It was immediately apparent to me by July 2020 when Professor John Ionnides published his analysis of the mortality index globally of the new respiratory disease (covid) at approximately 0.25%, less than the seasonal flu, and numerous countries reported that the average age at death was over 80, equal to or more than the average longevity for developed countries.
Now I had the advantage of being trained in my childhood and adolescence by my scientist father in the principles of the natural sciences, and being educated in Australia 60 years ago, of, together with my classmates, an irreverent instinct to untruths or absurdities told to us by our teachers. It's my firm view that any quick-witted child of 14, who has not been terrified into conformity, can figure out the emperor has no clothes on when such such results are portrayed as an "emergency".
Yes, a whole of government and a whole of society simulacrum of emergency is enormously persuasive, but a child certain on first principles of the absurdity of the proposition can never be disabused of its absurdity. With the benefit of later studies and interests, the absurd logic became even more apparent - masks cannot possibly prevent the transmission of viruses orders of magnitude smaller than the warp and weft of even surgical masks, which are worn by medical personnel for entirely other reasons, or that lockdowns and social distancing are going to make any difference to its spread.
The whole exercise was never based on science but on scientism, sciency sounding promulgations by unquestionable authorities that adults, who had shamefully forgotten their childhood awe of nature, naturally assumed the emperor was dressed and should be obeyed, whatever lingering doubts they may have had. Many who took the vaccines now live in apprehension of the long or slow consequences of their credulity and cooperation with political and pharma influenced medical authorities.
Being so thoroughly gaslit by public "authorities" claiming "science" as their mandate, many now are now far more likely to make a human, individual rights based response to any public mandate based on "science". And so they should.
Excellent post and I totally agree. As Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers point out in "Order out of Chaos," the problem is that the Newtonian method was too successful. It made everyone believe in a mechanistic world order, where every problem could be solved. The truth of the matter is that science fails most of the time, which makes its undeniable successes even more important.
Also, having listened to a few Club of Rome Podcasts now - I'm reminded of this next phrase.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
— Max Planck
There seems to be a split in the core of the Club where some are "doomers" from back in the day when renewables were so expensive that Overbuilding across a wide area for Geographic Smoothing was inconceivable. It would just cost too much! I'm only in my mid 50's - and I remember being "back in that day". I got caught up in the peak oil movement of the 2000's. There was no clear pathway. So I remember all the papers decrying the fact that we would need to Overbuild the grid 3 times just to get through winter! But now renewables are so cheap, that "Bug" seems to have become the feature that Tony Seba calls ‘Super-Power’. https://youtu.be/fsnkPLkf1ao
But some from the Club seem to be 'stuck' in that generation that remember the old ways and dogmas - and cannot let it go. They will not be convinced. They cannot see the light. And as such, their insistence that the modern world is doomed to collapse and radical change because of 'peak energy' becomes a false hope. It's like the "Doomer" wants the Energy Transition to do everything we need for sustainability - and cannot think through our problems one at a time. But I think that if it saves us from climate change, peak energy, acidic oceans and petro-dictators then I think we should grateful for that!
This following podcast is an excellent summary of the debate between the old generation Doomers and modern "transitionisas". Stay tuned for the passionate pitch after the interview. The host asks what a successful Energy Transition means for all the OTHER planetary boundaries? Given there's every chance the Energy Transition will allow something like an Electric "Business as Usual" - what does that mean for conservation? And what real debates are the old school "Doomers" missing out on as they trust in an "peak energy judgement day" that may never come? This really is an excellent episode.
It is a quantitative problem, Eclipse and I am always surprised by how people tend to think in absolute, qualitative terms, either or. It is not that. Some kind of collapse is unavoidable by now because we cannot build renewables fast enough, not because they won't free us from the curse of the fossils. They will, but afterward.
I still have yet to see it demonstrated that renewable energy collection devices are themselves renewable all the way up the supply chain. Mining, transportation, fabrication, installation, and distribution are all energy-intensive, and much of this still must be done using combustible fuels. For example, show me a single mining operation or a single refinery or smelter being run using all-renewable energy. Devices such as solar collectors and wind generators are currently what Tim Watkins calls "Non-Renewable Renewable Energy Harvesting Technology."
