" ... one thing that's unclear up front, is the premise and the ultimate goal. what's the purpose here? are we trying to build a better predictive tool or science? to what ends? these questions may sound ignorant but they're fundamental to success. if we don't know what we're looking for, how will we know when we find it? or does it matter? maybe we're just on a voyage of discovery? i don't know."
____________________________________
Premise: Narratives on climate change vary widely. Even An Inconvenient Truth didn't state the central issue. Climate change is an outcome. The driver is energy.
Goal: The Vortex seeks to unify views on climate change into a coherent and consistent whole.
____________________________________
A large number of websites -- and SI threads -- deal with different aspects of approaching events.
Many are excellent. For example, Gail Tvyberg's. But finite resources are a secondary factor in the matter. Also secondary are discussions about CO2 and other greenhouse gases, excessive waste, critiques of capitalism, population growth, food supply, technological advances, and so on.
The primary factor is energy. Without energy, nothing. With excess energy, you can have growth -- and in economics, profit. Insufficient energy? Decline and death until you reach stasis -- where energy demand matches energy supply.
Questions that will be discussed in The Vortex:
— How did we arrive at "excess energy"?
— In our history, have we ever seen an example -- and proof -- of what will happen if we can't use fossil fuels?
— If we can't use fossil fuels because of climate change, what will happen?
— What's moving faster -- climate degradation or improvements?
— What's Energy Return on Investment (EROI)? Why does it matter?
— Can politicians persuade people to act for change? Will anyone vote for such leaders?
— What are the economics of energy?
— What dynamics drive human mass behaviour?
— If we change -- or don't change -- our current path, what will happen?
... and more.
_______________________________________________________
For decades I've been a student of energy and human behaviour. The Vortex is my attempt to bring the debate into focus.
Deniers? Psychologists tell us that we shouldn't expect to change their opinions. They won't change, and every effort to persuade only makes them dig in deeper.
Therefore, the target is those who really seek to understand, but for various reasons -- complexity, contrasting narratives, ideology, incomplete information, etc. -- haven't been able to put it into a picture that flows, logically, across all aspects of the issue.
The first predictions seem obvious in 2019, but in 2012 they were way out there. I was almost afraid to post them. They involved a new method of analysis, as applied to human history and behaviour. Nobody else (that I'm aware of) is using this. Also, they relied on chaos theory, fractals, probability, the thinking of scientists like Schrodinger, Georgescu-Roegen, and economists such as Herman Daly.
Would events evolve as predicted? Didn't post to The Vortex again for ~6 years. By 2018 it was clear predictions had been correct.
Okay, so how to combine all issues into one coherent whole? I had no idea. Herding cats.
Check the header; you'll see many changes since the first post.
I'm a student. Not an "expert". On another list, the ideas posted here have been violently rejected. One problem is the struggle to communicate; another is that the ideas differ radically from the norm. The Vortex sometimes requires you to think in new and different ways.
Hope I've answered your questions. |
