This is an excellent update but, as noted in comments, unsupportable population cannot be ignored. These are hyper problems that are entangled in nonlinear complexity. Too many countervailing variables.
Our archaic political processes are now almost always backward worsening a very bad situation; e.g., pushing to increase population to maintain the workforce and production growth.
And you are using the old time scale. I think the faster and worse results are now most likely. That means tipping points to scattered chaos in the next five years with two billion + deaths (humans alone) by 2040. This will produce major ungoverned areas, primarily in equatorial regions but also in some unlucky temperate areas.
You are thoughtfully correct but the devil is in the details.
You cut straight to the heart of the matter, Mike—population, politics, and the accelerating pace of collapse are all threads that can’t be ignored. You’re absolutely right about the archaic political systems doubling down on growth at all costs, even as the ground shifts beneath us. It’s a dangerous game, and the consequences are already playing out in ways that are hard to predict but impossible to ignore.
The timeline you mention is sobering, and while I hope it’s not that dire, I can’t dismiss it outright. The interconnectedness of these crises means the dominoes could fall faster than anyone expects. Your point about ungoverned areas and the human cost is a grim but necessary reminder of what’s at stake.
Thanks for adding depth to the conversation—it’s comments like these that push the discussion beyond the abstract and into the messy, urgent reality we’re facing.
This is the utmost compliment, Lindsay! Thank you so, so much!
And It’s frustrating, isn’t it? The disconnect between those who have the power to act and the urgency of what’s unfolding feels like a widening chasm. I’ve had those same thoughts—how can so many see what’s happening and still choose to look away? But then I remember that voices like yours, and conversations like this, matter. They’re small cracks in the wall of indifference. Thanks for adding yours to the mix—it’s a reminder that even when the big players fail to act, there are still people out there who care enough to push back.
True that! Write letters, make phone calls, protest, we should all do something, and as time passes, more and more people will become activists, I believe. Because so many more people will begin hurting. Take care, Lindsay
Ah, my dear Ricky, you are young, idealistic, and wrong headed. Your horizontal bar graph on the the contributors to CO2 tells the tale: the single greatest contributor to environmental collapse in all its dimensions is bringing another innocent life into this dying world to join the 108,000 being born today (net). On the current trajectory, we may see 2 degC by 2027 and 3 degC by 2032, and 6 degC by 2047, when any child unfortunate enough to be born today may celebrate (?) his/her 22nd BD. Have a blessed day. Gregg
Gregg, your comment cuts straight to the heart of one of the most uncomfortable truths we’re facing—overpopulation and its role in accelerating collapse. It’s a brutal reality, and I won’t argue with the numbers or the trajectory you’ve laid out. You’re right to point out the ethical weight of bringing new life into a world that’s unraveling faster than we can adapt to it. It’s a conversation that’s often avoided, but it needs to be had, even if it’s painful.
Where I’ll push back, though, is on the idea that idealism is inherently wrongheaded. Yes, the numbers are grim, and yes, the timeline is terrifying. But if we let despair have the final word, we’re already conceding the fight. The question isn’t just about how bad it will get—it’s about what we do in the face of it. Even in the darkest scenarios, there’s room for resilience, adaptation, and maybe even a kind of stubborn hope.
Thanks for bringing this perspective to the table. It’s a hard one to sit with, but it’s necessary.
I've been involved in a dialog this morning regarding the accusation that the 0.214 degC annual GAST increase MUST be for a decade and NOT one year. I forwarded the C3S and ENVIRONMENT Hansen "Global Warming Has Accelerated" 2-15-25 paper quotes verifying the 0.2 degC ANNUAL GAST increases. As a retired physician, I know that my "mistakes" can be fatal to patients. Primum non nocere. What the collapse community is getting right is that we can face the calamity of rapid climate collapse together and grieve our way into acceptance, but not reproducing is the ONLY HONEST RESPONSE for the sake of the unconceived. One fellow, an economist, predicts that the worldwide economy collapses at 5 degC increase, which is now predicted for 2042, 17 yrs. hence I know this is hard to swallow, but I've downsized from a 28 rm mansion to my current 1BR student apt. and don't drive my vehicle at all on many weeks. I've made my PERSONAL carbon footprint as small as possible, including not using single use plastic anything, including straws. And you? Have a blessed day. Gregg
Beautifully said. Do you know about the cultural shift we’re igniting to community wealth (replacing current systems now) or the IPBES transformative change assessment / idk if you follow Karen O’Brien
Thanks for bringing up community wealth and the IPBES transformative change assessment—these are exactly the kinds of shifts I find both necessary and inspiring.
