global income inequality has been falling and that growth in Asia has produced both billionaires and a dramatic reduction in extreme poverty. She then conflates this with a defence of growth as the sole remedy for the world’s remaining poor. What she leaves out is that the Asian growth miracle was fuelled by an enormous increase in hydrocarbon fuel consumption and material extraction that cannot be replicated for billions more without breaching planetary boundaries even more catastrophically than they already are.
The notion that we can enrich the global poor to the point where population levels out, using a resource base already in its death throes due to declining marginal returns, is a piece of magical thinking. There are not the resources remaining to bring the entire world up to the standard supposedly necessary for smaller families. What resources do remain would be far better used in decommissioning all the dangerous complexities humanity has spread around the planet (i.e., nuclear power plants and their millions of tonnes of radioactive waste products; biosafety labs and their multitude of dangerous pathogens; and chemical production facilities and their vast array of toxic materials) and helping communities everywhere relocalise — an especially urgent task for those currently trapped in the dependence on long-distance supply chains, particularly for food.
Yet this decommissioning itself presents a painful paradox: safely dismantling nuclear plants, securing pathogen collections, and neutralising toxic chemical stockpiles demands precisely the kind of coordinated, technically sophisticated governance that the preceding analysis suggests is improbable and prone to capture. It is one of the deepest tragedies of the predicament that even the honest turn toward local resilience inherits global-scale liabilities that no single community can shoulder alone, and for which there may be no orderly resolution. In a world of overshoot, the material footprints of the rich — and of the expanding global middle class — must shrink if the poor are to have any hope of securing a dignified life.
This is not an argument for making everyone equally poor, as de Rugy caricatures it; it is a recognition that distribution within a finite material throughput is the only ethical question that ultimately counts. The GJP’s version of this, however, seems to treat the existing stock of wealth as a static pool that can be redirected even as the productive system that generates it is forcibly dismantled. That is an economic contradiction de Rugy skewers effectively, but her alternative — keep growing and trust the market — simply defers the distributional crisis until it arrives as a biophysical collapse rather than a political one.
The climate science detail she seizes upon is revealing. It is true that Piketty’s team relied on the high-emissions RCP8.5 scenario, which the International Panel on Climate Change itself has now set aside as implausible. But the “more central projection” of around 2.7 degrees Celsius that de Rugy offers in its place remains squarely within the zone that collapse research identifies as profoundly destabilising.
Multiple breadbasket failures, mass migration, and state fragility are not exotic possibilities at 2.7 degrees; they are consistent with how complex societies have historically responded to prolonged environmental stress. Dispensing with the most extreme scenario does not rescue the growth paradigm. It merely shifts the threat from a caricature to a sobering probability that still dwarfs the coping capacity of existing institutions.
Where, then, does this leave those who understand the gravity of overshoot and the implausibility of both perpetual growth and centrally-managed contraction?
Increasingly, the most honest answer points away from grand global plans and toward the unglamorous work of local resilience. The best we can do is to attempt to make our communities as self-sufficient and resilient as possible for the exceedingly difficult journey ahead.
Potable water, food, and shelter appropriate to a changing climate — these are the basics that will matter when the complex systems we have come to rely upon begin to break down. This is not an optimistic vision; it is a survival strategy born of the recognition that it is too late to save everyone or everything, and that the momentum of the avalanche we have set off will not be halted by any supranational fund or trade sanction—“solutions” that actually exacerbate the predicament.
It may be that the rest of the planet’s species would prefer humans not succeed even in this modest endeavour, given how prehistory and history suggest that pockets of humanity keep following the same suicidal path of extraction and expansion, only this time with the aid of a one-time cache of easily accessible energy that has allowed us to encompass the entire globe in our destructive tendency.
The deep tragedy of this recurring debate is that it drains attention from the questions that actually need to be asked. The Limits to Growth researchers never advocated for a centralised world government to enforce degrowth; they simply demonstrated that within plausible physical assumptions, continued industrial expansion would lead to breakdown, and that a different set of voluntary, adaptive choices could lead to a far more stable and humane outcome. That message was crushed under an avalanche of accusations remarkably similar to de Rugy’s, and the window for an orderly global conversation about deliberate simplification continued to close.
Now, half a century later, the window is for all intents and purposes shut, and the planet has accumulated an additional fifty years of overshoot debt that is coming due in the form of climate disruption, biodiversity loss, and tightening energy constraints.
Neither de Rugy’s paean to growth nor GJP’s supranational contraction apparatus meets the magnitude of the predicament. The former refuses to see that the material conditions for growth are dissolving; the latter imagines that a political machinery of staggering complexity can manage a planetary contraction without itself driving collapse — and without being captured by the very ruling caste whose interests it would threaten.
The most uncomfortable truth is that we are still fighting the same rhetorical battle, with the same accusations of methodological fraud and élite indulgence, while the consequences of the overshoot that both camps either deny or misunderstand continues its quiet, relentless advance. In the face of that advance, the only meaningful response may lie not in any global plan, but in the stubborn, grounded work of preparing our own communities for the world that is already emerging.
Recent and relevant articles:
Everyone Gets a Unicorn — by Matt Orsagh
A Villainous Blueprint For Managed Poverty | ZeroHedge
‘Happiness is not just about GDP’: ambitious plan or utopia? | Environment | The Guardian
Thoughts on the Global Justice Report
Piketty’s Eco-Marxist Utopia: Why Degrowth and Global Redistribution Will Trap the Poor in Poverty
Persistence, Complexity, and Power
Why Taking Over Natural Capital and AI is Essential For Our Collective Future
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.
Very good article.
Never forget John Kenneth Galbraith's quote from 1977:
“People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material portion of their privilege.”
And that applies at all levels of society, even to those on the sink estate on state benefits, an 80" TV bought on credit and three feral teenagers with scrambler bikes tearing up the neighbourhood.
The number of people world wide that voluntarily 'degrow' their personal economy is so tiny that it doesn't even register on GDP. And for every person that does, it simply allows someone else to snap up those unused resources. A voluntary degrowth movement would have to be literally everyone at once. Ain't gonna happen!
And so we must watch in horror as the whole shitshow of unsustainable civilisation wears, collapses and breaks before our eyes and nobody is going to do anything about it, and absolutely no one with access to leavers of power.
At the end there might a few million humans left to salvage something from the overshoot wreckage, but as you say, all the other species would prefer that we should just go away completely. Which I no longer consider a bad outcome.
This is a very lucid, honest and uncompromising analysis, thank you. Fantasising that the ruling elites would somehow abandon their extractive growth mantras is absurd. As you say we must strengthen and prepare local communities for the inevitable and at the same time fight for a redistribution of wealth. The only 'pushback' is that education is essential for preparing humanity for what is heading our way, allowing it to increase preparedness and resilience and equality.