Alien Intervention is very feasible. The following transmission was delivered 70 years ago through the Yogic Medium, Dr. George King (1919-1997) by an intelligence existing upon a higher dimension within our own Solar System:
"The evolution of mankind is now being speeded up, in order to reach a certain point within a certain time limit. Cooperate with the speeding up, help it, become the beings who speed this up and I promise you a million helpers. If you do, you will never regret any time you have spent in this wonderful way. There is so much for all of you to do, but so little time in which you can do it.
…These are the teachings which we, from the Interplanetary Governmental Systems wish you to take, absorb, believe and act upon. Then we can make our next move, which will be free
movement among you and direct help given in your schools, universities, hospitals and governments. If you go out of your way to reach up to us, we can and we will come out of our way down to you, but you must move! We cannot come unless you do this—this is the Law. We do not break the Law."
Sadly, for the most part, these messages have thus far been unheeded despite UAPs - as they are now known - beginning to receive more serious attention. However, it is humanity that has to awaken to a far greater spiritual awareness of our true place within the Cosmos. I was a personal assistant to Dr. George King in the latter years of his life and have written about him and this greater cosmic message in my book, "Maya Mire - A Spiritual Journey into Cosmic Truth and the Dawning of a New World". I will be speaking more about it at The Aetherius Society in Hollywood on Sunday, April 13th: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/maya-mire-a-spiritual-journey-into-cosmic-truth-tickets-1284398242719?aff=oddtdtcreator
When you become aware of how extraordinary Dr. George King was, practicing higher forms of yoga for eight hours a day for some ten years, you can't cavalierly dismiss the contact with off-planet beings that his devotion gave rise to. With or without contact, I am aligned with him when he says, "Cooperate with the speeding up, help it, become the beings who speed this up." Being so threatened and not knowing how to reduce the threat, the best chance we have is to be cooperative where all hands would be on deck to deal with humanity's success instead of its demise.
We are part of something much greater than ourselves, not least the Mother Earth as a highly-advanced Cosmic Intelligence. It is all Oneness after all; there is no separation except in states of conscious evolution. Humanity is not quite the "it" that we have, in our ignorance, thus far presumed ourselves to be.
That's the ideation I do a lot of writing about, and that I tried, without success, to tune Erik Michaels into. I had a realization over that. He does his thing very well, showing us what we're dealing with. I'd thought I should tangle with him, but now I'm thinking to each their own if they are resistant. Get the value they have to deliver and use my energy for dealing with receptive people.
What I'm finding most useful so far from the conversation with AI is its question about the "3 legs" of a council, a coalition, and a suggestion box. It was asking how the directives that are come up with would be disseminated:
"...through the same internet networks used for recruiting, or would there be a dedicated platform for issuing calls to action?"
As a most practical matter for next steps, I wonder what this forum's potentials and limitations are. Might much be done relatively unimpeded here along these lines, as it evolves into a launchpad for things like a dedicated platform? The prospect of such a relatively stand-alone platform, app or whatever would bring up plenty of issues and possible stumbling blocks, as "doing it here" would in its own way. A strategy for proceeding, which this post's convo nudges toward, will be good to get into more of the minutiae of. Is it likely there'll be a shift from what tends to get done and not get done on Substack, a 'stepwise leap', into something far more potent? Just trying to look down the best road here...
Also thinking about specific input and feedback, questions about the 3 legs approach. First I'd like to get a better sense of who else is here with such specifics of their own, who might remain on board, who might be brought on board for focusing on such a strategy. Will these Comments to this post be continuing? What do the subscribers think they could most get behind?
I particularly like and would like to hear more about what's behind Pam's general thoughts on a Council creating coherence; on creating an "alliance"; the need for a "mass" primarily decentralized "alignment" with organizations already working on this. She writes, "We can catch up on these later if you like." I look forward to that.
All so intelligent. I like that Chat possibility, because for any individual post we just get some thoughts and then we're onto the next, without sticking power, but the Chat would let us stay in conversation. And how wonderful it would be if what I'm talking about caught the attention of our Substack providers, where I'd have instigated the kind of query they could be making so Substack itself turns attention to what humanity can do.
wondering if you've seen what we just watched on NPR, Nature, about how whales evolved from 4 legged mammals to the sea-farers they are today, a reminder how survival dependent upon adaptation...and your question!...."Will we?
