The Total Human Ecosystem
Throughout my career I’ve read a great many papers, especially technical ones. And the golden rule always was - the more complex the language, the less actual content. But as it transpires, a particular paper by Zev Naveh comprehensively breaks that rule.
While the document spans only 5 pages - by convention suggestive of a brief - it’s absolutely jam packed with confusing terminology and impenetratable jargon, with one seemingly clear intent in mind - to fend off the uninvited.
And though I first came across this paper back in March, 2024, it was this deliberate, overengineered opaque language which made absolutely clear to me early on that this paper is of pivotal importance.
What the paper describes is a gradual societal transition for alleged sakes of saving the environment, the expiry of capitalism, and the concentration of power at the very top. Indeed very similar to the ‘Great Reset’, or ‘Great Transition‘, should you prefer.
The early premise is that ecology should be integrated with economics1. But given contemporary drive - undoubtedly leading to the eventual integration of carbon emission permits (allowances) and CBDCs - that issue really is minor when you consider the paper in full.
‘With their intellectual and scientific roots in the natural sciences, on the one hand, and the social sciences, on the other, the two disciplines differ distinctly in their aims and scope. It may not yet be possible to fuse the two disciplines together into a "superscience;' but the current ecological crisis shows clearly that it is not possible to efficiently manage the house of humans while neglecting the house of nature.‘
… in order to solve the contemporary crisis, natural and social sciences must be merged. And by extraordinary coincidence, the International Council for Scientific Unions and the International Social Science Council merged in 20182, producing the International Council for Science.
… but this further rhymes with the Two Cultures and noted Fabian Parasite Charles Percy Snow, 1956… because he declared that a rift existed between the fields of natural and social science - even indirectly called social scientists ‘gay’.
‘… the 1992 … "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro. This conference resulted in Agenda 21, which provides guidelines for sustainable development. According to these guidelines, both ecological and economic stewardship of the natural resources should be mobilized so as to sustain their stock for future generations‘
… confirming the Earth Summit being a pivotal event -
‘… sustainable development should not be reduced simply to economic growth, and ecologists must realize that sustainable development is more than ecological sustainability. It means, above all, the improvement of the quality of human life in all of its multiple dimensions for the common good of the future of the planet‘
… an indirect call for ‘degrowth’ is followed by a call for ‘the common good’. But the first column of text is by far the least eventful, yet most approachable. Because as we enter the second, things rapidly accelerate -
‘… the improvement of the quality of human life in all of its multiple dimensions for the common good of the future of the planet. Such a transdisciplinary goal requires not only the close partnership of ecologists and economists, but also the active involvement of environmentally oriented sociologists, psychologists, planners, policymakers, and designers‘
We have confirmation that the objective indeed is the ‘common good’, and a request for involvement of sociologists, psychologists, policymakers… and planners and designers? Who are they, again?
‘In a seminal paper, the renowned systems thinker and planner Emil Jantsch (1970) provided a hierarchical systems view of transdisciplinarity as the highest multilevel, multigoal coordination toward a common system purpose.‘
The referred hierarchical systems view can be found in Jantsch’s paper, ‘Inter- and Transdisciplinary University: A Systems Approach to Education and Innowation‘3, and it’s fairly informative - not only because it clears up the misunderstandings one might harbour about ‘disciplinarity’ and how these relate, but also because it clearly outlines the four hierarchical levels; empirical, pragmatic, normative, and purposive, and how these translate to the ‘languages’ of; logic, cybernetics, planning, and anthropology. And it further explains the integration of these levels as the University structures; discipline oriented departments, function oriented departments, and systems design laboratories.
All of this might sound a tad odd, I certainly thought so upon first visit. But it’s not actually as complicated as it might appear (see rule in intro). The purposive relates to meaning (purpose, objective), normative relates to rules (ethics, codes, standards), pragmatic considers organisation (incl societal), and empirical relates to observation (data). Or you could alternatively consider these four applied science, humanities, social science, and natural science.
Consequently, when we speak of a planner, what this relates to is ie a normative ethical humanitarian. And when you speak of a systems designer, this relates to someone working between the levels of purposive and normative, ultimately deriving ie ethical standards from a purpose.
And as for ‘sociologists, psychologists, policymakers’ - those correspond primarily to social science, concerned with the organisation of society - though some, psychologists primarily, can straddle into humanitarianism.
