Gail Tverberg vs. John Michael Greer

I think a major difference between John Michael Greer and Gail Tverberg is that while Greer sees the economy as fractal, Tverberg sees it as a dome made up of Leonardo Sticks:

Dome constructed using Leonardo Sticks. Is this a correct model of our economy?

In a fractal structure consisting of lots of nodes many of these can break down before the whole system falls apart:

A fractal structure where a significant number of nodes need to be broken before the economy collapses by its own weight. Is this a correct model of our economy? Drawing by Nikos A. Salingaros.

If the economy is fractal, it will take quite a long time before enough nodes are broken to make the whole structure collapse.

This is how the system is made according to Greer, and it will therefore use considerable time to “wear out”.

According to Tverberg and her dome model, just a few sticks have to be removed for the whole structure to fall apart.

I’ve not studied Greers “catabolic collapse”-theory in depth, so I’m not qualified to tell if his model has seriously flaws?

But Tverberg argues convincingly about her model using present data and statistics.

While Greer continues to refer to historic examples.

Maybe previous civilizations had a fractal structure, while our is different and has a dome structure of Leonardo Sticks?

If this is the case maybe Greers theory of “catabolic collapse” was correct for all former civilisations, while this time the “dome structure” needs to be applied?

Eivind Berge made an interesting comment:

That is an excellent summary of the difference between Greer and Tverberg. I find both of them rather convincing when I read them, and I am not qualified to know any better myself, either. Is our civilization really as fragile as a dome of Leonardo sticks, or is there enough resilience built in to enable a slow, catabolic collapse? Greer has been right so far, but that is no guarantee for the future. He said something interesting in a recent comment to explain his thinking:

“All the fast-crash people insist that we face worse problems than any previous civilization has faced. All the progress-will-save-us people insist that we have more capability to meet those problems than any previous civilization has had. I think they’re both right, and that they cancel each other out — giving us the usual one to three centuries of decline, ending in a half millennium or so of dark age.”

Regardless of the evidence either way, he always concludes with his refrain that there is nothing new under the sun on this most ancient of planets. I wish more smart people would weigh in on this issue. If our industrial civilization is really just a hollow dome that can collapse altogether at any moment, then it is insane not to at least try to come up with a contingency plan to mitigate the disaster. This would seem like a far more worthy subject of study than climate change and just about everything else occupying the attention of researchers and receiving funding.

See our discussion here.

Lommenabolag på Svartlamon

Jeg fikk nettopp en gledelig epost fra to arkitekter i Trondheim, som forsøker å etablere Norges første allmennings-orienterte lommenabolag på Svartlamon. Her er to lenker for de som ønsker å sette seg bedre inn i og følge dette svært viktige prosjektet:

www.brakka.no

www.svartlamon.org

Nedenfor følger et utdrag fra eposten:

Kjenner også til permaliv-bloggen, og ser at vi har mange felles referanser, som Christopher Alexander osv.

Vi er to arkitekter som prøver å få realisert et eksperimentelt boligprosjekt på Svartlamon i Trondheim, samtidig som vi tar diplomen vår på NTNU, som skal handle om medvirkning som arkitektonisk metode. Jeg vet ikke om du kjenner til området fra før, men det ble regulert som et byøkologisk forsøksområde for litt over et tiår siden, etter en hard politisk kamp for å bevare området fra en markedsstyrt eiendomsutvikling. Tomta vi jobber med ble i den sammenheng regulert til eksperimentelt boligbyggeri. For litt over et år siden begynte vi med arbeidet i samarbeid med Boligstiftelsen og Beboerforeninga på området, og nå ser det ut som det kan bli en realitet.

Prosjektet vårt er et eksperimentelt boligprosjekt bestående av fem boliger tilknyttet et felleshus, som både skal planlegges og bygges av de fremtidige beboerne. Hovedpoenget er å bygge inn tilpasningsdyktighet i prosjektet (noe vi mener er tett forbundet med det stadig mer utvannede og misforståtte begrepet “bærekraft"), ved å involvere selvbyggerne i alle ledd, og gjøre noe i en skala som er håndterlig nok til å kunne tilpasses selv. Dette gjelder også materialbruken, vi ønsker å bruke materialer som er trygge og enkle å håndtere og som kan brukes og gjenbrukes (ev. nedbrytes) forutsigbart.

