The Goddess Gaia happily sleeps on a Tatami floor in a traditional Japanese home
In his book “Meeting with Japan,” Fosco Maraini recounted how many Japanese could not replace their pre-war worldview with anything that made sense. He gave the example of a shop in Tokyo whose owners had removed the old tatami floor to replace it with nothing—just the earth of the street, pressed into service. In the same way, we see the Seneca effect just in terms of a cliff that leads us to nothing but more wars, suffering, deprivation, and more of everything bad.
But the future is made of ups and downs, and the Seneca Cliff is just a step. As I am fond of saying, collapse is a process, not a destination. It means we are always moving onward, and there may well be a better future awaiting us if we only manage to look in the right direction.
Here is an example of a recent discussion on Facebook which I think illustrates the point. (Original exchange in French, below)
Ugo, I liked you, but you've lost your compass. Renewable energies, including nuclear power, depend DIRECTLY on fossil fuels (coal, gas, and oil). Without them, it's utopian to believe that we'll be able to keep our modern societies running on wind and solar power alone. It's impossible, because these are not primary energies that can be harnessed without heavy infrastructures (construction, maintenance, dismantling) that require the indispensable use of fossil fuels.
In Italy, we have a saying: "se le canta e se le suona". This means that you create your own music and your own song, that you sing it, listen to it, and love it. But that doesn't mean it's good music. Here, you're singing music that was already sung twenty years ago and is now completely passé. Sometimes you have to open your ears and listen to different music from time to time. Things change, the harpsichord has gone out of fashion. The EROEI still guides us.
Ugo Bardi, thank you for your very lyrical reply, supported by a lovely Italian saying. I'm very sensitive to it, I assure you, and I appreciate it for its original and unexpected form. But you'll understand that I'm still very surprised by the sudden change of instrument by the great defender of the Seneca effect himself. I understand that catastrophism has its limits and that a monolithic collapseist vision does not bring out the best in mankind. It's precisely for this reason that I defend the ideas of Vincent Mignerot, who is not a collapsologist, and who simply says that by wanting to do the right thing (developing renewable energies) we risk doing worse, and for the time being this is what is confirmed: global emissions continue to rise despite the development of renewable energies. And instead of preparing for the fall of the cliff, our world is lost in utopias. We're sinking with harpsichord music and violins, without having inflated a single lifeboat or buoy.
But, Olivier, the Seneca effect is not a catastrophe - not always, not for everyone. It's the universe's way of changing things. Right now, the renewable revolution is exactly how the Seneca effect is unfolding for the old world. A new world is coming soon. Better or worse? We don't know. The only thing that never changes is change.
______________________________________________________________________
Ugo, je vous aimais bien, mais vous avez perdu la boussole. Les énergies renouvelables, y compris le nucléaire, dépendent DIRECTEMENT des énergies fossiles (charbon, gaz et pétrole). Sans elles, il est utopique de croire que l’on pourra continuer à faire fonctionner nos sociétés modernes avec seulement l’énergie du vent et du soleil. C’est impossible puisque ce ne sont pas des énergies primaires que l’on peut exploiter sans de lourdes infrastructures (construction, maintenance, démantèlement) qui nécessitent le recours indispensable aux énergies fossiles.
En Italie, nous avons un dicton "se le canta e se le suona". Cela signifie que l'on crée sa propre musique et sa propre chanson, qu'on la chante, qu'on l'écoute et qu'on l'aime. Mais cela ne veut pas dire que c'est de la bonne musique. Ici, vous chantez une musique qui a déjà été chantée il y a vingt ans et qui est maintenant complètement passée. Parfois, il faut aussi ouvrir ses oreilles et écouter de temps en temps de la musique différente. Les choses changent, le clavecin est passé de mode. L'EROEI nous guide toujours
Ugo Bardi merci pour votre réponse très lyrique et appuyée d’un joli dicton italien, j’y suis très sensible je vous assure, et je l’apprécie par sa forme originale et inattendue. Mais vous comprendrez que je m’étonne tout de même beaucoup du brutal changement d’instrument du grand défenseur de l’effet de Seneque lui-même. Je comprends que le catastrophisme ait ses limites et qu’une vision monolithique effondriste n’apporte pas le meilleur de ce que les hommes peuvent faire. C’est justement pour cela que je défends les idées de Vincent Mignerot, qui n’est pas collapsologue, et qui dit simplement qu’en voulant bien faire (développer les EnR) nous risquons de faire pire, et c’est pour l’instant ce qui se confirme: les émissions mondiales continuent d’augmenter malgré le développement des EnR. Et au lieu de se préparer à la chute de la falaise, notre monde se perd dans des utopies. Nous sombrons avec la musique du clavecin et les violons sans avoir gonflé un seul canot de sauvetage ni la moindre bouée.
Mais, Olivier, l'effet Seneque n'est pas une catastrophe -- pas toujours, pas pour tous. C'Mais, Olivier, l'effet Seneque n'est pas une catastrophe -- pas toujours, pas pour tous. C'est le moyen de l'univers de changer les choses. En ce moment, la révolution renouvelable est exactement le déroulement de l'effet Seneque pour le vieux monde. Un nouveau monde va bientôt arriver. Meilleur ou pire? On ne sait pas. La seule chose qui ne change pas, c'est le changement.
Hi Ugo, you are one of my saints. But even if you would go to net zero at once The warming would go on because of the many feedbacks already in place, (Water vapour, Methane, Wildfires).
And we are not going to net zero any time soon, On the contrary, Everything is accelerating, And as soon as we have lost the Polar ice all hell will break loose. Therefore, although I'm a physician and very prudent with forecasts I would say that we have not some decades, but Rather some years left. The end will not be decline But rapid destruction of the higher biosphere. That's what we should preparing for. Cheers
Yes…
So will the hoped-for generalization of renewable energy will allow us to preserve most our civilization and, more to the point, keep alive the vast population it supported so far ? Or will it not ?
In the end, one way or an other, it is still more a matter of creed than facts. To the point where it will always be possible to argue that it won't happen if not enough people believe in it...
And still, as far as I'm concerned, I'm very doubtful and tend to think along the same ways than your interlocutor.
But or course, that doesn't mean it's the end of human history.
Actually, it's probably the difference between optimism (the idea that we will find a way to fix our problems) and hope (the idea that not everything is lost and one day the situation can/will improve again).