Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

No! You are right, but isn't that super interesting? Especially given various other descriptions of automata, and also some of the descriptions of medieval automata.

Unless the underlying models are corrected and replaced, we'll continue to have the problem.

To give a concrete example, Google (well, "Alphabet", but really, Google) launched a project whose entire premise and name were "REIt failed.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineer...

The problem, if you subscribe to my view, is that the underlying premise was wrong. It's not that renewables are too expensive. It's that the accounting for coal's costs are entirely flawed.

An interesting implication is that if the underlying accounting, tax, and economic model is changed, fossil fuels will be glued to the ground by a force far stronger than gravity: economic fiscal reality.

What are the odds of that happening? Frankly, low. I'm looking to see how much that particular Overton window might swing, however.

Addressing your ag question: Another of my academic remits (both agriculture and economics). There are any of numerous problems, most revolving around various forms of risk. One of my personal collapse scenarios would involve major, possibly multiple simultaneous, crop failures, whether from weather (most likely drought, floods or freezes might also have impacts), disease, a polination collapse, or something similar. There are some food reserves, but those are decidedly finite and would present severe difficulties at mass scale.

Even through the mid-20th century, massive famines resulting in millions of deaths were seen. The most recent major famine was in Bangladesh in 1974 -- the 1980s Ethiopian famines were comparatively mild, despite the worldwide coverage they drew.

Critics of Communism like to point out the Great Famine of China (1959-1961), in which 15-30 million, of a population of about 660 million, died. Roughly 5%. These same critics ignore the 1920s famine under noncommunist Nationalist China, or the numerous 19th century famines under what was largely British control, or the English-exacerbated Great Irish Famine, which saw a fifty percent reduction in the population of Ireland, from a peak still not matched to this day.

Throughout history, famines in which 10%, 30%, or even 90% of populations have died over wide regions have been fairly commonplace.

In a world of global supply chains, massive monocultures, limited self-sufficiency, and vast inequalities of wealth and military power, a recurrance would be an exceedingly notable event.

Though catastrophic collapse isn't the only possibility. The slow yield decline of overworked lands is another possiblity, and again, soil, water, fertiliser, and pest pressures can build with time. Adjustment to such a gradual erosion should be less severe, but still strongly dislocating.

Lifestyle changes can make a large difference, but the changes that make the most difference are also the hardest to implement (driving less, flying less, A/C and heating, etc.)

I try to do whatever lifestyle changes I can, but I also use Project Wren (https://projectwren.com/) to offset the remainder of my carbon footprint!

I think the math isn't quite right: that's about 0.4 cents/cal for chicken? 200 cents / 533 calories

You're talking about the loss of solar energy, which all life derives from. That has nothing to do with caloric energy and nutrients derived from food. I get that plants have the largest biomass on the planet and animals syphon off a tiny fraction of their energy, but a hunter-gatherer doesn't give a damn about the trophic equation. Isn't even aware such a thing exists.

This article is false. The Navajo / Clovis Indians never stopped eating meat. They continued to hunt and they raised lamb and goats. Mutton formed a staple of their diet, along with fried bread and goat milk. Clothing was formed from deer skin and yucca fiber. Note, they hunted the deer. And note, they ate the deer. They also ate the yucca, but it wasn't all they ate.

https://navajopeople.org/navajo-food.htm

"The people in this area responded in an interesting way: by focusing much more on gathering, and less on hunting. We know this from their improved tools for processing plants, especially yucca roots."

Just because they improved tools for eating yucca doesn't mean they stopped hunting. Presumably, all of their tools improved, including hunting tools.

They also raised lamb and sheep. I've been to the Taos Pueblo near there, it's 1000 years old and it has a large meat rack centered in the village, for drying meat out for jerky and pemmican.

The caloric density of meat and protein / fat content is much, much higher than found in vegetables...especially wild vegetables.

And no, we don't have the same gut bacteria or digestive tracks as livestock. Sheep, goats, and cows all have four chambered stomachs and are ruminants. They have trillions of microbes in their stomach to process grass and break down cellulose. They also have a digestive tract that is 27 times longer their bodies versus a human's 3 or 4 times length. We couldn't digest grass like them if we tried. Plant foods are much harder to process than animal foods, because of cellulose. The human gut length ratio is similar to an obligate predator like cats.