Som de fleste lesere av Permaliv sikkert har forstått er den norske arkitekturen en total katastrofe, hvor det predatoriske stats/markeds-duopolet har fått herje som det vil. Hensikten har vært å profitere på menneskers liv, og å rive allmenningheten i fillebiter, slik at monsteret kan få agere uhindret. Også alle spor av det hellige, eller hva Christopher Alexander kaller for "the I", har man etter beste evne forsøkt å skjule. Dette fordi teknokratiet ikke tolererer et annet verdensbilde enn det rent mekaniske. 

Resultatet er en gjennomgripende menneskekulde og en totalt overfladisk forbrukernihilisme, som ligger som et klamt teppe over vårt land.

Jeg svarte disse to fremragende arkitektene med følgende epost:

Hei!

Dette var hyggelig å høre! Ja, Permaliv begynner å bli ganske godt innarbeidet etter 4 år. For meg begynte det hele med materialøkologi, og mine interesser har siden utvidet seg herfra. For tida studerer jeg mest på hvem som har rett, Greer eller Tverberg: Permaliv: Gail Tverberg vs. John Michael Greer

				Permaliv: Gail Tverberg vs. John Michael Greer I think a major difference between John Michael Greer and Gail Tverberg is that while Greer sees the economy as fractal, Tverberg sees it as a dome made up ...
				View on permaliv.blogspot.no	Preview by Yahoo

Husklynger er jeg veldig glad i, da jeg ser lommenabolaget som en viktig del av framtidige inngruppe-samfunn. Nå anbefaler riktignok Alexander 8-12 boliger per klynge, men fem går sikkert også: 37 HOUSE CLUSTER

		37 HOUSE CLUSTER When houses are arranged on streets, and the streets owned by the town, there is no way in which the land immediately outside the houses can reflect the needs of families and individuals living in those houses.
		View on www.patternlanguage.com	Preview by Yahoo

Hvis dere ser på prosjektforslaget til Sørum økogrend er det et par ting jeg vil kommentere: Økogrend Sørum

				Økogrend Sørum Vil du bo i en økogrend? Vi planlegger Norges mest fremtidsrettede boligområde i naturskjønne...
				View on www.facebook.com	Preview by Yahoo

(ps! ikke miniatyrbildet, men det på toppen av facebooksida deres)

Husene bør ha delvis overbygde terrasser for bedre å skape en gradvis overgang mellom det private og det offentlige, hvor vakre rekkverk både gir en omsluttende følelse men også demper lysforurensning for omkringliggende hus. Dette har også å gjøre med "broad boundaries": Boundaries: Size Matters | The Kubala Washatko Architects, Inc.

				Boundaries: Size Matters | The Kubala Washatko Architec... Thick boundary zones are old fashioned! Or so it would seem based on their utter scarcity in contemporary architecture where thin skins abound. So why wo
				View on www.tkwa.com	Preview by Yahoo

Husklynga som helhet bør også ha en "boundary" rundt seg.

Selv ville jeg ha benyttet rutete vinduer, dette både skjermer og styrker utsikta. Pass på så TVer osv. ikke plasseres slik at de synes ut mot fellesområder, dette forstyrrer veldig. Jeg har litt mer om lysforurensning her:  

				Permaliv: Lysvett Den hittil beste artikkelen om lysforurensning på norsk er skrevet av Christian Lysvåg, tidligere publisert i Aftenposten innsikt, nr. 2, februar 2013: "En lys...
				View on permaliv.blogspot.no	Preview by Yahoo

Permaliv: Lysvett

Jeg har reprintet noen artikler av Alexander i høst: Permaliv: Christopher Alexander

				Permaliv: Christopher Alexander By Christopher Alexander. Original text here. Published at P2P-Foundation on 29th December 2014. WHAT DOES WRITING POETRY GET YOU? Some peop...
				View on permaliv.blogspot.no	Preview by Yahoo

De 25 bygningsbiologiske prinsipper har jeg oversatt til norsk her: Permaliv: De 25 bygningsbiologiske prinsipper

				Permaliv: De 25 bygningsbiologiske prinsipper Byggeplass uten naturlige eller menneskeskapte forstyrrelser Boliger plassert borte fra forurensende kilder og støy Bomiljø med lav byggtetthet og tilstr...
				View on permaliv.blogspot.no	Preview by Yahoo

Personlig har jeg kun erfaring med matter av linisolasjon fra finske Isolina, som jeg synes er fine å arbeide med. Jeg har kjøpt fra Liers Produkter. Utover dette er jeg veldig glad i heltrepanel av gran. Ellers har jeg ikke så mange forslag på dette punktet.