To my knowledge, it has not yet been demonstrated that many of the modern industrial processes needed to produce these devices can be executed at a positive EROEI using only renewable energy sources.
The only reason these even seem cost-competitive right now is that our pricing mechanisms are broken.
Bill, EROEI is always positive by definition. It has to be larger than one for a technology to be useful. Apart from that, there is an ample literature demonstrating exactly what you ask to be demonstrated. Look on Google Scholar for papers by Marco Raugei, Christian Breyer, myself, and several others and you'll find plenty of demonstrations. Then, it makes little difference what smelters are running on today, eventually they will be run on renewable energy (although you'll still need carbon to make steel, but that's not a question of energy -- it is part of the chemical composition of steel).
I can see that an energy extraction activity would have to yield a positive EROEI, or we (obviously) would not be doing it (e.g., if it takes more energy to pump a barrel of oil out of the ground than we can get back from it). But I do not understand how EROEI is positive "by definition." It seems like it is limited as a useful concept if it is not possible to theoretically entertain the possibility that certain activities could result in a negative return.
For example, it is useful to consider how much energy it costs to site a working wind turbine--mining, transporting, fabricating, assembling, erecting, and maintaining the facility, including all those same activities connected with installing the distribution network. Then we would compare that to the expected amount of energy it could deliver in its expected lifetime.
Of course, we would also be disregarding the drawdown of other (non-energy-related) natural resources required, which is another issue entirely. At an additional energy cost, some amount of recycling is presumably possible.
Thanks much for pointing me at the literature, I'll definitely check it out.
We could always use energy to waste (dissipate, not destroy) energy from other sources for no good reason. Wouldn't that activity exhibit a negative EROI?
"Mining, transportation, fabrication, installation, and distribution are all energy-intensive, and much of this still must be done using combustible fuels."
MINING TRUCKS: Watch a 240 tonne electric mining truck do TWICE the speed of its old diesel cousin going UP HILL while charging from clean hydropower on overhead lines. (Does twice the speed mean half the trucks required?) Watch 60 seconds here: https://youtu.be/6TxMeHRq1mk?t=213
SMELTING: Industrial heat is ENORMOUS - it's HALF the energy the human race uses. Fortunately there are new industrial "thermal batteries". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_battery EG: There's the Rondo heat battery. They excess wind or solar power as industrial heat at 1500 C! They only lose 1% per day. https://rondo.com/how-it-works Then if you need more than 1500 degrees - hydrogen can give it a boost.
Hydrogen can also smelt iron (acting as a reductant, replacing coking coal - but I'll let Ugo talk more about that as he's the Professor of that area.)
"Of course, we would also be disregarding the drawdown of other (non-energy-related) natural resources required, which is another issue entirely." While there are some brands of the Energy Transition technologies that depend on rare-earths and Critical Minerals, the whole Energy Transition is pivoting away from them. There are already brands of solar and wind and EV battery that do NOT use any Critical Minerals. Sodium batteries are 30% cheaper, operate in a wider range of temperatures and are thermally stable. They are the natural choice for the first 2 hours of grid batteries - then off-river pumped hydro takes over. (The world has over 100 TIMES the sites we need for off-river hydro.)
There are even plans for electric motors that do not rely on rare earths or Critical Minerals. As the less abundant minerals take over and those brands rise in price, others will jump in. (This is REALLY not my area of expertise - but I googled this stuff when annoyed with Simon Michaux's bombastic claims.) https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/materials/
Ouch. Well argued post, Ugo, as much as it pains me to say so. Your Covid examples don't speak to me at all ... the masks/shots were presented as just "better than nothing" over here, and I'm still getting the shots and occasionally masking. But "Science as Religion" and some white coated weakling as the Pope is spot on. Going to try to restack this.
"The “scientific method” has precisely the same place that God has in religion. Both are abstract entities supposed to speak the truth, but not directly. Rather, truth is relayed to commoners by a class of interpreters (“priests” or “scientists”) who can tell what God/Science says"
Depends on how you define "collapse" -- the change in slope was supposed to be around 2010-2020, but the authors never wanted (correctly) to state a year. They were not making predictions, they were examining trends
how do you mean define collapse I mean when do you think population collapse will happen will it be before 2030 because the club of rome's new book stated we must do the 5 turnarounds against 2030 ?
how do you mean define collapse I mean the human population collapse it is because the new book states we have until 2030 to implement the 5 turnarounds to create an earth for everybody so I thought we had time until 2030 ?