The idea of replacing current systems with something rooted in community and shared wealth isn’t just hopeful; it’s practical. It’s about building the future we need while the old structures crumble.
I’d love to dive deeper into these conversations, and your comment is a solid push in that direction. Thanks for pointing the way, J!
Am excellent essay Ricky. Glad you're still down in Patagonia. If war comes you're better off there. I have a feeling that the global North is in deep trouble and the rebuilding will start in the South
Thanks for always adding value, Michael—this time with a a sharp observation, and I appreciate the kind words about the piece. You’re not wrong about Patagonia; there’s a rawness here that feels like both a refuge and a reminder of how much is at stake. The idea of the South leading the way in rebuilding is intriguing, and I think there’s something to it. The global North’s systems are buckling under their own weight, and the South’s resilience, born out of necessity, might just be the blueprint for what comes next. Your comment adds a layer of hope to the conversation, and I’m grateful for it.
Yes - Glad to see others understand this. "Disasters don’t instantly turn people into violent mobs. The myth of chaos is just that — a myth. More often than not, people help each other. They adapt. They organize. I saw it firsthand when wildfires devoured over 250,000 acres in Patagonia. While politicians postured, neighbors became each other’s safety nets. Sure, the usual opportunists lurked, but solidarity and togetherness outweighed selfishness."
This is exactly the kind of perspective that needs to be heard more often, Tristan. The myth of chaos and collapse turning us all into savages is not only tired but deeply untrue. What you’ve described—neighbors stepping up, communities pulling together—is the reality I’ve seen too, and it’s a reminder that even in the worst moments, there’s a resilience in people that doesn’t make headlines often enough. Your firsthand experience with the wildfires in Patagonia adds a layer of truth to this that no theoretical argument ever could.
Thanks for sharing it—it’s a needed counterbalance to the doom-and-gloom narratives that dominate the conversation.
I believe the idea of violent mobs in collapse largely came from Octavia Butler’s books, The Parable of the Sower and The Parable of the Talents, written in the 90s and taking place starting in 2024. Many readers think she was prescient.
Wow, I didn't know that, but after some digging, I can definitely say you are right on point. Fortunately, I haven't seen Ms. Butler's profecy become real...
It’s population times per capita environmental footprint. How many people living like Americans could the earth sustain versus, let’s say, rural Indians? Certainly a lot more with the rural Indian lifestyle. Then there’s communal lifestyle versus atomized lifestyle. Amish versus non-Amish. Shakers versus everyone else. Amazonian tribes. Monasteries, too. All these modes of living have to be examined to build a workable future. And people don’t have to wait for their governments to start living them. They need to think and then live outside the box. It won’t be utopian because it involves people who have to learn to manage the naturally occurring conflict and stress that occurs from cooperative living.
Stan, you’ve nailed something essential: the math of it all. Population and consumption are the twin engines driving this mess, and you’re right—the disparity between lifestyles like the American dream and, say, rural Indian communities is staggering. It’s not just about numbers; it’s about how we choose to live.
The examples you bring up—Amish, Shakers, Amazonian tribes, monasteries—are all living proof that alternatives exist. They’re not perfect, and as you point out, they come with their own challenges, especially when it comes to managing conflict and stress. But they also show that cooperation and simplicity aren’t just theoretical—they’re practical, lived realities.
What stands out most is your call to action: people don’t need to wait for governments or systems to change. They can start now, thinking and living outside the box. That’s where the real work begins. Thanks for adding such a grounded, practical perspective to the conversation.
Excellent essay, many thanks. The world’s systems, such are agriculture, are deployed to support people and so population numbers are key. Many countries with fairly efficient urban support structures have stable or declining population numbers, which is a good thing. Much of the population growth between now and 2050 will be in Africa, and that’s where catastrophe looms largest if the world does not work together to provide solutions.
Many thanks - and it makes it all the more frustrating that USAID has disappeared. It didn’t get everything right, but it was definitely a force for good on all of this.
Thanks for the comment, Mark. It really means a lot coming from you!
You’re absolutely correct that population dynamics are a critical piece of the puzzle, especially when it comes to agriculture and resource distribution. The uneven growth you mention, particularly in Africa, is a looming challenge that demands global cooperation, not just charity or half-hearted aid. If we don’t address it collectively, the ripple effects will be felt everywhere, not just in the regions most at risk. Your point about stable or declining populations in urbanized countries is also worth reflecting on—it’s a reminder that not all growth is inevitable or desirable. Thanks for adding this layer to the conversation; it’s a perspective that needs to be heard.
This is an excellent update but, as noted in comments, unsupportable population cannot be ignored. These are hyper problems that are entangled in nonlinear complexity. Too many countervailing variables.