Ps! Dere må for all del ikke slippe biler inn i husklynga! Vaskemaskiner, tørketromler etc. bråker fælt og må ikke plasseres så de plager naboer. All ventilasjon må være naturlig, går ikke dette ta avkastlufta ut på taket. 

Les også min artikkel om 8 praksiser som undergraver levende nabolag: http://www.kulturverk.com/2014/03/15/atte-praksiser-som-undergraver-skapelsen-av-levende-nabolag/

Håper virkelig dere får til dette! Det er så mye som kan gå feil når man skal bo sammen, man må ta menneskets biologi på alvor. Utrolig viktig å få til gode eksempel-lommenabolag for utviklinga av inngruppe-samfunnet, hvor folk trives!

Mvh,

Øyvind Holmstad

A new article (and book) relevant to this project:

- Ten New Findings From the Sciences that Will Revolutionize Architecture

Signer - Nei til salg av Norge!

Våre fellesverdier legges i disse dager ut for salg. Signer oppropet om Nei til salg av Norge!

NEI TIL SALG AV NORGE!

Signer:

www.neitilsalgavnorge.no

Garret Hardins essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" har blitt allmenninghetens tragedie. Stats/markeds-duopolet river alt av fellesverdier ut av hendene våre. Hva Hardin i virkeligheten beskrev var de uregulerte tilgjengelighetsregimer. Allmenningene har tvert imot vært en suksess gjennom hele menneskets historie.

Når man leser Ole-Jacob Christensens essay "Suverenitetskampen 1814 tapt i 2014?" kan man bli både matt og motløs. Allikevel, yt din skjerv ved å undertegne på oppropet. La ikke regjeringa få utføre denne forbrytelsen uimotsagt!

Umiddelbart står salget av Statsskogs eiendommer for døra. Les forøvrig George Monbiots essay om privatiseringen av Storbritannias statsskoger; "Forest Chumps".

I stedet for å privatisere statsskogene og våre naturverdier, bør disse i sterkere grad underlegges allmenningheten. I virkeligheten skulle staten og markedet vært våre tjenere, ikke herskere og tyranner.

The emancipatory forces of the world urgently need to move away from the simple market/state duopoly and the false binary choices between ‘more market’ or ‘more state’. As an alternative, we propose that we move to a commons-centric society in which a post-capitalist market and state are at the service of the citizens as commoners. While there are already substantial, if not thriving, social movements in favor of the commons, the sharing society and peer-to-peer dynamics, this is the first coherent effort to craft a transition program in which this transformation is described in political and policy terms. - Michel Bauwens

The problem is not just too much market and not enough state. The problem is also that the state has become an enabler of the market, the market has become embedded in the state and, we might even say that today the state itself is not what could be called a ‘public institution’. - Ciudad Furor

LÆR MER OM ET ALLMENNINGSSENTRERT SAMFUNN:

www.commonstransition.org

&

TOWARD AN OPEN CO-OPERATIVISM

Arvesølvet selges ut til private interesser og vi underkaster oss TTIP. Våre fellesverdier og sjølråderetten er ingenting verdt for våre herskere.

Dette innlegget ble gjenstand for en viss ideologisk debatt på Verdidebatt her.

At staten i denne omgang har trukket nedsalget i Statsskog og andre nasjonale verdier, betyr på ingen måte at uhyret er dødt. Det har kun trukket seg tilbake for å slikke sine sår, og vil igjen angripe når det er rede og finner et nytt bytte.

Signer derfor oppropet uansett!

