As we all live on the same planet, then the question is, why those with the control have decided to do so little to alleviate the problem? Presumably Black Rock et al are aware of the food needs of populations, otherwise why would the have purchased Ukraine and other food producing countries on the planet. If the problem is so crucial, why were all military carbon emissions removed from any monitoring, (at the Kyoto COP), and bombs whether in dropping or just building are very CO2 intensive. When the west blew-up Nord Stream, (thereby de-industrialising Europe maybe for ever), it produced the largest single CO2 emission ever recorded, EVER. But you know, if you can get a lot of people to spend money and keep failing economies just ticking over ………...well maybe it was worth try, and who knows it might work.
The elite are no different to us; "but they have all the power", except do they? Nominally, yes, but if they actually try to use it, no. Some are probably fellow subscribers! Even if they know what we know, it is rational to keep playing the game as long as you can. What is irrational, if you know the game is coming to an end, then get in the way of mitigation efforts, unfortunately that's what we actually do face.
Because "those in control" are just like the vast majority of humans and do not understand physics & mathematics. They see the world full of energy like nuclear & solar etc and the party called modern civilisation can continue forever. And they will fight like hell to keep their share.
My critique of the current political economy is not that it is ‘evil’ or ‘stubborn’. My critique is based on First Principles: Thermodynamics, Geology, and Maths.
Well, could you actually do that then? For example, in the SETE model, your "S_crit, this is the thermodynamic limit where physical collapse is inevitable. The system cannot physically exist beyond this point, as its total metabolic energy is consumed by its costs." So what are the variable values for your S_crit (the point where) P_maint ≥ Ėₓₘₐₓ for example)? Or what does this have to do with real thermodynamics? Why aren't you explaining it?
In your paper, page 3 point 2.1.1 The Planetary Entropy Budget and Earth’s Energy Imbalance. You describe the planetary entropy budget in some real terms and give some units and variables so you are aware of them, I think?.
Then you go to “Inertial Mass” (M = MM + MI) where MM is tangible capital (ok, you can count that), but MI is a vague cocktail of “ideological myths” and “tech‑solutionism” that has no agreed‑upon unit. It lacks variable values again.
In real thermodynamics and physics with math , our planet’s entropy‑export ceiling is roughly 0.9 W m⁻² K⁻¹, or about 4–6 × 10¹⁴ W K⁻¹ globally, with an uncertainty on the order of ± 10 %.
It seems to me you declare it a boundary condition for a social model that never actually derives its own variables.
Let's call it what it is. Your SETE model is a metaphorical bridge. I would be fine with it if you actually made this distinction clear to your reader. But why go a step further and claim, "My critique is based on first principles: thermodynamics, Geology, and Maths."?
If you think what your model or articles do "is in terms of starting from first principles in the disciplines like physics, thermodynamics, geology, and math, you are deceiving people. Or have no clue what those fields do. Otherwise, you would start from actual first principles (energy conservation, entropy production, Newton’s laws) and derive a quantitative relationship that can be measured. You would define every variable with units and validate the equations, etc.
Page 7 of your paper, point 6,Glossary of Symbols, must be some type of unintended added joke to the whole paper, right?
You can take this as advice and be transparent about what your model is; clearly state it to people and improve it. Be clear it's not in peer review or was waiting for publication as you did earlier (I think you removed it but didn't correct the record). It's now on Zenodo, a repository for preprints that does not conduct peer review.
Because what you are doing now, at best in my opinion, is dressing up a social science narrative in a physics coat and acting like the whole thing is a hard‑numbers theorem
Your other paper, The Path to Singularity. It is for others to criticize more in depth. But let me say this politely: it's at best an essay dressed up in the trappings of a scientific model. And you should not couple it with the SETE model or link it if you want to improve the actual model into something helpful instead of deceptive.
Because that paper, The Path to Singularity, reads like a self-promoting manifesto. It selectively references real literature (Kleidon, Odum, Georgescu‑Roegen) but again, it never integrates that literature into the testable framework.
Your historical myth-tracking (Eden → Enlightenment) is, in my opinion, just selective reading of history that cherry‑picks philosophers (Descartes, Bacon, Horkheimer) to fit a pre‑written storyline.
