We are heading towards another stone age — at least from a purely technical perspective. After the easy to get parts of fossil fuels and rich deposits of minerals (all mined and processed by burning coal, oil and gas) deplete, we won’t be able to maintain a high-tech civilization and are bound to relive our history in reverse. (If you haven’t done so yet — or if you are new to this blog — please read my essay on a potential coming of a second bronze age to understand where I’m coming from). But could the biosphere support billions of farmers and hunters then…? Maybe a million? Or perhaps none at all?
This time, compared to writing another (longish) piece musing on the eons ahead, I propose a list of questions and potential answers to ponder on instead. And when I say ponder, I do mean it: please take your time to think through your answers. Most importantly, however, I want you to ask yourself: ‘why do I believe that will be the case?’ (Feel free to do your own research and to discuss your answers in the comments section down below.) With that said, let’s have a go at it, shall we?
- How much (more) radioactive, chemical, plastic, endocrine disrupting, genetic etc. pollution will this civilization leave behind?
A: Not that much. We will realize how serious a problem pollution is, and act accordingly: banning, then eventually cleaning up all toxic materials left behind by industrial civilization. Earth systems will be able to cope with what remains.
B: A lot, at least much more than what could be absorbed by Nature without suffering serious, detrimental consequences. The reason: none of the materials mentioned above were part of the natural circulation of nutrients, and thus no organism has evolved to cope with them. Yet, much of it will remain in circulation for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years to come, posing a real threat to the reproductive and physical health of all life forms. - To what extent will we cut down forests to satisfy our need for firewood when fossil fuels leave the scene?
A: Minimally. We will manage the de-grow the economy successfully and shrink the human enterprise accordingly. We won’t have the energy (fuel) to cut down everything, anyway.
B: To a large extent. In a last ditch attempt to keep the electric grid stable, and to prevent people from freezing in their homes, we will cut down most forests around densely populated areas and incinerate them in our stoves and power plants. The resulting habitat loss will give a further boost to the already ongoing sixth mass extinction. - What would happen if a nation runs out of wood to burn? How much waste, used clothes, plastic etc. will they incinerate then? How much more pollution will all that uncontrolled, incomplete combustion release?
A: We will burn some stuff, but it won’t release as much pollution as you would think. At least we would get rid of a lot of waste.
B: The answer to both questions is: quite a lot. The massive amount of bisphenols and phthalates generated during the process — all toxins that can disrupt neurodevelopment, endocrine, and reproductive functions — will further exacerbate our pollution predicament; pushing many species’ beyond their capacity to cope. - To what extent will remaining forests burn due to wildfires, or turn into a savanna / grassland due to climate change (and our unsustainable forestry practices)? How much more CO2 will that process release?
A: Minimally. Once the amount of CO2 released by human activities starts to fall, and clear cutting comes to an end, forests will start to regenerate naturally; absorbing most of the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels.
B: The Amazon will turn into a savanna, no matter how we wish it would regenerate. It has already switched from being a carbon sink to act as a carbon source, and the likely halt of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (aka the “Gulf stream”) will eventually seal its fate. The process will release untold gigatons of CO2; effectively replacing most emission cuts “achieved” by hitting and passing peak oil. The same goes — to a large extent — to northern taiga forests. - How high sea level will rise five hundred years from now?
A: A couple of meters (six feet) at worst. Nothing that a good old seawall could not stop.
B: Potentially fifteen meters — or more — inundating all coastal cities up to the fifth story, and destroying all of “our” low-lying farmlands. - How much of “our” arable land will remain viable during the centuries ahead? How much of it will be rendered permanently useless due to chemical and radioactive pollution or coastal inundation?
A: Most of our farmlands — except for some low-lying land — will be in use a hundred years from now.
B: We will almost certainly lose “our” most fertile arable lands located in river deltas and on low-lying plains to sea level rise, and lands adjacent to our drastically reshaped shorelines will be damaged by sea water intrusion. Aquifer depletion and changed rainfall patterns will dry up yet another tranche of arable land and turn them into deserts. Another considerable amount of farms further inland will be lost due to chemical and radioactive pollution. (Depending on how uncontrolled the collapse of modernity will be, a number of nuclear reactors could melt down or see their fuel ponds dry up and burn, covering farmlands downwind with tons of radioactive fallout. Oil wells in the tune of millions (just in the continental US) will be left behind without being sealed properly, leaking oil, fracking fluid and “produced” saline water into the ground.) We are already past ‘peak agricultural land’, and in a polluted, post-fossil-fuel world the decline can only be expected to accelerate. - Will Earth’s changing climate, and the loss of viable farmlands allow for agriculture to continue? If yes, how long?