Collapse is not an event. It is a process. So, it has a time span. For the Roman Empire, it lasted for a few centuries; for us, it may be faster, but still you cannot establish a date in terms of a specific year. About the "new book," I suppose you mean "Earth4all". There is no specific date for when we should start doing certain things, the earlier, the better.
What made the "scientific method" a source of "TRUTH" is that using it you can always redo the experiment, confirming the results. As always, when something become a source of "TRUTH" begin to coalescence a group of parasitic entities that take possession of the source, bind it behind a wall and become the mouth of it to the world.
Today dogma and polarization are the workhorses of propaganda and science is in the position of being a dual entity, it's the source of both hard and soft power and a tool for empowering some world views used as mass control systems. We can see that scientific discoveries in "hard" science make better, more effective and cheaper weapons and defenses, more blurring is the "hard" soft power of science because is linked to the predictivity of models: good modelling give access to prediction of likely futures and open the possibility of simulating actions to modify it, as ready example we can think about the "perfect model" of weather, owning it you can calculate the action needed to generate what you need or what is the worst for your enemy and if no other have access to your tool you have a lot of stealth in your doing.
To common peoples, scientists owning this power are mythical and revered figures surrounded by mystery, mysterious in their thinking and doing but powerful in their effects, seems exaggerated but is more readable if we look at the figure of A. Einstein, the all might father of the atom and his power, of the world shattering new theories and similar but utterly distant from the norms. Using the aura of power of these figures a lot of other pose themselves and, if this role is accepted, can be mined as spin doctors to imbue credibility to your propaganda, using it sparsely is quite effective, but it gets quite rapidly in the diminishing returns. Abuse it and your spins will fall off from usability, dragging down the assumed source of their power, the "science".
Today, we can see this picture in the scientific community because we have a clergy cast of "speakers" in university and similar big institutions but also a lot of startups and offshoots in industry made by researchers with good results reproducible so also sellable!
There might be other crisis society has to face - but 'peak energy' collapse scenarios are just not convincing today. Renewables are on a doubling curve that makes the oil doubling curve of the 20th century look positively sluggish!
Of course! Finite planet, and all that. Again - I'm a renewables Ecomodernist - not a Techno Utopian. But the solar side of this is operating like a standard adoption S-curve - like the many we can study through history. As we know with exponentials, they’re on doubling curves. Nothing appears to be happening for a while - then suddenly it’s everywhere. Solar is on a 4 year doubling curve. The Paris Agreement wanted 615 GW solar annually by 2030 - but that could happen in the next year or so and it's still doubling. This article wonders if we're going to see 3 TW of capacity annually by 2030!
EV Growth is starting to offset some diesel cars and trucks, which gives mining and industry more fuel availability while they start their own electrification processes (which are about a decade behind cars - but is starting.)
Allow me to nail one single thesis.
It was immediately apparent to me by July 2020 when Professor John Ionnides published his analysis of the mortality index globally of the new respiratory disease (covid) at approximately 0.25%, less than the seasonal flu, and numerous countries reported that the average age at death was over 80, equal to or more than the average longevity for developed countries.
Now I had the advantage of being trained in my childhood and adolescence by my scientist father in the principles of the natural sciences, and being educated in Australia 60 years ago, of, together with my classmates, an irreverent instinct to untruths or absurdities told to us by our teachers. It's my firm view that any quick-witted child of 14, who has not been terrified into conformity, can figure out the emperor has no clothes on when such such results are portrayed as an "emergency".
Yes, a whole of government and a whole of society simulacrum of emergency is enormously persuasive, but a child certain on first principles of the absurdity of the proposition can never be disabused of its absurdity. With the benefit of later studies and interests, the absurd logic became even more apparent - masks cannot possibly prevent the transmission of viruses orders of magnitude smaller than the warp and weft of even surgical masks, which are worn by medical personnel for entirely other reasons, or that lockdowns and social distancing are going to make any difference to its spread.