Our archaic political processes are now almost always backward worsening a very bad situation; e.g., pushing to increase population to maintain the workforce and production growth.
And you are using the old time scale. I think the faster and worse results are now most likely. That means tipping points to scattered chaos in the next five years with two billion + deaths (humans alone) by 2040. This will produce major ungoverned areas, primarily in equatorial regions but also in some unlucky temperate areas.
You are thoughtfully correct but the devil is in the details.
You cut straight to the heart of the matter, Mike—population, politics, and the accelerating pace of collapse are all threads that can’t be ignored. You’re absolutely right about the archaic political systems doubling down on growth at all costs, even as the ground shifts beneath us. It’s a dangerous game, and the consequences are already playing out in ways that are hard to predict but impossible to ignore.
The timeline you mention is sobering, and while I hope it’s not that dire, I can’t dismiss it outright. The interconnectedness of these crises means the dominoes could fall faster than anyone expects. Your point about ungoverned areas and the human cost is a grim but necessary reminder of what’s at stake.
Thanks for adding depth to the conversation—it’s comments like these that push the discussion beyond the abstract and into the messy, urgent reality we’re facing.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
I wish your voice was heard everywhere. It's frightening how much people who should care - and can do something about it - don't.
This is the utmost compliment, Lindsay! Thank you so, so much!
And It’s frustrating, isn’t it? The disconnect between those who have the power to act and the urgency of what’s unfolding feels like a widening chasm. I’ve had those same thoughts—how can so many see what’s happening and still choose to look away? But then I remember that voices like yours, and conversations like this, matter. They’re small cracks in the wall of indifference. Thanks for adding yours to the mix—it’s a reminder that even when the big players fail to act, there are still people out there who care enough to push back.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
True that! Write letters, make phone calls, protest, we should all do something, and as time passes, more and more people will become activists, I believe. Because so many more people will begin hurting. Take care, Lindsay
Ah, my dear Ricky, you are young, idealistic, and wrong headed. Your horizontal bar graph on the the contributors to CO2 tells the tale: the single greatest contributor to environmental collapse in all its dimensions is bringing another innocent life into this dying world to join the 108,000 being born today (net). On the current trajectory, we may see 2 degC by 2027 and 3 degC by 2032, and 6 degC by 2047, when any child unfortunate enough to be born today may celebrate (?) his/her 22nd BD. Have a blessed day. Gregg
Gregg, your comment cuts straight to the heart of one of the most uncomfortable truths we’re facing—overpopulation and its role in accelerating collapse. It’s a brutal reality, and I won’t argue with the numbers or the trajectory you’ve laid out. You’re right to point out the ethical weight of bringing new life into a world that’s unraveling faster than we can adapt to it. It’s a conversation that’s often avoided, but it needs to be had, even if it’s painful.
Where I’ll push back, though, is on the idea that idealism is inherently wrongheaded. Yes, the numbers are grim, and yes, the timeline is terrifying. But if we let despair have the final word, we’re already conceding the fight. The question isn’t just about how bad it will get—it’s about what we do in the face of it. Even in the darkest scenarios, there’s room for resilience, adaptation, and maybe even a kind of stubborn hope.
Thanks for bringing this perspective to the table. It’s a hard one to sit with, but it’s necessary.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
I've been involved in a dialog this morning regarding the accusation that the 0.214 degC annual GAST increase MUST be for a decade and NOT one year. I forwarded the C3S and ENVIRONMENT Hansen "Global Warming Has Accelerated" 2-15-25 paper quotes verifying the 0.2 degC ANNUAL GAST increases. As a retired physician, I know that my "mistakes" can be fatal to patients. Primum non nocere. What the collapse community is getting right is that we can face the calamity of rapid climate collapse together and grieve our way into acceptance, but not reproducing is the ONLY HONEST RESPONSE for the sake of the unconceived. One fellow, an economist, predicts that the worldwide economy collapses at 5 degC increase, which is now predicted for 2042, 17 yrs. hence I know this is hard to swallow, but I've downsized from a 28 rm mansion to my current 1BR student apt. and don't drive my vehicle at all on many weeks. I've made my PERSONAL carbon footprint as small as possible, including not using single use plastic anything, including straws. And you? Have a blessed day. Gregg
Beautifully said. Do you know about the cultural shift we’re igniting to community wealth (replacing current systems now) or the IPBES transformative change assessment / idk if you follow Karen O’Brien
Would love to have your voice in this!
Thanks for bringing up community wealth and the IPBES transformative change assessment—these are exactly the kinds of shifts I find both necessary and inspiring.
The idea of replacing current systems with something rooted in community and shared wealth isn’t just hopeful; it’s practical. It’s about building the future we need while the old structures crumble.