‘He claimed that transdisciplinarity requires interdisciplinary studies in which scientific collaboration is based on an inclusive, holistic approach to both systems thinking and acting. By leading to a well-defined, overarching transdisciplinary systems goal, transdisciplinarity will go beyond interdisciplinarity to an even higher level of coordination.‘
When you hear the term ‘trans-disciplinary holistic approach’, envision all compartmental walls broken down, with information and collaboration freely flowing throughout the hierarchy. However, should you include information clearinghouses and ethics declarations, you can ensure information flows only in one general direction—up. Consequently, the ‘trans-disciplinary holistic approach‘ is actually a subversive way to centralise power.
‘To achieve this goal, the narrow realms of conventional environmental concepts have to be broadened and rigid disciplinary boundaries removed. Achieving this goal will also require a major shift in outlook on the part of all of the relevant disciplines, whereby conventional disciplinary reductionistic and mechanistic approaches are replaced by integrative and synthetic approaches.‘
… which, ultimately, repeats the above. The synthetic approaches relate to taking understanding from one field, and applying to another… and that’s where those ‘ecological psychologists’ enter the stage, discussed earlier in the paper. Of course what information, how, when, and by whom… yes, this really is ripe for abuse.
‘… from linear and deterministic processes to nonlinear, cybernetic, and chaotic processes-reflects a change from a belief in the objectivity and certainty of the scientific truth to the recognition of the limits of human knowledge, of the need for a contextual view of reality, and of the need for dealing with uncertainties‘
Thus, the shift will also necessitate the use of complex solutions, incorporating chaos theory and cybernetics to engage in a contextual understanding of… uncertainty, which is an issue as it ultimately serves to eliminate responsibility.
‘It is therefore obvious that, for the sake of global survival and human welfare, ecologists and economists have to cooperate closely in local, regional, and global research and development projects.‘
It’s always a crisis. Always. And this one calls for a global, top-down approach. And it is top-down, or else explain who decides to which level to ‘decentralise’. Truth is this is about the ‘stakeholder approch’, which absolutely is not democratic. And the further aim is to deconstruct the western model which brought us this far, throw together disciplines unrelated, acknowledge that chaos is unpredictable, and consequently, your ruler should not be judged, as objectivity is to be replaced by ‘contextual reality’, essentially ensuring that no two situations will ever compare. And no, not your contextual reality. Theirs. And this on a global scale.
In fact, let’s just go through every major point of contention, because the entire paper at this stage is… virtually blasphemous of the Western model -
Perpetual Crisis Justification: One crisis leads to the next. There will be no end to these for reasons we will investigate later, all used to drive the agenda.
Global, Top-Down Approach: The solution is always the ‘trans-disciplinary, holistic approach’, which boils down to the centralisation of power.
Stakeholder Approach Critique: The governmental mechanism settled on is always through undemocratic ‘stakeholders’. Key question to always ask - who selects the first stakeholder, and who has the right of iteration.
Deconstruction of Traditional Models: The successful Western model didn’t come about for just any old reason, but through progressive refinement and an evolutionary process, for centuries developing between generally European nations, occasionally causing bloodshed. The Mediterranean interpretation had the early advantage, but power shifted to the North with time. Deconstructing this model is quite likely not only harmful, but likely extremely dangerous - especially considering history.
Integration of Unrelated Disciplines: The primary purpose behind the ‘trans-disciplinary’ mixing of unrelated disciplines is to allow for concentration of information, leading to power in increasingly fewer hands.
Dismissal of Objectivity: ‘Contextual reality’ as a term is absolutely meaningless, but it will lead to situations where bad outcomes are simply dismissed on account of ‘the best available scientific consensus’. It will create an environment void of comparable analysis from where no lessons will be ever be learned, or even accepted.
Imposed Contextual Reality: Whose ‘contextual reality’ do we speak of, anyway? Certainly not yours, certainly not one established by democratic ideals, certainly not one you can appeal - or possible even understand… or consider ‘static’. Who’s to say it won’t be continuously redefined - or reinterpreted?
Global Scale Implications: And as these ‘principles’ are taken global, risk is amplified just as well, plus - of course - for those genuinely politically marginalised, there will be absolutely nowhere to hide.
Consequently, the environment of which Zev is suggestive is one of top-down authoritarianism, seeing the ethos of the Western model retired - forever.
