18 Comments
Nov 3, 2021Liked by Caitlin Johnstone

Yes, the odds are not in our favour based on the facts on the ground. The rising of human consciousness is the x-factor which can give us some hope.

We are collectively mad. Even if our current situation had us at a 99% likelihood of surviving this would still be a 1 in 100 chance of annihilation. No sane person or society would ever consider getting anywhere close to those odds, to those dangerous behaviours.

Expand full comment

Caitlin briefly mentions the most serious threat to mankind, the poisoning of our ecosystem with insecticides and herbicides, then spins off into the global warming hoax. The global temperatures during the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) were far higher than they were even at the start of the Holocene (the current interglacial period). The threat of thermonuclear war isn't mentioned until near the end. The biggest threat of all, our own anti-life elites who according to the government's VAERS data are poisoning us with "vaccines" that have already killed more people than all other vaccines combined, is not mentioned at all. Some of these nuts are also proposing we try to combat the unproven threat of global warming by blotting out the sun. They are exactly like the sorcerer's apprentice. Unfortunately, it's unlikely a master sorcerer will come to our rescue.

Expand full comment

'We' have 16 years?

'Global peak oil production may have already happened in October of 2018 (https://energyskeptic.com/2020/will-covid-19-delay-peak-oil/ Table 1). It is likely the decline rate will be 6%, increasing exponentially by +0.015% a year (see post “Giant oil field decline rates and peak oil”). So, after 16 years remaining oil production will be just 10% of what it was at the peak.'

http://energyskeptic.com/2020/climate-change-dominates-news-coverage-at-expense-of-more-important-existential-issues/

Or,

'We' have ten years?

“ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy

33:33 per barrel available for the global

33:36 economy was about eight percent

33:38 and that in over the next few years it

33:42 will go down to zero percent

33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that

33:46 actually the

33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude

33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022

33:56 but there are ways and means of

33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side

34:00 here on our diagram

34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely

34:05 around 2030 . . .

we

34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes

34:46 down to zero

34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just

34:50 collapse of the oil industry

34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global

34:54 industrial civilization this is what we

34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxinAu8ORxM&feature=emb_logo

Or, have 5 years? {unlikely?}.

"The greatest threat to humanity on Earth is the escalating Arctic atmospheric methane buildup, caused by the destabilization of subsea methane hydrates. This subsea Arctic methane hydrate destabilization will go out of control in 2024 and lead to a catastrophic heatwave by 2026."

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/05/extinction-by-2027.html?fbclid=IwAR3FEKqILrzS_Le1Z4LRmEvqoSRz6p2rBIFjbNmY1NFB_rHeU4RpDT8u2Zg

Remember?

“A barrel of conventional crude oil contains the equivalent of roughly 4.5 years of continuous human labour; or around 11 years at 35 hours per week, 48 weeks of the year.  But the capitalist doesn’t pay for the value of the fuel, merely the cost of extracting it.  For a mere £49 (at pre-pandemic prices) the capitalist purchases £330,000 worth of work (at the current UK median wage).  It is the exploitation of fossil fuels rather than the exploitation of labour which generates the vast majority of the surplus value in an industrial economy. . . .

{As Nicole Foss once put it – if conventional oil was like drinking draught beer from a glass, fracking was the equivalent of sucking the spilled dregs from the carpet.}”

https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2020/05/26/two-money-tricks/?fbclid=IwAR1rOz0jexO2dIIldSlseh-8-EqES4oYZcBTvHMtW-JyBgMHB6xgfOOsbBI

Expand full comment

We talk about it loads but do nothing about it. The main points of all effort surrounding climate change are: a) induce a sense of stress and emergency at a global level around something of fundamental importance; b) drive the evolution of technology and investment within a corrupt control sphere.

Expand full comment

I have to think that we've all dreamed about this in some way. I have.

Expand full comment

I think you should add reduced sperm count (mainly from "Western" countries I think I heard somebody say) to the list of indicators that there are problems with the ecosystem. I agree with the ones you already listed, but this sperm count thing is pretty serious and it suggest that chemicals present in "advanced" economies are having "hidden" affects that have not been properly accounted for....if there ever could be a system that "accounts" for this sort of thing. Here is a link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1883354/

Thanks Caitlin for another important article.

Ken

Expand full comment

The root problem of our vanishing eco-system has been blacked out by a media controlled by those who want an endless supply of cannon fodder and slave laborers. Zero Population Growth used to be a thing back in the 1960s, and public international campaigns offered birth control means to developing nations. I recall a poster showing a couple with two children on one side and the same couple with 10 children on the other, with the text "Too Many Children Will Make You Poor." It was a recognized fact that the earth can only support just so many people. Now, not since the Bernie Media Blackout have I seen such a concerted effort to not mention the "P" word on air. I won't be around to witness the total collapse of life on earth, but I can rest easy knowing that I made the greatest contribution of all by not adding to the mess by reproducing.

Expand full comment

I find myself strangely reminded of The Flight Channel's story of a Japanese airliner whose pilot tried to commit suicide by crashing his plane into the sea prior to landing. He survived, but many passengers did not. (He was found not guilty by reason of insanity.)

I'm pretty certain those driving us into the sea are counting on somehow surviving as well; their egos can't comprehend any other outcome, while too many of us just stare at all that pretty water, drawing closer.

Expand full comment

We are literally a walking Fermi Paradox. Maybe this is the way it's always been, and always will be.

Expand full comment

I shared this on Facebook with this comment: Another terrifying but accurate and truthful assessment from Caitlin Johnstone, the world's current leading Cassandra being ignored by the mainstream. "The way the debate fixates solely on temperature and carbon levels is like if someone had stage four cancer throughout their body and they were in a coma and their vital signs were dropping and the doctor said death is imminent, and everyone was stuck on arguing over whether or not low blood pressure is necessarily a bad thing."

Expand full comment

Aha, well written as usual. And I see you must also follow the work of James Corbett, as he recently did a piece on the bystander effect! I am going to share this link far and wide, as you almost always say what I am struggling to convey to anyone who will listen and you can say it better than I could if I took a hundred writing classes. One more threat that hardly anyone talks about is space weather. There are several threats looming, the most important being what happens when the poles get too close to one another and flip. Thanks for all the hard work, in the face and at the edge of our extinction.

Expand full comment