A: With sustainable agroforestry and using permaculture techniques we will be able to continue growing crops indefinitely, and at the same time adapt to a new climate regime.
B: While permaculture practices could help, what about soil erosion, salination, overgrazing etc. especially if there are more mouths to feed than land to till? Again, if the decline in agricultural output (due to an accelerating loss of arable lands, a fall in diesel fuel supply and a deteriorating climate) is faster than natural population decline, we will be forced to take drastic measures. More importantly, over the decades and centuries ahead, Earth’s climate could easily leave the stable conditions required for growing crops behind, eventually putting an end to all agriculture. Globally. This is no joke or hyperbole: the climatic fluctuations of the ice ages prevented the rise of civilizations for hundreds of thousands of years. We are already into the process of losing that very climatic stability we depended on for the past eight to ten millennia. - How much wildlife will remain, should food production start to become inadequate due to a lack of diesel fuel, fertilizers and pesticides or droughts and heatwaves? Will we eat all wild animals (larger than a rabbit)? Or will there be sanctuaries where wildlife could survive and repopulate land abandoned by humans?
A: Since we will successfully transition to sustainable permaculture and agro-forestry practices — and with large masses of humans turning vegan — there will be no need to eat wild animals. We will also stop deforestation and reserve at least 30% of the land for wildlife to inhabit.
B: Again, it all depends whether the rate of decline in agricultural production will match or exceed the rate of fall in human population (due to loss of fertility, wars, ageing etc.). Currently, the combined weight of all land mammals amounts to only 6lb of meat per person. In case of a severe famine due to a crop failure, for example, wild animals would be butchered and eaten in a couple of week’s time, initiating a collapse in their populations. - How will pollution and climate change effect surviving plants and animals?
A: Our change in diet and agricultural practices, combined with an assisted migration of species and restoration of habitats, will put an end to the sixth mass extinction.
B: Even if we manage to keep ourselves well fed through agriculture, the loss of natural habitats, wildfires, sea level rise, heatwaves and the buildup of endocrine disrupting chemicals will likely exceed most large slow breeding animals’ capacity to adapt. There is a considerable chance that by the middle of this millennia — or maybe as soon as the end of this century — all large land mammals will go extinct… And if the insect apocalypse continues, much of the smaller mammal and bird species will be gone too; together with the many plant species which depend on these creatures to propagate. Only the hardiest, fastest breeding species would survive such an event. - Will we — as a species — able to survive and thrive in the future, given the massive changes in climate and a continuous loss of biodiversity?
A: Sure, it can’t be that bad. We are the cockroaches of this planet, we cannot go extinct!
B: This is one of the biggest questions. We are part of a larger biosphere, and without our technology fueled by rapidly depleting fossil fuel supplies, we will be entirely at Nature’s mercy. If we mess this planet up really bad, there might be no place for us to live. Even if we find a suitable land to live on, and even if we can continue to feed ourselves, we haven’t evolved to tolerate the buildup of microplastics in our testicles, nor phthalates in the air we breathe and the water we drink… At least not any more than digesting radioactive isotopes from our food or surviving 50°C in a highly humid environment. At best we will be forced to leave behind large, previously densely populated areas, to find a sustainable way to live off the rest of our time as a species. At worst, the sixth mass extinction could include us, large, slow breeding hominids, as well; opening up a whole new range of possibilities for those small burrowing creatures to repopulate the planet in the millions of years ahead. Just like they did after the dinosaurs had left the scene.
Answering the question, pertaining to the coming of a second stone age, is thus harder than most of us would think. The knee-jerk answer from techno-optimists — deliberately not discussed in the Q&A above — , of course, is a loud no. ‘We are destined to conquer space after all! How could we do that with a stone ax?’ After examining our biophysical realities — the coming decline in net energy production, the loss of biodiversity, climate change, resource depletion etc. — we must say: becoming hunter gatherers (again) would actually be the best possible outcome. In fact, that would be quite a feat, even as sea levels rise, species go extinct and pollution reigns supreme… All this against the backdrop of an accelerating civilizational collapse (with nukes to boot), but that’s really just the cherry on top. So while I hope we will find a way through the massive discontinuity ahead, and learn to live in balance with Nature, there are absolutely no guarantees that we will make it.
Until next time,
B
Thank you for reading The Honest Sorcerer. If you would like to support my work, please subscribe for free and consider leaving a tip. Every donation helps, no matter how small. Thank you in advance!