’These joint studies should emphasize the evolutionary character of ecological and social components, making use of advanced system theories of wholeness and complexity (Holling 1993, Naveh 1997, in press).‘
The almost rhythmic repetition of said ‘holism’ is continuous, yet the inclusion of ‘advanced systems theories’ indicates the direction we travel.
‘Already, several innovative trans disciplinary fields of knowledge and expertise have emerged that can contribute much to this goal: ecological economics, ecological psychology, social ecology, and landscape ecology. Ecological economists view their science as a trans disciplinary effort to link natural and social sciences, especially ecology and economics.’
And these, essentially, lead to improved tools of manipulation. For sakes of brevity I will skip, but gave an example related to clapping for the NHS here (with further inclusion of Jantsch, and the Marx/Carus/Bogdanov/Vernadsky synthesis) -
‘Finally, holistic, problem solving-oriented landscape ecologists study landscapes and their multiscale dimensions as tangible, closely interwoven natural and cultural entities by merging relevant fields from the natural sciences and humanities‘
… this inclusion is noteworthy. More on this later.
‘One possible over arching conceptual framework for a transdisciplinary science is the Total Human Ecosystem... This concept, which has both theoretical and practical implications for landscape ecology, has been formalized in terms of a hierarchical systems approach that is rooted in general systems theory and its recent insights into organized complexity‘
… and with a completed introduction, here’s the central concept - with its roots in said landscape ecology - is hierarchical, and rooted in General Systems Theory.
‘These insights include information theory and cybernetics, catastrophe theory and the new synthetic theories on coevolution, and new holistic and trans disciplinary insights into the dynamic self-organization and coevolution in nature and human societies, as based on non-equilibrium thermodynamics and chaos theory.‘
We have information theory (global surveillance), general systems theory (modelling; the Digital Twin), catastrophy theory (when things straddle outside of self-regulation aka internal control, ie resilience theory), and we have cybernetics (external control).
Yes, this is yet again about (Active) Adaptive Management. And all of this relates to complexity science, ultimately set in a hierarchy.
‘Frank Egler (1964, 1970) was one of the first ecologists to recognize the need for a more comprehensive holistic view of the role of humans as an integral part of the global ecological hierarchy‘
Humans will no longer be considered separate from nature, but a part thereof. So on that account - what happened to the chicken in Hong Kong when we allegedly determined they were harmful to humans in 19974?
‘… an innovative interdisciplinary "human ecosystem science" be created to ensure the quality of life on Earth, and he (Frank Egler) regarded Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) as the first such human ecosystem study that alerted humanity to the danger of pesticides‘
And this is actually impressively manipulative, because Egler worked with Carsons on that book5. Consequently, this is in net effect a self-reference.
‘The Total Human Ecosystem should be regarded as the highest coevolutionary ecological entity on Earth, with landscapes as its concrete, three-dimensional "Gestalt" systems forming the spatial and functional matrix for all organisms (including humans) and their populations, communities, and ecosystems.‘
The THE is the highest hierarchical entity integrating both humans and animals, and landscapes are the spatial/functional entity.
‘Landscapes are therefore more than repeated ecosystems on kilometers-wide stretches. They have to be studied and managed in their own right at different functional and spatial scales and dimensions. Landscapes range from the ecotope, as the smallest mappable landscape unit, to the ecosphere, as the largest global Total Human Ecosystem landscape.‘
When reading backwards, this details the ecosphere (all living organisms on Earth and their environment) through to the ecotope (a small, local ecosystem) should be managed for different functional purposes. Oh wait, that’s where the Global Environment Facility comes in, with their Blended Finance ‘conservation projects’ using… yes, a Landscape Approach.
‘However, human beings live not only in the physical, ecological, and geographical landscape space, which we share with other organisms, but also in the conceptual space of the human mind-the noosphere (from the Greek word "noos," which means "mind"; see Vernadsky 1945, Barrett 1985).‘
And here’s one of the few, direct references to the Noosphere, and Vernadsky, who outlined the Noosphere being the final stage of Earth System development; the geosphere relates to physical Earth, the biosphere comprise life on Earth, and the noosphere represents collective thought on Earth.