Thanks for sharing your conversation with ChatGPT. While we are waiting for alien support, I agree that our best way forward is collaboration and increased public understanding of our conundrum and its source. I’ve also been considering the “wisdom council” that will create coherence among those already on board and an alliance to reach out to bring more people on line.
I appreciate the ideas that ChatGPT had about how to raise awareness and then encouraging action. I appreciate the need to deeply understand the what and why of action so that people engage in transformation and not be treated as sheep. And people need to step into responsibility and accountability.
It seems the most important action now is for us all to step into our leadership potential and talk with our sphere of influence. We increase public awareness and willingness to do the hard things that need to be done. We can step further into leadership in public service, support these ideas politically and vote for people willing to champion the hard decisions we need to make.
We can decide the trajectory we want, from mass alignment. Without mass alignment we will get our deadly business as usual.
There are organizations working on this primarily decentralized alignment. We can catch up on these later if you like.
Also I really appreciate the digital democracy tools used in Taiwan by Audrey Tang. I can see these being very helpful in the sense making and decision making needed at large scales going forward.
A bunch of good thoughts. This is THE directive of the day: "all to step into our leadership potential and talk with our sphere of influence." I comment like crazy and engage in chats, sharing what I think and know, which everyone can do.
"Named one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People in AI in 2023, Tang was instrumental in shaping Taiwan’s internationally acclaimed COVID-19 response and in safeguarding the 2024 presidential and legislative elections from foreign cyber interference. Audrey is now focused on broadening their vision of Plurality — technology for collaborative diversity — to inspire global audiences."
I'm going to bone up on what she has to say.
And I trust you don't think I've got all my eggs in the alien basket. I was just trying to give Erik a possibility he couldn't argue with. He still argued.
am delighted Rupert Sheldrake in his first Substack ended with a paragraph I feel validated by, he wrote: In short, materialists reject the idea that everything comes from the Father in favour of the idea that everything comes from the Mother – Mother Nature. When the metaphors are made explicit, it is obvious that they are equally unbalanced. Both mothers and fathers are needed for the creation of new life. In any case these metaphors confuse us. God must be beyond gender, as must Nature. They contain and give rise to mothers and fathers and all genders and all that is genderless, but transcend them.
He's not an activist. "Just" a teacher, who says he accepts that the transition will take a long time without any alarm at how we might not have a long time. To add, I notice that to be true not just of Brian but of the rest of our spiritually oriented world. Marianne Williamson is the exception and I keep touting her as someone who could be a pivot to rally us to become a force for good.
She’s all over the place, usually speaking several times a week in different social media platforms and also via Substack. Just look and you’ll find her, and if you subscribe here you’ll get notifications.
Thank you for sharing this detailed and thought-provoking exchange. Erik Michaels’ perspective represents a stark and deeply challenging viewpoint—one that deserves attention, even as it invites questions about inevitability versus possibility.
Your response, rooted in a vision of collective care, education, and mobilization, offers a constructive counterpoint. The idea of activating an already-aware community and providing tools, stories, and structures for wider engagement seems both timely and necessary.
I appreciate your efforts to bring these ideas into public conversation through Now What?. Creating a space for dialogue, especially one grounded in science, interconnection, and actionable guidance, could be an important step forward. I’ll be following with interest—and yes, the idea of a Chat space on Substack has real potential for meaningful exchange.
Yes, if she builds it, I will come. I'm here a lot because I haven't found a forum that is more perceptually and topically inclusive, as in so little gets left out. How can such a maximally expansive perspective as what Suzanne welcomes and presents, what she represents, not be crucial to include in the strategic mix? An overview which leaves out any big section of the Puzzle is fundamentally flawed right out of the gate, right? To me, this is an oasis for...not that.
Suggestion for Sue-- Maybe clarify a bit again for those of us a bit behind the curve, about exactly what you're to build to enhance discussion--by "writers" you mean any subscriber, including readers who don't have their own Substacks? I think a lot of readers here differentiate the term writers as those who do have them. I thought I read that it'd be a chat for paid subscribers only?