The three-domain model (M, S I), where you claim to formalize material base, superstructure, and ideology as coupled differential equations, gives no actual equations; the coupling is described in prose only. No data, no simulation, no calibration, nothing.
The whole neoclassical economics = “perpetual‑motion” model that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only true if you force economics into a physics framework that it was never meant to occupy.
I mean, are you serious about that paper? The added addendum made it even worse. So please, while the model could have some value, the other paper is in a whole other category.
Ano, thank you for the detailed and rigorous pushback. You make several entirely fair points, particularly regarding the tone of the Addendum, and taking them on board will significantly improve the utility of the framework.
You are absolutely right to call me out on the 'First Principles' claim. Stating that the critique is based on the hard maths of thermodynamics and physics was an overreach. I should have been clearer: the SETE model is a work of qualitative system dynamics and political ecology, not applied, quantifiable physics.
The SETE model employs a Newtonian framework not because it captures the quantum or relativistic complexity of the physical universe, but because it provides the most accessible vocabulary for describing macro-scale political inertia. Just as Newtonian physics is a valid approximation for calculating the trajectory of a satellite (even if it fails at the event horizon of a black hole), the SETE model is a valid approximation for calculating the trajectory of a political economy. It captures the essential relationship between Mass (institutional lock-in), Force (political will) and Drag (entropic decay). We are interested in the vector of the crash, not the quantum fluctuations of the wreckage. Therefore, variables like S_crit and M_I are heuristic devices--analytical frameworks to make path dependencies visible--rather than constants with standard SI units.
Regarding 'The Path to the Singularity', your critique of the historicity is valid. It is an ideological genealogy, not a strict empirical history. Identifying the Eden parable as the 'original sin' is a literary and philosophical framing, not a claim of literal historical record. However, I stand by the utility of identifying these bifurcation points. The Cartesian split and the mechanistic reductionism of the Strong Enlightenment tradition are the direct ancestors of both Neoliberalism and Stalinism. Neoclassical economics treating the planet as a perpetual motion machine is an ideological reality, even if my mathematical representation of it is allegorical.
Finally, I must thank you for your harsh words on the Addendum. Upon reflection, I realise it was written in 'Substack mode'--using neologisms like 'Promethiumism' and dramatic titles that undermined the serious historical point about Newton’s 'Active Principles'. I have rewritten this section entirely to focus on the ontological decoupling of kinetics from metabolism, stripping away the stylistic excess. You were right; the style was killing the substance.
I appreciate the sharp critique. It has made the work better.
I have tried warning on the supply on pharmaceuticals and alternative pharmaceutical production, but it collides with the mental map. «We are solving cancer, not?»
Please explain for me how to cure cancer without oil.
Essentially, we don't. We get back to a more uncivilized way of life, and it's likely that cancer rates will plummet naturally. Tribal peoples have extremely low cancer rates. Comes from a diet of wild forage and meats, fairly low and inconsistent carb intake, and regular exercise. If the problem mostly disappears, you don't need to solve it.
It would have been nice to have some anesthetics for trauma, orthopedics, pain relief , palliative care etc. Simple healthcare. Guess I should try making ether with the still.
Well, I mean a lot of those things come from plants anyway. All opioids (the "good stuff") are just the poppy plant refined in different ways. Willow trees, especially white willow but they all have a little, produce literal aspirin in their bark. Willow bark tea tastes awful, but it'll kill your pain for sure. Orthopedics are tough, but a drastically lower carbohydrate intake would dramatically lower osteoarthritic problems (again, virtually unknown among tribal peoples, except for the very old). The biggest issues I see in post-civilization medicine will be infant/mother mortality. This was what brought down the average life expectancy prior to "modern medicine" (and is the reason people still believe that myth about people in the olden days dying in their 30s of old age or whatever).
I work as a generalist anesthesiologist (newborn to palliative care). Fractures do happen I children and adults. Traumatic wounds happen. Etc. It would have been nice with
Agreed, doc. I don't think anyone expects post-civilization to be utopian roses and unicorns. But, it doesn't have to be the Hobbesian Mad Max world either.