The whole exercise was never based on science but on scientism, sciency sounding promulgations by unquestionable authorities that adults, who had shamefully forgotten their childhood awe of nature, naturally assumed the emperor was dressed and should be obeyed, whatever lingering doubts they may have had. Many who took the vaccines now live in apprehension of the long or slow consequences of their credulity and cooperation with political and pharma influenced medical authorities.
Being so thoroughly gaslit by public "authorities" claiming "science" as their mandate, many now are now far more likely to make a human, individual rights based response to any public mandate based on "science". And so they should.
Excellent post and I totally agree. As Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers point out in "Order out of Chaos," the problem is that the Newtonian method was too successful. It made everyone believe in a mechanistic world order, where every problem could be solved. The truth of the matter is that science fails most of the time, which makes its undeniable successes even more important.
Also, having listened to a few Club of Rome Podcasts now - I'm reminded of this next phrase.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
— Max Planck
There seems to be a split in the core of the Club where some are "doomers" from back in the day when renewables were so expensive that Overbuilding across a wide area for Geographic Smoothing was inconceivable. It would just cost too much! I'm only in my mid 50's - and I remember being "back in that day". I got caught up in the peak oil movement of the 2000's. There was no clear pathway. So I remember all the papers decrying the fact that we would need to Overbuild the grid 3 times just to get through winter! But now renewables are so cheap, that "Bug" seems to have become the feature that Tony Seba calls ‘Super-Power’. https://youtu.be/fsnkPLkf1ao
But some from the Club seem to be 'stuck' in that generation that remember the old ways and dogmas - and cannot let it go. They will not be convinced. They cannot see the light. And as such, their insistence that the modern world is doomed to collapse and radical change because of 'peak energy' becomes a false hope. It's like the "Doomer" wants the Energy Transition to do everything we need for sustainability - and cannot think through our problems one at a time. But I think that if it saves us from climate change, peak energy, acidic oceans and petro-dictators then I think we should grateful for that!
This following podcast is an excellent summary of the debate between the old generation Doomers and modern "transitionisas". Stay tuned for the passionate pitch after the interview. The host asks what a successful Energy Transition means for all the OTHER planetary boundaries? Given there's every chance the Energy Transition will allow something like an Electric "Business as Usual" - what does that mean for conservation? And what real debates are the old school "Doomers" missing out on as they trust in an "peak energy judgement day" that may never come? This really is an excellent episode.
https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-211-doomers-vs-transitionistas/
Also, Raugei's paper is a great summary of the debate.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-023-00113-9
It is a quantitative problem, Eclipse and I am always surprised by how people tend to think in absolute, qualitative terms, either or. It is not that. Some kind of collapse is unavoidable by now because we cannot build renewables fast enough, not because they won't free us from the curse of the fossils. They will, but afterward.
I still have yet to see it demonstrated that renewable energy collection devices are themselves renewable all the way up the supply chain. Mining, transportation, fabrication, installation, and distribution are all energy-intensive, and much of this still must be done using combustible fuels. For example, show me a single mining operation or a single refinery or smelter being run using all-renewable energy. Devices such as solar collectors and wind generators are currently what Tim Watkins calls "Non-Renewable Renewable Energy Harvesting Technology."
To my knowledge, it has not yet been demonstrated that many of the modern industrial processes needed to produce these devices can be executed at a positive EROEI using only renewable energy sources.
The only reason these even seem cost-competitive right now is that our pricing mechanisms are broken.
Bill, EROEI is always positive by definition. It has to be larger than one for a technology to be useful. Apart from that, there is an ample literature demonstrating exactly what you ask to be demonstrated. Look on Google Scholar for papers by Marco Raugei, Christian Breyer, myself, and several others and you'll find plenty of demonstrations. Then, it makes little difference what smelters are running on today, eventually they will be run on renewable energy (although you'll still need carbon to make steel, but that's not a question of energy -- it is part of the chemical composition of steel).
I can see that an energy extraction activity would have to yield a positive EROEI, or we (obviously) would not be doing it (e.g., if it takes more energy to pump a barrel of oil out of the ground than we can get back from it). But I do not understand how EROEI is positive "by definition." It seems like it is limited as a useful concept if it is not possible to theoretically entertain the possibility that certain activities could result in a negative return.
