No matter if you're a Luddite or a believer in the narrative of perpetual progress, what's crucial right now is that we understand it could go both ways. One day I find myself preparing for the stone age, the next for a Star Trek future. And as if this dance between the poles wasn't interesting enough, along comes the latest developments in artificial intelligence.. May we live in interesting times.
Risky vs. Scary - Our brains are wired to pay more attention to negative stimuli, such as threats or potential dangers. This is a survival mechanism that has evolved over time to help us avoid harm. As a result, we may be more sensitive to scary situations and may perceive them as more risky than they actually are.
Humans are naturally prone to making judgments based on incomplete or biased information, which can lead to inaccurate assessments of risk and fear. For example, we may overestimate the likelihood of rare events or base our judgments on media coverage rather than objective data.
The above text was written by ChatGPT Open AI software. If you are a writer is this scary? What are the risks to leaning in to the technology? Much like nuclear power where is the line between socially acceptable and too far?
Fantastic article, Jamie, thank you for the insight on the theories. I would have loved to see as well some correlations to the works of IPCC and the international Energy Agency, especially regarding one report that stated that we already reached the petroleum production peak in 2008 (the same year corresponding to a certain global crisis) to complement even more these theories as a established scientific facts. Thanks for the wonderful overview!
Stone is launching that doc for free around the world in the coming year, so stay tuned on it. To be clear, it is a well thought out doc, but it is an advocacy piece. There are and should be counters and rebuttals, but it is a convo we for sure need to be having!
Jamie - I had to search on substack for you, and saw 18 months of columns I had not seen. I am a subscriber to the substack, but unpaid. However, when I searched and read the columns, they did not say "for paying subscribers only." So I don't know if substack email only sends to paying subscribers, even if you posts are not restricted.
Hi Jim Thx for reading! It’s my sincere stand to never paywall what I write I always want the most folks possible to be able read it if helpful. That said, we are launching a Homegrown Humans community membership which will ADD a bunch more fun stuff like book clubs, monthly live discussions, working groups, regional meetups etc Stay tuned!
Manure could be used for the soil. Exhaust from cars? nuclear waste? And Kuznet's curve is a dream without too much substance. The fusion technique is far away to be practical. Common sense, reponsability and repsect for nature would be wiser. But may not sell!
There’s just something slightly transgressive about saying “Jamie Wheal is pro nukes” lol.
But nuclear is a good gateway issue to the exercise of mind changing. Like every good little environmentalist I grew up anti nuke (shout out to Dr Helen Caldicutt). Then I on-boarded the pro nuke arguments and changed my mind. Since then I’ve introduced the argument to a few anti nukers and they’ve changed their minds as well. Ironically it’s one of those hot button topics that isn’t all that dangerous to discuss in mixed company.
not exactly. I am pro carbon transition. I am pro an evidence based assessment of how hard that is. I am now not con SMR nuclear as a potential component of some of the only feasible pathways to that transition, mapped against imminent timelines. In this case, the double negative is more accurate than the simple positive!
- H-bomb is fusion, not fission. (H stands for hydrogen.)
"Hundreds died at Three Mile Island"?! EDIT: Jamie didn't say this, I just read too fast, but they did say this in the Netflix docu-drama "Meltdown", which was fact checked here: https://youtu.be/-R-_R63IIGc?t=1060
But yes- you're right! We definitely need nuclear fission. It's the safest and least mining intensive of all energy sources, and the only one that's scaled up fast enough historically (France decarbonized their grid in under 15 years) to meet the climate challenge.
technically h bombs are two stage weapons, starting with fission to fuel the subsequent fusion, but yes, great clarification! Not sure who said the quote "hundreds died at Three Mile?" Is that in a doc somewhere, or did you think I did?
No matter if you're a Luddite or a believer in the narrative of perpetual progress, what's crucial right now is that we understand it could go both ways. One day I find myself preparing for the stone age, the next for a Star Trek future. And as if this dance between the poles wasn't interesting enough, along comes the latest developments in artificial intelligence.. May we live in interesting times.
Still receiving Jamie...thanks for the brain swerves...always appreciate them...have a good one...hugs Holly x
Fantastic info and as usual jocose as all hell. Thank you!