‘This conceptual approach enables us to view the evolution of Total Human Ecosystem landscapes in the light of new holistic and transdisciplinary insights into the dynamic processes of selforganization and coevolution in nature and human societies (e.g., Jantsch 1980, Laszlo 1987, Capra 1997).‘
Do note that both Jantsch and Laszlo contribute to this field.
‘Systems on a relatively high organizational level that can renew, repair, and replicate themselves as networks of interrelated componentproducing processes, in which the network is created and re-created in a flow of matter and energy, are called autopoietic systems. These systems include living systems, ecological systems, social systems, and solar energypowered biosphere landscapes.‘
This part is important as the whole point is sustainable development. What this considers is that all systems ultimately should be able to self-sustain though mechanisms of self, and not rely on outside injections of material matter, or energy.
‘As the Total Human Ecosystem expanded, along with the growing human population and its increasing consumption and technological power, natural landscapes were converted into human-modified cultural landscapes‘
Human-modified cultural landscapes essentially mean humans took them up for use; be it through settlement, agriculture - for any purpose, really.
‘During this evolutionary process-and especially since the industrial revolution-a crucial bifurcation has divided these Total Human Ecosystem landscapes into biosphere and techno sphere landscapes and their ecotopes (bioecotopes and techno-ecotopes) and, most recently, into agroindustrial ecotopes, which are an intermediate form of bio- and techno-ecotopes‘
This is where those terms your mind is likely to trivially discard are added. What he ultimately says is that during development, humanity turned land into areas into ‘technosphere’, or a blend thereof and biosphere landscapes. But what do those entail I hear you inquire (and you should because this part is important).
‘Solar energy… drive both natural and semi-natural bioecotopes, … on which future biological evolution depends. As adaptive, self-organizing systems, they are internally regulated by natural biological, physical, and chemical information and are able to organize themselves in an autopoietic process of continuous self-renewal.‘
This is ultimate the argument of Technocracy, Inc - all energy supposedly stem from sunlight. It’s not correct as it fails to account for internal processes, and completely sets aside energy created through nuclear reaction. But do keep this in mind… and especially Technocracy, Inc.
‘Traditionally, organic agroecotopes are also solar energy-powered biosphere landscapes. Although regulated and controlled by human cultural information, they have retained much of their self-organizing capacity‘
Pre-industrial farming is further considered self-regulating as it doesn’t require a net transfer of incoming energy to function.
‘…, urbanindustrial technoecotopes are human made "throughput" systems (Lyle 1994). Fossil and nuclear energy and their technological conversion into low-grade energy drive them. Lacking the self-organizing and regenerative capacities of biosphere landscapes, these techno-ecotopes result in high outputs of entropy, waste, and pollution, with farreaching, detrimental impacts on the remaining open landscapes and human health.‘
… but technoecotopes rely on a net incoming transfer of energy, ie, all contemporary farming techniques only work because they rely in a net transfer of incoming energy. And there indeed is truth to that, but it’s still a very simplified view.
‘… agroindustrial ecotopes have replaced almost all low-input cultivated agroecotopes in industrial countries and are also now spreading in many developing countries. These agroindustriallandscapes are much closer to technosphere landscapes than to biosphere landscapes.‘
… and these farming methods are now increasingly being taken up in 3rd world nations. This, of course, indirectly refers to the Green Revolution6, which saw an explosion in yields, lifting many, many out of poverty.
‘… depends on photosynthetic conversion of high-grade solar energy, this energy is subsidized to a great extent by low-grade fossil energy, and their natural control mechanisms have been replaced almost entirely by heavy chemical inputs and throughputs‘
Note the choice of phrasing. Solar energy is solar energy, and just that. If said was ‘high-grade’, there would be no need for energy subsidy. That’s not saying solar energy is not ‘high-grade’, just that the choice of wording is suggestive of bias…
‘… their detrimental environmental impacts… agroindustrial landscapes come very close to technosphere landscapes... not only their ecological but also their economic sustain ability‘
… ultimately taking us here. The Green Revolution was allegedly a terrible idea, because it isn’t sustainable. As for claims of being economically sustainable - Zev’s early premise was the integration of economics and ecology - consequently, what Zev describes is alleged ecological sustainability.
‘As a result, bio- and technoecotopes together form a disorganized spatial mosaic of the "industrial total landscape"… their antagonistic relations are a major cause for ecological and economic land-use conflicts.‘
But it’s even worse, because this… disorganisation, through its various other industrial uses lead to conflict and ecological disaster. Allegedly.