For example, it is useful to consider how much energy it costs to site a working wind turbine--mining, transporting, fabricating, assembling, erecting, and maintaining the facility, including all those same activities connected with installing the distribution network. Then we would compare that to the expected amount of energy it could deliver in its expected lifetime.
Of course, we would also be disregarding the drawdown of other (non-energy-related) natural resources required, which is another issue entirely. At an additional energy cost, some amount of recycling is presumably possible.
Thanks much for pointing me at the literature, I'll definitely check it out.
The EROI is the ratio of two positive quantities, so it is positive by definition!
We could always use energy to waste (dissipate, not destroy) energy from other sources for no good reason. Wouldn't that activity exhibit a negative EROI?
D'oh! Of course--I am thinking of <1 vs. >1.
"Mining, transportation, fabrication, installation, and distribution are all energy-intensive, and much of this still must be done using combustible fuels."
MINING TRUCKS: Watch a 240 tonne electric mining truck do TWICE the speed of its old diesel cousin going UP HILL while charging from clean hydropower on overhead lines. (Does twice the speed mean half the trucks required?) Watch 60 seconds here: https://youtu.be/6TxMeHRq1mk?t=213
SMELTING: Industrial heat is ENORMOUS - it's HALF the energy the human race uses. Fortunately there are new industrial "thermal batteries". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_battery EG: There's the Rondo heat battery. They excess wind or solar power as industrial heat at 1500 C! They only lose 1% per day. https://rondo.com/how-it-works Then if you need more than 1500 degrees - hydrogen can give it a boost.
Hydrogen can also smelt iron (acting as a reductant, replacing coking coal - but I'll let Ugo talk more about that as he's the Professor of that area.)
Australian industrial giants worth a third of our stock-market have a think tank brainstorming all this. It's coming. They're sick of today's energy prices. They plan to build 3 TIMES Australia’s 2020 electricity grid in renewables capacity out in the deserts near their mines to meet their domestic industrial obligations! From page 45 of their Feb 2023 PDF https://energytransitionsinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Pathways-to-Industrial-Decarbonisation-report-Updated-August-2023-Australian-Industry-ETI.pdf
"Of course, we would also be disregarding the drawdown of other (non-energy-related) natural resources required, which is another issue entirely." While there are some brands of the Energy Transition technologies that depend on rare-earths and Critical Minerals, the whole Energy Transition is pivoting away from them. There are already brands of solar and wind and EV battery that do NOT use any Critical Minerals. Sodium batteries are 30% cheaper, operate in a wider range of temperatures and are thermally stable. They are the natural choice for the first 2 hours of grid batteries - then off-river pumped hydro takes over. (The world has over 100 TIMES the sites we need for off-river hydro.)
There are even plans for electric motors that do not rely on rare earths or Critical Minerals. As the less abundant minerals take over and those brands rise in price, others will jump in. (This is REALLY not my area of expertise - but I googled this stuff when annoyed with Simon Michaux's bombastic claims.) https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/materials/
Ouch. Well argued post, Ugo, as much as it pains me to say so. Your Covid examples don't speak to me at all ... the masks/shots were presented as just "better than nothing" over here, and I'm still getting the shots and occasionally masking. But "Science as Religion" and some white coated weakling as the Pope is spot on. Going to try to restack this.
Well resteck almost worked...
This was the quote that mattered to me.
"The “scientific method” has precisely the same place that God has in religion. Both are abstract entities supposed to speak the truth, but not directly. Rather, truth is relayed to commoners by a class of interpreters (“priests” or “scientists”) who can tell what God/Science says"
i thought the bau model stated that collapse would start in 2030 ?
Depends on how you define "collapse" -- the change in slope was supposed to be around 2010-2020, but the authors never wanted (correctly) to state a year. They were not making predictions, they were examining trends
how do you mean define collapse I mean when do you think population collapse will happen will it be before 2030 because the club of rome's new book stated we must do the 5 turnarounds against 2030 ?
how do you mean define collapse I mean the human population collapse it is because the new book states we have until 2030 to implement the 5 turnarounds to create an earth for everybody so I thought we had time until 2030 ?