Risky vs. Scary - Our brains are wired to pay more attention to negative stimuli, such as threats or potential dangers. This is a survival mechanism that has evolved over time to help us avoid harm. As a result, we may be more sensitive to scary situations and may perceive them as more risky than they actually are.
Humans are naturally prone to making judgments based on incomplete or biased information, which can lead to inaccurate assessments of risk and fear. For example, we may overestimate the likelihood of rare events or base our judgments on media coverage rather than objective data.
The above text was written by ChatGPT Open AI software. If you are a writer is this scary? What are the risks to leaning in to the technology? Much like nuclear power where is the line between socially acceptable and too far?
Fantastic article, Jamie, thank you for the insight on the theories. I would have loved to see as well some correlations to the works of IPCC and the international Energy Agency, especially regarding one report that stated that we already reached the petroleum production peak in 2008 (the same year corresponding to a certain global crisis) to complement even more these theories as a established scientific facts. Thanks for the wonderful overview!
for anyone curious about a deep evidence based dive into the actual challenges of migrating off carbon economy would recommend Vaclav Smil's easiest book to date https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Transitions-Modern-World-Made/dp/0190060662/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LYKVK2HKOD9I&keywords=grand+transitions+by+vaclav+smil&qid=1671560333&sprefix=smil+gr%2Caps%2C150&sr=8-1
Yes so when is this getting relayed throughout the populace as news. Everyone will certainly land on the same page. /s
Stone is launching that doc for free around the world in the coming year, so stay tuned on it. To be clear, it is a well thought out doc, but it is an advocacy piece. There are and should be counters and rebuttals, but it is a convo we for sure need to be having!
I would prefer to receive this newsletter rather than the FGP newsletter. Not sure why I have not been receiving this one. Thanks.
Thx! Hopefully your sorted here on Substack subscription? And y pls just email hello@flowgenomeproject.com to unsubscribe from the other
Jamie - I had to search on substack for you, and saw 18 months of columns I had not seen. I am a subscriber to the substack, but unpaid. However, when I searched and read the columns, they did not say "for paying subscribers only." So I don't know if substack email only sends to paying subscribers, even if you posts are not restricted.
Hi Jim Thx for reading! It’s my sincere stand to never paywall what I write I always want the most folks possible to be able read it if helpful. That said, we are launching a Homegrown Humans community membership which will ADD a bunch more fun stuff like book clubs, monthly live discussions, working groups, regional meetups etc Stay tuned!
Manure could be used for the soil. Exhaust from cars? nuclear waste? And Kuznet's curve is a dream without too much substance. The fusion technique is far away to be practical. Common sense, reponsability and repsect for nature would be wiser. But may not sell!
Oh I get it, and I appreciate your take.
There’s just something slightly transgressive about saying “Jamie Wheal is pro nukes” lol.
But nuclear is a good gateway issue to the exercise of mind changing. Like every good little environmentalist I grew up anti nuke (shout out to Dr Helen Caldicutt). Then I on-boarded the pro nuke arguments and changed my mind. Since then I’ve introduced the argument to a few anti nukers and they’ve changed their minds as well. Ironically it’s one of those hot button topics that isn’t all that dangerous to discuss in mixed company.
tldr; Jamie is pro nukes
not exactly. I am pro carbon transition. I am pro an evidence based assessment of how hard that is. I am now not con SMR nuclear as a potential component of some of the only feasible pathways to that transition, mapped against imminent timelines. In this case, the double negative is more accurate than the simple positive!
Some nitpicks...
- H-bomb is fusion, not fission. (H stands for hydrogen.)
"Hundreds died at Three Mile Island"?! EDIT: Jamie didn't say this, I just read too fast, but they did say this in the Netflix docu-drama "Meltdown", which was fact checked here: https://youtu.be/-R-_R63IIGc?t=1060
But yes- you're right! We definitely need nuclear fission. It's the safest and least mining intensive of all energy sources, and the only one that's scaled up fast enough historically (France decarbonized their grid in under 15 years) to meet the climate challenge.
technically h bombs are two stage weapons, starting with fission to fuel the subsequent fusion, but yes, great clarification! Not sure who said the quote "hundreds died at Three Mile?" Is that in a doc somewhere, or did you think I did?
Oh my bad-- reading too fast and combined the Chernobyl line with the previous paragraph.