‘The exponentially growing technospheric destabilization of the geosphere and biosphere that is caused by these one-sided, adverse inputs of the technosphere and agroindustrial landscapes on biosphere landscapes and on their atmosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere is illustrated by a simplified cybernetic model of the Total Human Ecosystem ecosphere…‘
Simplified, for sure. Because this fails to mention a single benefit, with the green revolution being an obvious one. But it also fails to accept the quantity of energy going into, say, science and technology, where a considerable amount of that goes towards the development of ‘sustainable’ solutions. Sure, you can point to loss in the system, but to simply claim it’s all a total loss is an easily dismissed lie.
As for the exponential growth - that essentially comes entirely through the third world, growing rapidly not just in terms of population, but also development. And these concatenated naturally leads to exponential growth.
‘… far-reaching impacts on the biological and cultural impoverishment of the ecosphere and its landscape ecotopes but also is manifested in threatening global climate changes and in the disruption of the protective ozone layer in the stratosphere.‘
The Ozone narrative was a primary facilitating device, leading to the development of tradeable emission permits, as the 1987 Montreal Protocol allowed for the transfer of emission permits. And these, through the 1990 IPCC WG3, became tradeable carbon emission permits, with offsetting a logical mechanism by extension.
‘The earth appears to have reached a critical stage in which Homo economus, by creating the exponentially expanding technosphere, has become a major destabilizing biological and geological force.‘
………… oh wait, I’ve seen that before - in fact, here it is via the Club of Rome’s 1991 ‘The First Global Revolution’7, which -
‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... demands the solidarity of all peoples... mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself‘
The Common Enemy of Humanity Is Man.
‘Thus, humanity has reached a crucial turning point (i.e., a point of inflection; Barrett and Odum 2000) in its relations to nature at the threshold of the twenty-first century‘
And this, as we enter the 21st Century. How fortunate that it coincides with the progressive, real-world introduction of the principles of ‘sustainable development’.
‘The systems planner and philosopher, Ervin Laszlo, has shown that at this critical transitional stage from the industrial to the post-industrial global information age, human society is now faced with the choice between further biological and cultural evolution of life on Earth or its further degradation until its final extinction‘
And Laszlo, who operates in the space of the purposive and normative (translating meaning into ethics), is telling us… exactly what the Club of Rome informed us of in 1991. How coincidental, given his 1977 book titled ‘Goals for Mankind‘8 published by… yes, the Club of Rome.
‘… establishing new, better balanced, complementary relations between sustainable, productive, and attractive biosphere landscapes and healthy, livable techno sphere landscapes through comprehensive landscape planning, conservation, restoration, and design‘
And this is a topic, well covered on this substack; from the creation of the Global Environment Facility through the World Conservation Bank at the 1987 4th World Wildlife Congress, to the monetisation of said through those Natural Asset Companies… even down to Debt-for-Nature Swaps, and what happens to the Collateral in the event of default.
… not forgetting describing how this all comprise the Grand Plan, and how this ultimately is about stealing 3rd world lands, using Western taxpayer money - before ultimately facilitating a global economic crash, leading to the select few stealing everything through odious Blended Finance constructs, modelled on 2008 CDOs.
‘… urgently needed post-industrial cultural symbiosis between human society and nature. Such a symbiotic relationship should lead, above all, to the structural and functional integration of biosphere and technosphere ecotopes into a coherent, sustainable ecosphere in which both biological and cultural evolution can be ensured‘
Merge humanity with nature, claim it’s to ensure survival, take control of everything using a ‘trans-disciplinary, holistic approach’.
This is a totalitarian power grab…
‘… express these new symbiotic relations between nature and society in robust and even mechanistic terms and translate them into sustainable development.‘
… and the mechanistic terms described are through General Systems Theory modelling, employed using an (Active) Adaptive Management approach.
‘… create new cultural, information-rich cross-catalytic and synergistic feedback loops that link the natural, ecological, sociocultural, and economic processes…‘
… where Information Theory (surveillance) will be used in a trans-disciplinary, holistic manner to identify and manage Cybernetics (feedback loops) through… carbon emission permit backed CBDCs, essentially.
‘These tools allow ecologists, economists, and other environmentally concerned scientists to collaborate to ensure lasting, mutually reinforcing-that is, synergistic-benefits for humans and their physical, mental, spiritual, and economic welfare‘
And the alleged benefits will straddle every level of the Jantsch framework above.