Instead of being a virtuous circle, of more debt allowing more economic growth, it becomes a vicious circle

It's all so simple. There's now too little energy to sustain growth. This means the end of investments. Soon you will have to pay banks for having money on your bank account. People will get lower wages. There will not be enough financial support to continue mining of energy and metals. Bottleneck technologies with low profit rates will go out of the system, making domino effects of falling technologies, as it's all interwoven. We are too many people to survive with solar energy from plants alone, and we will start killing each other. The woods will be cut down, and so on.

This is happening now. This is the end-game. And it's all so simple to understand.

Here's a comment from Gail Tverberg:

I will try to explain that in another post.

Basically, we are always behind in the process, so debt is absolutely essential to the system. Accumulation of metal products and other goods that represent real value is incredibly slow, if all an economy has to work with is charcoal made from burning trees. It is difficult to make more than a few metal tools using charcoal from trees, without causing deforestation. Farmers find it difficult working with wooden plows. Most of the population must work at growing and processing food, when tools are this limited. Heat energy is particularly needed, and supplies of this from wood are very low. Wind and water power don’t provide them either–they provide mechanical energy. Solar from the sun is too diffuse.

In order to set up a system that will create goods or get an accumulation of wealth, in the form of goods that can be used for making products or generating electricity, we need a combination of energy products from the ground plus other resources that can be used with the energy products, like ores to produce steel. These can be used to make things such as modern hydroelectric plants, factories, and even nuclear power plants, wind turbines, and solar PV.

In order to afford all of these resources, the only approach is debt. This debt is at many levels–for the ultimate consumer of the product to be able to afford the new car or house; for the businesses in the supply chain to be able to put their businesses together and operate them; and for the company extracting the ore to extract the oil. There may also be a need for government borrowing to afford to put in roads, to facilitate the whole operation. Of course, as new workers are added to these businesses, they will take the income they gain, and use it as a basis for new debts as well, such as mortgages on houses. (Making new renewables, such as solar VP, is even worse than fossil fuels for requiring a lot of debt.)

As long as the gains the economy is getting from economic growth are great enough to service all of this debt, the economy is in reasonable shape. The problem is that diminishing returns sets in, in many ways–not just in the extraction of oil, but also in the extraction of minerals, and in obtaining fresh water (among other things). True economic growth starts falling, and it becomes harder and harder to service the debts. More and more of the money goes to the “rentiers” as interest. Businesses take a bigger share of the total. Governments find more calls for their services, and take more of the total. Wages for the folks who will ultimately be consumers of the products fall. Governments try to cover up the problem of inadequate wages in whatever ways they can–particularly low interest rates and more debt.

At some point, the whole system of economic growth allowing the repayment of debt with interest stops working. Instead of being a virtuous circle, of more debt allowing more economic growth, it becomes a vicious circle. An investment of $1.00 pays back less than $1.00, say $0.98. If someone were planning the process, we would call it a Ponzi Scheme. More and more investment is done, but because of diminishing returns, it is not even possible to earn back the amount invested. Banks start charging for holding your money. Eventually the financial system collapse. I expect defaults on derivatives and other financial products will play a role in this.

There is also the issue of intergenerational debt. This is not really an issue, if as soon as grandma and grandpa stop being able to contribute enough to the economy to pay for their own well-being, they are simply left behind, the way the hunter-gatherers abandoned those who were unable to keep up with the group. If the elderly are promised retirement income and health care, this sets up a form of debt that the younger generation must pay to the older generation. To some extent, this shows up in savings for pensions. These “savings” are really mostly debt-based, though. Otherwise, this debt is funded on a pay as you go basis, so as you say, it doesn’t have the interest “problem” of other debt. But it is still a major problem, when the economy shrinks.

If you still didn't get it, see Michaux's lecture above.

Vinterstemning på Eiktunet en januardag

En flott dag på Eiktunet friluftsmuseum i dag, søndag 25. januar 2015. En fredet plett på Gjøvik. Som dere vet er fremtidsdystopien i ferd med å senke seg over vakre Hovdetoppen midt i byen, men Eiktunets skjønnhet kan jeg ikke forstå at de modernistiske fundamentalistene noensinne skal kunne ruinere med sine stille bomber.

På tide også at jeg fikk somlet med meg kameraet ut igjen i dag, håper mine lesere setter pris på resultatet?

Prestestua har veggmalerier av Peder Aadnes

I grunnen ganske fint i Norge når det er masse nysnø, sol og kaldt.

