Basically all of this is based on the scientific principle of “eh it just seems like it should be like that”, which I’m not a huge believer in. Like; by the

Basically all of this is based on the scientific principle of “eh it just seems like it should be like that”, which I’m not a huge believer in. Like; by the time children being born today are in their eighties, if they live that long, a drastically reduced world population will almost certainly be living in tiny villages That is an incredibly specific and short time frame for resource collapse. Citation needed that we’ll “run out” of petrochemicals by then, assuming we can’t make new ones from biomass or recycling landfills. Eventually it does boil down to this directly; Even with miraculous new batteries that run on plentiful chemicals11 the whole system — all of its roads, wires, fertilisers, switches, sealants, pipes, rails, processors, diodes, engines, turbines, cartons, and so on, and on, and on — requires resources which we do not have. It is nothing short of a belief in magic to assert otherwise. The citation is to some vaguely sketchy — but real and credentialed - scholar’s website. I haven’t read all his papers, but based on a quick scan, I feel like a lot of them contradict “we’re all gonna die for sure no matter what” on a basic level. Big claims require big evidence… perhaps the linked video interview is convincing, but I sorta doubt it. I’m gonna go on believing in the scientific consensus as I see it, personally; we face long term challenges and omnipresent existential risks, but we are in no way “collapsing” beyond a hope of salvation. Despite my disagreement with the premises, I must admit that they’re certainly a powerful writer! Two side notes that made me chuckle: 1. That coronavirus wasn’t “real”, and 2. That Greta Thunberg, the teenager, is bribing climate scientists.