This seems to be one of your longest posts ever(?) Definitely fascinating and juicy and important enough I'll have to come back later to finish assimilating. Can we actually discuss this stuff here folks?
"Chat, a new space for writers and creators to host conversations with their subscribers. It’s like having your own private social network where you make the rules. Writers set the topic and the tone for every discussion. Writers can host Chat conversations for all of their subscribers."
It's new to me so I don't know the nuances, but it looks like it's a space that's always open where subscribers can say anything anytime, but there also would be set times I would let subscribers know about for meetings there, so we could have conversations.
SUE Speaks has provided a very interesting human/machine conversation. Most importantly, while it covers all the elements involved (except one) and issues that inevitably lead to mobilization, it is a great thought stimulator:
It almost feels like the machine learning system reflects Susan's thinking by drawing on all past and present knowledge and perspectives to amplify her thoughts and perspectives.
Nevertheless, and most important, this exercise effectively organizes the full range of thinking on the potential inevitability of collapse and the widely discussed issues and points of view out there.
The one exception that I would point out is that the discussion ends at mobilization for collective consciousness, and fails to take it to the next level, which is to mobilize for collective action to force the intransigent corporate and government elites to take the actions necessary to transform societies in ways that produce ecological civilization.
The vast body of research on civilizational crises leading to collapse suggests that only when a mass mobilization for nonviolent civil resistance actions does the outcome look compatible with a 'good society,' not another authoritarian regime. (Despite our labeling of our own society, the global political economy IS an international AUTOCRATIC regime, and must be addressed as such.)
In any case, despite my extensive reservations with ChatGPT and all such machine learning systems (some of which do have valuable applications such as medical diagnostics), SUE Speaks has provided us with a significant basis for seeking the best response to the existential threat of the multiple converging crises that together constitute the basis for the impending catastrophic collapse of industrial civilization.
(BTW, ChatGPT casually refers to "advanced" civilizations, ours and alternatives. We must seriously address what is really advanced.)
As a Hopeful Realist, I applaud SUE's efforts, and I think they can help us move forward quickly, as is necessary.
It’s great to get such a thoughtful commentary, let alone such a complimentary one.
The purpose of conversation with AI was to get help refuting the idea that it’s over for humanity, which is why it stopped at changing humanity’s mind and didn’t go on to what then must we do. One of the most interesting aspects of this post was the reaction of Erik Michaels, where I thought the AI contribution would be fodder for continuing to deal with his contention that collapse is inevitable. Instead, without naming me he did a post making fun of this weirdo who says we are going to be saved by ETs.
For what to do, getting a force of millions would be basic. But what guides it? That’s what the Occupy movement died out from. It was a body without a head. How we might steer a massive coalition, where it isn’t top down, is in my recent blueprint, as are ideas that a coalition could get into play.
I'm sorry she isn't more visible...in another life back in early 90's I initiated her being our 'cover story' of Hearst's erstwhile Healthy Living,..holistic thinking magazine...sadly no sign on line any more :(
This is a reply you're making that's not in sequence talking about Marianne Williamson. She's pretty visible. And I promote her all over the place, holding a vision that there will be an organic growth of listeners because she is just what is wanted and needed now. So many people asking what they can do and touting her everywhere is an answer.
There's so much there that could be, should be dug into. Which, hey, may be a perfect first topic for a new chatroom? I can see the advantages over comments sections, and especially in conjunction with them.
I can't dive into something like this without some marveling at this newish, major sign-of-the-times factor, of Suzanne setting up a sort of co-interview convo with a source of "artificial intelligence". And it was actually pretty intelligent. I don't need to lay out a lot of implications, though it'd be interesting to hear what others have to say. Not feeling heavy about it, for now I'll just go back and pull out the passage that made me laugh...
"ChatGPT said: Posting this conversation as-is makes a lot of sense – it captures the organic unfolding of the ideas and invites others to step in where they feel called. Some additional suggestions you might consider: "
The thought of a source of AI encouraging the posting of its conversation with a human by starting out saying 'it captures the organic unfolding of the ideas...', then making quality practical suggestions to her...well that's genuinely kind of comedic to me. I mean, who knows an example of anything more ironic? This ChatGPT non-person comes across as sort of an ultimate super-supportive convo mate, without skeptical bias. I know the whole concept of using this tool in this way to help figure out how to save the world, of course it's not new and it's going on elsewhere. Much insightful stuff has been written about it, but to see it in practice right now here and like this, is a very intriguing and sort of mind-bending experience for me that I'm still processing.