I know hunther gatherer had a longe life. Peasants not necesarry so long.
According to Prof. Jarle Breivik, MD cancer is a evolved trait. « because cancer is closely linked to ageing and to the history of how our biology has developed over time, according to the Professor.
Breivik is head of department at the Department of Behavioural Medicine at the University of Oslo.»
Ageing is heavily dependent on diet and environmental toxins, especially oxidants. Not that this is likely to improve any time soon. If we continue, down into the Singularity then it's only going to get worse.
I think aging is a evolved trait. Based on own experience as 30 years in healthcare.
The people we treat now has not been treated 30 years ago.
It is also based on Prof. Breiviks work that shows that cancer is an evolved trait, Chris Fields work that show that you cant have a complex brain
obligatory sex and regenerative functions at the same time and S. jay Olshanskys work that shows that it difficult to prolong life further. We have maxed out.
I don't think it'll disappear either. Neither will heart disease or tooth decay, but these things are *almost* non-existent among peoples living outside of civilization. At that point, you're basically looking for the cure for lightning strikes. Could you do it? Maybe. Or, maybe it's such a non-issue the we just accept that it occasionally happens in life.
Another great piece, and this sentence encapsulates the predicament we face:
"The grid, the currency, and the just-in-time supply chain are fragile because they are leveraged against a biophysical reality that is calling in its debts."
Unfortunately, the mainstream economic 'thinking' that informs political and media 'thinking' completely overlooks biophysical reality because it has been programmed from the beginning to ignore externalities. And the longer you ignore any externality, the more expensive it is to settle it when the credit card of mainstream economic thinking gets maxed out.
More unfortunately still, the planet and the atmosphere are now approaching humanity with urgent payment notices for a number of externalities all at the same time such that we are about to have our credit card revoked.
As we all live on the same planet, then the question is, why those with the control have decided to do so little to alleviate the problem? Presumably Black Rock et al are aware of the food needs of populations, otherwise why would the have purchased Ukraine and other food producing countries on the planet. If the problem is so crucial, why were all military carbon emissions removed from any monitoring, (at the Kyoto COP), and bombs whether in dropping or just building are very CO2 intensive. When the west blew-up Nord Stream, (thereby de-industrialising Europe maybe for ever), it produced the largest single CO2 emission ever recorded, EVER. But you know, if you can get a lot of people to spend money and keep failing economies just ticking over ………...well maybe it was worth try, and who knows it might work.
The elite are no different to us; "but they have all the power", except do they? Nominally, yes, but if they actually try to use it, no. Some are probably fellow subscribers! Even if they know what we know, it is rational to keep playing the game as long as you can. What is irrational, if you know the game is coming to an end, then get in the way of mitigation efforts, unfortunately that's what we actually do face.
As long as we can force tomorrow to be no different from today, no problemo! The shit-show can carry on.
Because "those in control" are just like the vast majority of humans and do not understand physics & mathematics. They see the world full of energy like nuclear & solar etc and the party called modern civilisation can continue forever. And they will fight like hell to keep their share.
My critique of the current political economy is not that it is ‘evil’ or ‘stubborn’. My critique is based on First Principles: Thermodynamics, Geology, and Maths.
Well, could you actually do that then? For example, in the SETE model, your "S_crit, this is the thermodynamic limit where physical collapse is inevitable. The system cannot physically exist beyond this point, as its total metabolic energy is consumed by its costs." So what are the variable values for your S_crit (the point where) P_maint ≥ Ėₓₘₐₓ for example)? Or what does this have to do with real thermodynamics? Why aren't you explaining it?
In your paper, page 3 point 2.1.1 The Planetary Entropy Budget and Earth’s Energy Imbalance. You describe the planetary entropy budget in some real terms and give some units and variables so you are aware of them, I think?.
Then you go to “Inertial Mass” (M = MM + MI) where MM is tangible capital (ok, you can count that), but MI is a vague cocktail of “ideological myths” and “tech‑solutionism” that has no agreed‑upon unit. It lacks variable values again.
