I personally am a fan of Dr. Shane Simonsen and his work with low-input, low-tech biotechnology, or his idea of humans as the ‘universal symbiont’ that could form mutual relationships with all life. As he says, nobody ever reinvented themselves on a good day. A lot of our fragile and intensive mechanical/technological solutions were only one societal evolutionary path that happened to win out, when a resilient and self-perpetuating biological solution could work better but is unexplored. @ZeroInputAgriculture

Having studied permaculture, indigenous horticulture, and ecology (along with collapse, energy systems, and climate change) for a few years now, I find that my answers are usually ‘C’ or sometimes ‘A + B’. I think you have good intentions with the questions, but are still viewing it from the modern idea of modernity or nothing (except now it is more like mad max/collapse forever or nothing).

Nature is not a static thing, it is always changing and forming new relationships within itself, always reorienting to conditions. We tend to hyperfocus on the little picture of this species succeeding or that one extincting, or even individual members, rather than looking at the big picture; the dance of all Life that is ongoing regardless, that merely shifts forms and movements. Every collapse and extinction in Earth’s history was also an opportunity for what came after to flourish and radiate into a thousand different new shapes and patterns. We see the death, but forget that it is the other side of birth, and of rebirth.

Anyway, hopefully this makes sense and doesn’t sound two crazy lol. I will attempt to answer these as best I can.

1. B + C: Nature is resilient and flexible. Already new life forms have evolved to digest microplastic, oil, toxic waste, etc. Currently IIRC, they only break the plastic down to smaller bits, but the point is that the chain of digestion and cycling into the earth system has started. That’s not to say it’s not an issue, but rather it’s not a forever one.

2. C: I don’t foresee many scenarios where the need for mass deforestation is ongoing at the same time as the ability to carry it out (similar to mass hunting below). If the lights are on and the system working, most people lack the skill or ability, and tools plus infrastructure, to make much use of an open fire. If the system is not working, the majority of people (this is talking about the first world and specifically America here) are too unconditioned, unskilled, and unequipped to just go out and start burning the woods down, let alone that the driver in this scenario is a lack of energy (meaning no food, water, power, etc coming in). There’s a middle ground here where perhaps slightly more resilient rural people are chipping away at forests while the system unwinds slowly, but I don’t see the majority of forests as slated for the fireplace.

I could be wrong here, but even in that case, I’d point out that the majority of the US was already deforested just a few hundred years ago, before domestic logging/mining and the industrial solution made coal the preferred energy source. All of the forests we see today aren’t ’original or ‘pristine’, they are an example of life’s tenacious ability to bounce back from a literal moonscape when left alone. I like to think about this with all the farmland left to rewild, as well.

3. C: Again, seems more likely that there’d be mass death before there was both the combined incentive and ability for mass couch burnings or what have you.

4. B: Indeed, it is very tragic to see these things go, and will be very beautiful to see what comes after. Already new plant life is sprouting up in the Arctic circle and other unusual places for it. Contained within the question, but often overlooked, is that a savanna is still a diverse and functional ecosystem. I also wonder if the aforementioned rewilding of most farmland and urban spaces will do much to slow down warming. I think it will, as North America alone after the Native’s died off is what led to the Little Ice Age in Europe.

5. B: Gonna be pretty cool, right? Kudzu jungles giving way to shopping mall swamps giving way to underground parking garage reefs.

6. Mostly B: Thankfully silvopasture, permaculture, managed grazing etc can be practiced on marginal lands and don’t require ideal crop land. Hell even crops can be grown on unideal land, just not industrial monocrops that need machines for everything. Barring a sudden nuclear war, I don’t see most power plants etc being left off, but could be wrong. We are already seeing many being shut down indefinitely due to low water levels or high water temps etc.

7. C: While B is correct, it doesn’t understand that there is more to permaculture than annual grain crops and veggies, or doesn’t understand that a stable climate is what permitted predictable harvesting and drying/storing of vast grain monocrops, not like, all useful plant life or something. I expect the staples of the future to be nut trees and perennial tuber crops, supported by ecosystem engineering and earthworks, along with managed grazing. And again, the point of permaculture is you can do it anywhere, even on marginal land.

But yes, billions are going to die when annual grain ag eventually completely fails, as we are already starting to see happen. Probably within a decade or so, if I had to guess? However, civilization does not equal humanity or all human societal potential.

8. C: Much like the firewood example, there won’t be both the incentive and ability at the same time (or not for very long). Even modern hunters rely on tech and energy, to set up cameras, drive to site, shoot with gun, haul out with ATV (don’t forget to leave all the most nourishing bits behind because it’s weird!), drop off at processor because you don’t know how to butcher (and leave the rest of the bones and organs behind here), pick up and store in freezer. It would be comically removed from real skill at subsistence if it wasn’t so sad.

And these are our best examples. I think this mainly comes from Dunning-Krueger, the average person thinks “I’d just go hunt” despite never having to do anything more involved than hunting down a hot pocket, and still failing at processing that properly when he burns his mouth on the bits that aren’t still frozen.

Or to put it in other words, again, millions of starving, sick, weak people drinking no or bad water and walking on foot aren’t an unstoppable horde, they are a humanitarian refugee crisis that probably won’t make it out of the city. During the Great Depression 90% of people lived rurally, on a farm, and had generations of low-tech skills, and we still couldn’t hunt everything out (I assume things survived in really unaccessible locations). Today, we will be lucky if the deer don’t eat us while the squirrels pilfer our apocalypse hot pocket stash.

9. B + C: It is true that much life will go extinct. However, life is still very adaptable and flexible. Some of the most vibrant nature reserves in the world spring up immediately once we are forced to get out of the way, ie Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the DMZ.

To my understanding, most of the pressure on wildlife today is directly from humans, ie habitat loss. Things, including humans, are clearly still able to breed despite the mountain of chemicals we have already poured into the earth (although it’s probably good for us that we are less fertile). I do think some species would go extinct without assisted migration, so we will see how much help any among us are willing and able to offer them. Again though, many other species will recalibrate and find new niches and balances, once humans are out of the way.

10. B + C: We forget that our ancestors were exposed to countless small systemic pressures everyday that we never evolved much resistance for (carcinogenic wood smoke, chronic diseases, and literal parasites come to mind). For some reason we think about microplastics etc as if they mean death or inability to breed… while reading that we’ve been eating and drinking them since the 50’s. Don’t get me wrong, they’re not harmless or good by any means and I try my best to avoid them, but it’s a category error to treat them like an *acute* poison.

But yes, you are very right here. Whether we can be flexible and adaptable now and learn to fit into the new patterns we have created will make it or break it for us. I think it is up to us fringe weirdos, the kind who would read this blog and take these topics seriously, to be laying the groundwork or what’s to come. We can be hybridizing novel species, domesticating new staple crops, and creating the foundations for new agro-ecological systems today. Or perhaps as you said, we are just going to make way for the next thing. Either way, even if we have forgotten, we are still part of the dance and web of life. It remains to be seen who among us will bravely take the first shaky steps out of the crowd of bystanders, trying to find their footing and timing. Who among us will begin the delicate work of reconnecting old threads, and weaving new ones?