One of my favorite essays submitted to my contest had an idea I LOVED. Being appreciated and acknowledged is so wonderful and his was about an AI application that would give that to you:
"I worked to shape a companion from this technology, a companion that could listen at the speed of thought. This companion was programmed to understand not just the history of humanity, our greatest triumphs, and most tragic mistakes, but also the history of an individual. Once coupled, the companion knows you. It knows your anxieties, fears, strengths, and weaknesses. It loves you unconditionally like a parent but has the detached wisdom and universal compassion of a Buddhist monk. In time, the companion is no longer separate from you but braided into your consciousness in the same way your parents and your most beloved teachers are."
It seems to me that the situation is very simple. A modern civilisation (and probably any civilisation) needs to either use non-renewable resources or to eventually use renewable resources beyond their renewal rates. I can't think of an alternative. In addition, damage to the environment that can't be assimilated by the environment in a timely manner is unsustainable. So that means our civilisation is unsustainable. If it's unsustainable, then it must end. The only question is when.
This civilisation is even worse off because we have a global economy that requires growth (to pay off interest on debt, which underlies almost all money). Growth, of course, is unsustainable.
One can hypothesise about all sorts of ways that the end can be delayed (technical innovation, alien intervention, etc.) but it can't be delayed for ever because civilisation is unsustainable.
That's what Erik says. I don't disagree about any of that, that people need to be aware of. However, this universe is a much more dimensional place than just where humans are behaving so wretchedly, where there are forces beyond materialism to factor into "now what?," and opening ourselves to what might be is life-saving, emotionally for us as individuals and also could be from whence salvation could come.
There is nothing we know of, in this universe, that is not made of the same stuff as us (neutrons, protons and electrons). We can imagine other stuff but the imagining also happens because of the same stuff interacting (our neurons and their connections are made of the same stuff). Imaginary stuff, though, can't be of any physical use. Salvation is not on the way. That's what we need to be aware of so that maybe, just maybe, we can agree on a less painful way down. Perhaps that would be a kind of salvation.
The universe is too mysterious a place to draw such absolute conclusions. And it's not good energy to hang out out in aint-it-awful. It is better for your well-being and for serving humanity to stay open to whatever the best action could be. It's okay to talk about less painful ways down. It's just not propitious to close the door on life.
I'm not sure what you mean by "close the door on life" but I'm merely talking about what we've discovered about the universe. Of course, we don't have a full understanding of it and probably never will. However, we can say that every event has a cause, at the macro level, and that we appear to have a pretty good handle on how the particles of matter and energy (which are ultimately the same thing) interact. This can explain everything we see.
I'm quite happy accepting that there is nothing but the basic particles of matter and the energy fields we can measure. I can't think how my well-being is affected by imagining that there is other stuff, since I'd have no idea how it could affect me. That may change if we learn more but the time, for learning more, seems to be fast running out.
That the time for learning "seems to be fast running out" is what I'm railing against being the last word. Yes from a scientific perspective, but it's not propitious to say that from the biggest picture of the mysterious universe.
I am amused by how many humans are comfortable with the thought of human Extinction. This must come from some deep feeling of karma or sin that the human race has screwed up so badly that there is no salvation. It's an interesting psychological yearning, but it's not helpful to rational thought.
Here are some facts that should be kept clearly in mind.
1) Resources are not a problem. In the seventies, many of us were convinced (myself included) that lack of resources would doom civilization. The truth is that the price of oil (with inflation removed) has not risen since the seventies. In other words, oil is no less available right now than 50 years ago. Some countries have huge petroleum reserves. We will not run out of oil within this century. There was a huge iron ore discovery in Australia lately. When resources become scarce, prices will rise, and exploration will increase.
2) Ecological degradation, the destruction of nature, is the main threat to humanity, but this process moves slowly. Consider the suggestion that collapse could haopen by 2030. If it does, it will not be because of ecological degradation.