In real thermodynamics and physics with math , our planet’s entropy‑export ceiling is roughly 0.9 W m⁻² K⁻¹, or about 4–6 × 10¹⁴ W K⁻¹ globally, with an uncertainty on the order of ± 10 %.
It seems to me you declare it a boundary condition for a social model that never actually derives its own variables.
Let's call it what it is. Your SETE model is a metaphorical bridge. I would be fine with it if you actually made this distinction clear to your reader. But why go a step further and claim, "My critique is based on first principles: thermodynamics, Geology, and Maths."?
If you think what your model or articles do "is in terms of starting from first principles in the disciplines like physics, thermodynamics, geology, and math, you are deceiving people. Or have no clue what those fields do. Otherwise, you would start from actual first principles (energy conservation, entropy production, Newton’s laws) and derive a quantitative relationship that can be measured. You would define every variable with units and validate the equations, etc.
Page 7 of your paper, point 6,Glossary of Symbols, must be some type of unintended added joke to the whole paper, right?
You can take this as advice and be transparent about what your model is; clearly state it to people and improve it. Be clear it's not in peer review or was waiting for publication as you did earlier (I think you removed it but didn't correct the record). It's now on Zenodo, a repository for preprints that does not conduct peer review.
Because what you are doing now, at best in my opinion, is dressing up a social science narrative in a physics coat and acting like the whole thing is a hard‑numbers theorem
Your other paper, The Path to Singularity. It is for others to criticize more in depth. But let me say this politely: it's at best an essay dressed up in the trappings of a scientific model. And you should not couple it with the SETE model or link it if you want to improve the actual model into something helpful instead of deceptive.
Because that paper, The Path to Singularity, reads like a self-promoting manifesto. It selectively references real literature (Kleidon, Odum, Georgescu‑Roegen) but again, it never integrates that literature into the testable framework.
Your historical myth-tracking (Eden → Enlightenment) is, in my opinion, just selective reading of history that cherry‑picks philosophers (Descartes, Bacon, Horkheimer) to fit a pre‑written storyline.
The three-domain model (M, S I), where you claim to formalize material base, superstructure, and ideology as coupled differential equations, gives no actual equations; the coupling is described in prose only. No data, no simulation, no calibration, nothing.
The whole neoclassical economics = “perpetual‑motion” model that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only true if you force economics into a physics framework that it was never meant to occupy.
I mean, are you serious about that paper? The added addendum made it even worse. So please, while the model could have some value, the other paper is in a whole other category.
Ano, thank you for the detailed and rigorous pushback. You make several entirely fair points, particularly regarding the tone of the Addendum, and taking them on board will significantly improve the utility of the framework.
You are absolutely right to call me out on the 'First Principles' claim. Stating that the critique is based on the hard maths of thermodynamics and physics was an overreach. I should have been clearer: the SETE model is a work of qualitative system dynamics and political ecology, not applied, quantifiable physics.
The SETE model employs a Newtonian framework not because it captures the quantum or relativistic complexity of the physical universe, but because it provides the most accessible vocabulary for describing macro-scale political inertia. Just as Newtonian physics is a valid approximation for calculating the trajectory of a satellite (even if it fails at the event horizon of a black hole), the SETE model is a valid approximation for calculating the trajectory of a political economy. It captures the essential relationship between Mass (institutional lock-in), Force (political will) and Drag (entropic decay). We are interested in the vector of the crash, not the quantum fluctuations of the wreckage. Therefore, variables like S_crit and M_I are heuristic devices--analytical frameworks to make path dependencies visible--rather than constants with standard SI units.
Regarding 'The Path to the Singularity', your critique of the historicity is valid. It is an ideological genealogy, not a strict empirical history. Identifying the Eden parable as the 'original sin' is a literary and philosophical framing, not a claim of literal historical record. However, I stand by the utility of identifying these bifurcation points. The Cartesian split and the mechanistic reductionism of the Strong Enlightenment tradition are the direct ancestors of both Neoliberalism and Stalinism. Neoclassical economics treating the planet as a perpetual motion machine is an ideological reality, even if my mathematical representation of it is allegorical.