Audun Engh om den tradisjonelle kirken i NRKs Kulturhuset

Lytt til samtalen her.

Sørum kirke. Kirken i dag skal visst representere vår tid. Dette vil si at den ikke ønsker å være en kirke for meg. Personlig ser jeg "kunstuttrykk" som "Piss Christ" som påskeliljer sammenlignet med de moderne kirke- og menighetsbygg.

Fred over islam

Islam er fredens religion. Og må fredes. Om så med trusler og drap.

KANSKJE HAR IKKE karikaturstriden gitt oss ny forståelse for grunnverdiene i et liberalt demokrati, men heller brakt oss nærmere nytalen: Idioti er klokskap. Taushet er respekt. Brutalitet er fromhet. Krig er fred. - Kjetil Rolness

Les artikkelen i Dagbladet her.

Why Permaculture is the Answer

Paper: A systems and thermodynamics perspective on technology in the circular economy. By Crelis F. Rammelt and Phillip Crisp. real-world economics review, issue no. 68

The increase of entropy on earth as a whole is reversed only because of the existence of a complex biosphere powered primarily by solar radiation, which represents the main source of work and inflow of exergy. After most of this exergy is reflected back into space, some of it is transformed by plants and organisms into chemical exergy and some of it eventually ends up buried as low entropy stocks of carbon, coal, oil and gas. Flows of energy on earth are part of an open cycle; solar exergy comes in and heat goes out. Flows of matter on the other hand are part of a closed cycle (Boulding 1966). Ecosystems are driven by high-exergy and lowentropy resources, and generate almost no waste. In contrast, engineered systems are driven by the extraction of low-exergy resources. At the other end, they produce, accumulate and dispose high-entropy emissions and waste (Nielsen 2007). This flow of energy and matter from ecological sources through the economy and back to ecological sinks has been referred to as “throughput” (Daly and Townsend 1993).

The distinction between natural and engineered systems does not mean that the former are purely frugal and cyclical, or that the latter are purely wasteful and linear. Many industries rely on the recycling of matter and energy from production processes and from consumption wastes. At the same time, the biosphere “dumps” carbon, coal, oil and gas in natural landfills (Jensen et al. 2011). While it is therefore wrong to set natural and engineered systems on opposite sides of a spectrum, there are nevertheless important differences. Nielsen and Müller (2009) argue that in natural systems, the cycles are local, decentralized and develop towards being increasingly closed with decreasing emissions and waste as a consequence. In engineered systems, however, the cycles are increasingly global, transport-intensive and have evolved to be open with increasing emissions and waste as a consequence. Waste control generally reduces profitability; costs therefore tend to be externalised.

Bill Mollison says:

When the needs of a system cannot be met from within itself, we pay the price in energy and pollution.

A permaculture system is a natural system, it's interwoven with nature. While an industrial system is engineered, wasteful and linear.

Of course, there are grades between linear and circular systems. But using permaculture design methodology you come as close to a natural system as possible. To establish small permaculture systems within the industrial system is of course a good thing to do. By time these small increments may take over, as the industrial civilization declines.

It's important to look for cracks in the industrial system where permaculture might be introduced

For more information and inspiration on local, circular and closed permaculture design systems, please visit:

www.geofflawton.com

PERMACULTURE = DESIGN WITH NATURE

Why Malthus Got His Forecast Wrong

Most of us have heard that Thomas Malthus made a forecast in 1798 that the world would run short of food. He expected that this would happen because in a world with limited agricultural land, food supply would fail to rise as rapidly as population. In fact, at the time of his writing, he believed that population was already in danger of outstripping food supply. As a result, he expected that a great famine would ensue.

Most of us don’t understand why he was wrong. A common misbelief is that the reason he was wrong is that he failed to anticipate improved technology. My analysis suggests that there were really two underlying factors which enabled the development and widespread use of technology. These were (1) the beginning of fossil fuel use, which ramped up immediately after his writing, and (2) a ramp up in non-governmental debt after World War II, which enabled the rapid uptake of new technology such the sale of cars and trucks. Without fossil fuels, availability of materials such as metal and glass (needed for most types of technology) would have been severely restricted. Without increased debt, common people would not have been able to afford the new types of high-tech products that businesses were able to produce. Read on...