‘An important expression of these mutual synergistic benefits will be the creation of healthy, productive, and attractive landscapes for the emerging information society‘
… where ‘information society’ is an indirect referral to global surveillance…
‘At the global scale, this integration can be realized only as part of an all-embracing environmental revolution. Such a revolution, as envisaged by Laszlo (1994), …‘
Yes, global surveillance, and this is a requirement for the conservation of Earth, a critical component of our alleged environmental revolution.
‘This revolution will be driven by the widespread adoption of technological innovations…, coupled with more sustainable lifestyles and consumption patterns.’
Degrowth9, regrowth, call it whatever you want. Your kids’ lives will, essentially, be transferred back to 1850.
’An important step to achieve these goals in regional sustainable development will be the replacement of the ruling neoclassical market economy incentives for quantitative growth with a more far-reaching and just socioecological approach that is based on the Total Human Ecosystem paradigm.‘
Ie, it seeks to replace the capitalist model with a socioecological framework that prioritizes ‘holistic human and environmental well-being’, ie… Planetary Health.
What it seeks is the institution of a top-down socialist model.
What it seeks to do is implement Scientific Socialism.
It’s an extraordinary paper, really is. Back when I started investigating what was actually going on, as opposed to what we were led to believe, I would likely have laughed off this paper as yet another self-grandiose, up-it’s-own-behind… but ultimately mostly meaningless paper. It’s fortunately that I didn’t come across it until the end of March, 2024, at which stage my comprehension was sufficient to understand the general message.
And I’ve drafted this substack article 3 times over prior to this release, mainly because every time I realised I had to cover certain topics before getting to the meat itself.
And though I until now never got round to covering the role of Landscape Ecology, Systems Ecology, and Regionalism, here’s a very quick introduction to each, and why they matter in this context.
-
Regionalism advocates for managing land based on ecological boundaries, further understanding and respecting the natural processes and cycles within a given ecosystem, such as watersheds. This concept can be described as an Ecosystem Approach. And this work originally launched in the 1920s through HW Odum, and was funded by… Rockefeller.
Landscape Ecology extends this framework by adding spatial definitions and functions - ie defining specific geographical ranges - and how to structure these with a view to enable the monetisation of multiple ‘ecosystem services’ simultaneously.
And finally, Systems Ecology (HT Odum) introduced the somewhat simplified concept of the circulation of energy throughout a given system. This allowed a natural energy parallel to the electric curcuits equivalent observed in Silent Weapons for Quieet Wars previously discussed. And when those two are combined they allow for the conceptual alignment between natural energy and social energy - ie, money backed by a source of natural energy - or should we align it with the negative thereof, this could happen through carbon emission permits.
A such system was discussed by Technocracy, Inc, back in the 1930s, through their conceptual ‘energy certificates’ seeking to tie together money and natural energy10.
And should you find their primary release, the ‘Technocracy Study Course’11, you find the two concepts present very, very similar outlines of society… but with Technocracy, Inc’s document penned back in 1936!
And 1936 also happens to be the year Keynes released his General Theory, indirectly promoting fiscal inductance economics. But as that’s outside the scope of this article, let’s instead focus on two different points of related interest, the first of which is this bidirectional chemical reaction -
And to quote the book itself -
‘It will be noticed that the production of plant substance is chemically exactly the opposite from the burning of wood.‘
In other words, by measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, one can determine the quantity of fossil fuels burnt, thus leading to the negative of the energy balance… but only provided, of course, that we eliminate nuclear. And I don’t think Zev’s being particularly complimentary in that regard -
‘Fossil and nuclear energy… result in high outputs of entropy, waste, and pollution, with farreaching, detrimental impacts on the remaining open landscapes and human health‘
Aka ‘shut down nuclear’ and what you then have is a chemical reaction, quasi-measureable through concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But do have a guess as to who wrote that ‘Study Course’. Well, that would be none other but Marion King Hubbert12, the very origin of Peak Oil13 theory.