Collapse is not an event. It is a process. So, it has a time span. For the Roman Empire, it lasted for a few centuries; for us, it may be faster, but still you cannot establish a date in terms of a specific year. About the "new book," I suppose you mean "Earth4all". There is no specific date for when we should start doing certain things, the earlier, the better.
I mean the human population collapse the new book of the club of rome says we have time to 2030
What made the "scientific method" a source of "TRUTH" is that using it you can always redo the experiment, confirming the results. As always, when something become a source of "TRUTH" begin to coalescence a group of parasitic entities that take possession of the source, bind it behind a wall and become the mouth of it to the world.
The Holy Bible was walled and a source of long-lasting gambling about accessibility, quite a lot of gambling to keep it in the "right" hands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_the_Bible .
Today dogma and polarization are the workhorses of propaganda and science is in the position of being a dual entity, it's the source of both hard and soft power and a tool for empowering some world views used as mass control systems. We can see that scientific discoveries in "hard" science make better, more effective and cheaper weapons and defenses, more blurring is the "hard" soft power of science because is linked to the predictivity of models: good modelling give access to prediction of likely futures and open the possibility of simulating actions to modify it, as ready example we can think about the "perfect model" of weather, owning it you can calculate the action needed to generate what you need or what is the worst for your enemy and if no other have access to your tool you have a lot of stealth in your doing.
To common peoples, scientists owning this power are mythical and revered figures surrounded by mystery, mysterious in their thinking and doing but powerful in their effects, seems exaggerated but is more readable if we look at the figure of A. Einstein, the all might father of the atom and his power, of the world shattering new theories and similar but utterly distant from the norms. Using the aura of power of these figures a lot of other pose themselves and, if this role is accepted, can be mined as spin doctors to imbue credibility to your propaganda, using it sparsely is quite effective, but it gets quite rapidly in the diminishing returns. Abuse it and your spins will fall off from usability, dragging down the assumed source of their power, the "science".
Today, we can see this picture in the scientific community because we have a clergy cast of "speakers" in university and similar big institutions but also a lot of startups and offshoots in industry made by researchers with good results reproducible so also sellable!
Athanasius
But they're doubling every 4 years and as we Electrify Everything we'll find we only need 40% of the thermal energy in fossil fuels. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-energy-efficiency
EG: As renewables grow exponentially towards the goals, we'll find those goals start moving back towards us!
Even Johan Rockstrom said we are close to a "Montreal Moment" where finally now that renewables are cheap enough, real change can happen.
It’s happening so fast the head of the International Energy Agency predicts that oil DEMAND will peak by 2026 and decline from there. https://www.iea.org/news/growth-in-global-oil-demand-is-set-to-slow-significantly-by-2028
There might be other crisis society has to face - but 'peak energy' collapse scenarios are just not convincing today. Renewables are on a doubling curve that makes the oil doubling curve of the 20th century look positively sluggish!
Easy, Eclipse. Exponentials never are forever.
Of course! Finite planet, and all that. Again - I'm a renewables Ecomodernist - not a Techno Utopian. But the solar side of this is operating like a standard adoption S-curve - like the many we can study through history. As we know with exponentials, they’re on doubling curves. Nothing appears to be happening for a while - then suddenly it’s everywhere. Solar is on a 4 year doubling curve. The Paris Agreement wanted 615 GW solar annually by 2030 - but that could happen in the next year or so and it's still doubling. This article wonders if we're going to see 3 TW of capacity annually by 2030!
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/12/25/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-one-terawatt-of-solar-deployed-annually/
EV GROWTH RATES according to the IEA: The percent of all new cars sold worldwide:-
2020: 5%
2021: 9%
2022: 14%
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary
EV Growth is starting to offset some diesel cars and trucks, which gives mining and industry more fuel availability while they start their own electrification processes (which are about a decade behind cars - but is starting.)
Waiter, I'll have what he's drinking. 👆
Please see my latest post to Ugo.
https://open.substack.com/pub/senecaeffect/p/does-science-have-a-god-surprisingly?r=kv4v7&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=46959575