I’d love to dive deeper into these conversations, and your comment is a solid push in that direction. Thanks for pointing the way, J!
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
Am excellent essay Ricky. Glad you're still down in Patagonia. If war comes you're better off there. I have a feeling that the global North is in deep trouble and the rebuilding will start in the South
Thanks for always adding value, Michael—this time with a a sharp observation, and I appreciate the kind words about the piece. You’re not wrong about Patagonia; there’s a rawness here that feels like both a refuge and a reminder of how much is at stake. The idea of the South leading the way in rebuilding is intriguing, and I think there’s something to it. The global North’s systems are buckling under their own weight, and the South’s resilience, born out of necessity, might just be the blueprint for what comes next. Your comment adds a layer of hope to the conversation, and I’m grateful for it.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
Yes - Glad to see others understand this. "Disasters don’t instantly turn people into violent mobs. The myth of chaos is just that — a myth. More often than not, people help each other. They adapt. They organize. I saw it firsthand when wildfires devoured over 250,000 acres in Patagonia. While politicians postured, neighbors became each other’s safety nets. Sure, the usual opportunists lurked, but solidarity and togetherness outweighed selfishness."
This is exactly the kind of perspective that needs to be heard more often, Tristan. The myth of chaos and collapse turning us all into savages is not only tired but deeply untrue. What you’ve described—neighbors stepping up, communities pulling together—is the reality I’ve seen too, and it’s a reminder that even in the worst moments, there’s a resilience in people that doesn’t make headlines often enough. Your firsthand experience with the wildfires in Patagonia adds a layer of truth to this that no theoretical argument ever could.
Thanks for sharing it—it’s a needed counterbalance to the doom-and-gloom narratives that dominate the conversation.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
I believe the idea of violent mobs in collapse largely came from Octavia Butler’s books, The Parable of the Sower and The Parable of the Talents, written in the 90s and taking place starting in 2024. Many readers think she was prescient.
Wow, I didn't know that, but after some digging, I can definitely say you are right on point. Fortunately, I haven't seen Ms. Butler's profecy become real...
It’s population times per capita environmental footprint. How many people living like Americans could the earth sustain versus, let’s say, rural Indians? Certainly a lot more with the rural Indian lifestyle. Then there’s communal lifestyle versus atomized lifestyle. Amish versus non-Amish. Shakers versus everyone else. Amazonian tribes. Monasteries, too. All these modes of living have to be examined to build a workable future. And people don’t have to wait for their governments to start living them. They need to think and then live outside the box. It won’t be utopian because it involves people who have to learn to manage the naturally occurring conflict and stress that occurs from cooperative living.
Stan, you’ve nailed something essential: the math of it all. Population and consumption are the twin engines driving this mess, and you’re right—the disparity between lifestyles like the American dream and, say, rural Indian communities is staggering. It’s not just about numbers; it’s about how we choose to live.
The examples you bring up—Amish, Shakers, Amazonian tribes, monasteries—are all living proof that alternatives exist. They’re not perfect, and as you point out, they come with their own challenges, especially when it comes to managing conflict and stress. But they also show that cooperation and simplicity aren’t just theoretical—they’re practical, lived realities.
What stands out most is your call to action: people don’t need to wait for governments or systems to change. They can start now, thinking and living outside the box. That’s where the real work begins. Thanks for adding such a grounded, practical perspective to the conversation.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky
Excellent essay, many thanks. The world’s systems, such are agriculture, are deployed to support people and so population numbers are key. Many countries with fairly efficient urban support structures have stable or declining population numbers, which is a good thing. Much of the population growth between now and 2050 will be in Africa, and that’s where catastrophe looms largest if the world does not work together to provide solutions.
Many thanks - and it makes it all the more frustrating that USAID has disappeared. It didn’t get everything right, but it was definitely a force for good on all of this.
Love your Substack btw, keep it coming!!
Yours as well, Mark!!! I guess we are complementing each other's work here, compounding collective efforts toward meaningful change!!!
Thanks for the comment, Mark. It really means a lot coming from you!
You’re absolutely correct that population dynamics are a critical piece of the puzzle, especially when it comes to agriculture and resource distribution. The uneven growth you mention, particularly in Africa, is a looming challenge that demands global cooperation, not just charity or half-hearted aid. If we don’t address it collectively, the ripple effects will be felt everywhere, not just in the regions most at risk. Your point about stable or declining populations in urbanized countries is also worth reflecting on—it’s a reminder that not all growth is inevitable or desirable. Thanks for adding this layer to the conversation; it’s a perspective that needs to be heard.
Southern winds from Patagonia,
Ricky