On a personal note - around 2010 I spent a fair bit of time reading up on Peak Oil, and I will hold up my hand and admit to buying into related predictions of impending disaster. And yes, there are truths to it, because given a fixed size resource, extraction flow will eventually hit a peak. But it’s a simplified view, because beyond improvements in secondary and tertiary extraction techniques, we also have the Fischer-Tropsch14 process - employed by the Nazis during WW2 - closing in on 60% efficiency, meaning that coal deposits - several times the total size of oil deposits - can be converted into far more oil than we ever drilled. And we can then add tar sand discoveries, of which the Orinoco Belt in Venezuela alone is several times the size of Ghawar in Saudi Arabia - the world’s biggest conventional oil deposit by far. And the cost of development keeps decreasing, with especially in-situ15 having a bright future.
But even in the extreme case where we’d tapped all deposits, we could hypothetically construct nuclear plants to produce electricity, and through carbon capture (ironically), followed by an electrochemical reduction create oil. Would it be economically feasible by todays standards? Certainly not. However, had we - instead of progressively shutting down the nuclear industry through escalating mountains of red tape - built, built, and built in the 1970s, then - frankly - who knows.
And when you look closer at the Three Mile Island incident16… there are controversies, and the organisation titled the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’ appears to circle rather a lot17.
The UCS in 197918 - immediately prior to the Three Mile Island - released a ‘nugget file’, chock full of largely irrelevancies relating to the nuclear industry in the United States, creating the highly implausible timeline seen below -
January; 'Nugget File', UCS fear-mongering about nuclear goes public, with the release of a dossier of essentially minor incidences at nuclear plants, none of which amount to real levels of risk.
February; 'Carbon Consensus' at the invite-only First World Climate Conference, arranged by hyper-conflicted, foundation funded ICSU. An event at which they largely discussed policy, not science.
March; 'Three Mile Island', the most significant risk incident related to the nuclear power industry in the United States, thus appearing almost absurdly coincidentally timed given the release of the ‘Nugget File’
November; ‘Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution‘, which raises global concerns from the emission of pollution in the atmosphere - which is where said ‘carbon consensus’ ties in.
The CLRTAP then was integrated through the 1982 World Charter for Nature, which in 2017 was practically cut and pasted into the ‘Draft Global Pact for the Environment‘.
Let me hypothesise here - the objective could well have been to shut down nuclear, while at the same time control the emission of carbon dioxide. But why?
Because if successful, the bidirectional chemical reaction outlined above would lead to the progressive concentration of power in ever fewer hands, towards a vision outlined by the Technocracy Study Guide… as penned by Mr Peak Oil, himself.
And so many questionable ‘grass roots organisations’ were launched around the Three Mile Island incident, all highly skeptical of nuclear, and they contributed article19 after article20, with one in particular21 written by the founder of the UCS, where said UCS claimed to be ‘pro’… yet these commonly had familiar sources of funding.
And as for the UCS who claim to be ‘pro’ nuclear in contemporary settings; courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, and 1978 - '''We've stopped nuclear power from being the miracle energy cure, and shown it to be a controversial, problem-ridden power source," says Daniel Ford of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading antinuclear group'22.
And this came, essentially, immediately prior to that 1979 event.
And there is no shortage of material here23, though this can be hard to find24, especially as you very strangely find those organisations to commonly remove their own information on these important matters.
… yet what you predictably encounter…. yes, those very same sources of funding25.
We’re not running out of oil. We’re not even close. But even if that indeed was the case, then building nuclear the world across would solve most if not all problems. But we’re not doing that. In fact, the quantity of red tape required to build these days borders on the extreme. And - sure - you can argue as you wish about potential danger, but that existed in the 1960s as well, with far inferior technology.
The facts available here suggest that Technocracy, Inc was on the money, when they suggested ‘energy permits’ back in 1936. But while energy consumption can be hard to estimate, it is entirely possible - with some level of accuracy - to measure the quantity of burnt fossil fuels through atmospheric co2 levels - which represent the opposite side of that energy equation.
But nuclear… that’s harder to measure. Consequently, it would suit the conceptual vision of Technocracy, Inc, to simply eliminate this competitor, and this could well have been progressively carried out through the establishment of the IAEA in 195726, the IEA in 197427, and the IETA in 199828, seeking to monitor and regulate, respectively, nuclear, oil, and carbon emissions.
Thus, this conceptual vision outlined by Technocracy, Inc - further incorporating the establishment of said agencies into this consideration - also happens to incidentally align with the vision set out through Zev Naveh’s Total Human Ecosystem.