Finally, I must thank you for your harsh words on the Addendum. Upon reflection, I realise it was written in 'Substack mode'--using neologisms like 'Promethiumism' and dramatic titles that undermined the serious historical point about Newton’s 'Active Principles'. I have rewritten this section entirely to focus on the ontological decoupling of kinetics from metabolism, stripping away the stylistic excess. You were right; the style was killing the substance.
I appreciate the sharp critique. It has made the work better.
I have tried warning on the supply on pharmaceuticals and alternative pharmaceutical production, but it collides with the mental map. «We are solving cancer, not?»
Please explain for me how to cure cancer without oil.
The public health litterature has some articles on this. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3154246/
Essentially, we don't. We get back to a more uncivilized way of life, and it's likely that cancer rates will plummet naturally. Tribal peoples have extremely low cancer rates. Comes from a diet of wild forage and meats, fairly low and inconsistent carb intake, and regular exercise. If the problem mostly disappears, you don't need to solve it.
It would have been nice to have some anesthetics for trauma, orthopedics, pain relief , palliative care etc. Simple healthcare. Guess I should try making ether with the still.
Well, I mean a lot of those things come from plants anyway. All opioids (the "good stuff") are just the poppy plant refined in different ways. Willow trees, especially white willow but they all have a little, produce literal aspirin in their bark. Willow bark tea tastes awful, but it'll kill your pain for sure. Orthopedics are tough, but a drastically lower carbohydrate intake would dramatically lower osteoarthritic problems (again, virtually unknown among tribal peoples, except for the very old). The biggest issues I see in post-civilization medicine will be infant/mother mortality. This was what brought down the average life expectancy prior to "modern medicine" (and is the reason people still believe that myth about people in the olden days dying in their 30s of old age or whatever).
I work as a generalist anesthesiologist (newborn to palliative care). Fractures do happen I children and adults. Traumatic wounds happen. Etc. It would have been nice with
Agreed, doc. I don't think anyone expects post-civilization to be utopian roses and unicorns. But, it doesn't have to be the Hobbesian Mad Max world either.
I am not compleet doomer. I do think some kind of anarchy works and I do think some preparation in smal enough community is possible.
I dont think it will disapear.
I know hunther gatherer had a longe life. Peasants not necesarry so long.
According to Prof. Jarle Breivik, MD cancer is a evolved trait. « because cancer is closely linked to ageing and to the history of how our biology has developed over time, according to the Professor.
Breivik is head of department at the Department of Behavioural Medicine at the University of Oslo.»
https://www.sciencenorway.no/cancer-diseases/is-there-a-solution-to-the-puzzle-that-is-cancer-the-fundamental-problem-is-how-our-body-is-constructed-one-professor-says/2193515
Ageing is heavily dependent on diet and environmental toxins, especially oxidants. Not that this is likely to improve any time soon. If we continue, down into the Singularity then it's only going to get worse.
I think aging is a evolved trait. Based on own experience as 30 years in healthcare.
The people we treat now has not been treated 30 years ago.
It is also based on Prof. Breiviks work that shows that cancer is an evolved trait, Chris Fields work that show that you cant have a complex brain
obligatory sex and regenerative functions at the same time and S. jay Olshanskys work that shows that it difficult to prolong life further. We have maxed out.
I don't think it'll disappear either. Neither will heart disease or tooth decay, but these things are *almost* non-existent among peoples living outside of civilization. At that point, you're basically looking for the cure for lightning strikes. Could you do it? Maybe. Or, maybe it's such a non-issue the we just accept that it occasionally happens in life.
i do agree. Most of what we are treating is civilization diseases.
Another great piece, and this sentence encapsulates the predicament we face:
"The grid, the currency, and the just-in-time supply chain are fragile because they are leveraged against a biophysical reality that is calling in its debts."
Unfortunately, the mainstream economic 'thinking' that informs political and media 'thinking' completely overlooks biophysical reality because it has been programmed from the beginning to ignore externalities. And the longer you ignore any externality, the more expensive it is to settle it when the credit card of mainstream economic thinking gets maxed out.
More unfortunately still, the planet and the atmosphere are now approaching humanity with urgent payment notices for a number of externalities all at the same time such that we are about to have our credit card revoked.