3) Human fertility, the birth rate, is dropping rapidly in every country in the world. This is our salvation. The question is will it happen soon enough. You should ask ChatGPT these two questions. When will global population begin to shrink? (The UN projects 2085.) What will be the effect of knowing that there will be fewer humans on Earth a year later, and still fewer 10 years later, and 100 years later? For example, how would this change the price of land and real estate? How would this change attitudes towards immigration?
If global fertility stabilizers at a fertility equal to Italy's, global population will be less than a billion in 200 years. Ask ChatGPT could humans and nature thrive if there were less than a billion humans on Earth?
Any discussion of collapse which does not focus on these three facts is fundamentally flawed.
Did you read my conversation with AI? Erik would shred your arguments with scientific data. Your premise is all would be well till we adjust, but there's an immediacy to the threat that wouldn't have us around for as long as your timelines would take -- and for the first item, using what we have of fossil fuels is what creates the global warming catastrophe where oceans would rise, among other catastrophic consequences, before your timelines have things working out.
What it tells me, as I am setting an agenda for a few tuned-in people to put heads together about what to do, that informing the public would be #1. You are a savvy person, and if you don't take this as seriously as it would seem it needs to be taken, given the survival of humanity is at stake, there is educating to do. I don't mean to demean you, but I know enough to argue with what you've said.
I asked AI about mineral depletion:
Biggest Immediate Risks:
Water shortages -- Next 10-30 Years. Without water, food production collapses.
Phosphorus depletion -- Next 30-50 Years, but critical for food now.
Copper & lithium bottlenecks-- Copper (for electrification) shortages could hit by 2035. Lithium for batteries by 2050 (slowing the clean energy transition).
Soil degradation -- Immediate threat to agriculture leading to food system collapse.
Peter, it's near future. If it were now we might not even have the internet for this conversation.
My "plan" is to change human consciousness, upleveling it so we are aware of the one humanity we are so that we help each other instead of hurt each other. Details are in the two years of my Substacks.
Gotta feed back a couple quick counterpoints here. It does sound like Mr Robinson has a must-check-out forum with "Utopian Solutions". I'm sure he has a lot of good material to share. A quick Substack search failed to turn up "Utopian Solutions"; maybe it's elsewhere? Meantime…
1) "Resources are not a problem." Say what?! I wonder how this claim might be rescued from the fate of coming across as fatally simplistic. Surely not by citing as evidence that "we will not run out of oil", especially without even mentioning the climate catastrophe factor. Supply is not the real issue when we're talking .
2) Same issue with the statement that "Ecological degradation...moves slowly." In the interest of truth, must say it's a misleading linear projection that's not close to predictive. It's not uncommon knowledge that as tipping points are passed, due to positive feedback loops and such, systems tend to collapse exponentially. For example, most past interglacial periods changed over to glacial with amazing abruptness after many thousands of years of stability followed by relatively slow change, even near the end, compared to final cascades which took, say, a couple decades or less. Add in the human acceleration factors that make this time so different in so many ways, driving a climate emergency...how can we not be hitting tipping points?
3) I can think of no rational reason humans and nature wouldn't be more likely to thrive with fewer than a billion of us. As long as the biosphere, or human nature itself isn't too trashed in the process. Quite the unknowable big IF, but apparently a definite possibility.
A little apples and oranges here. Supply of fossil fuels is what Jolt refers to. Running out of minerals we mine for, and topsoil, and rubber, are a few examples of the destruction of nature going on.
Yes and no, Peter, in response to your appreciated reply above. You'd have to define what would constitute "collapse in 5 years". The exponential acceleration is surely well underway. It used to seem to be "always in the future", but now the most important of those assumptions (that "there's still time" to get going more than incrementally), well they do continue to bother me a lot, only less so. More and more, trend trackers and scout-ahead-ers see that scenario changing fast now. Pivotal but had to happen absent actual action. In essence, what used to be the future is no longer still confined to the future when it comes to much of what matters most.
You ask me to "be specific" about "how many years?" for such a documentable climate regime change-over having occurred with "amazing abruptness". Ok. Now I'm not saying this was an average by any means, not sure there, but I recall the most memorable and what I considered to be the most credible example from decades ago now: We're talking approximately TWENTY YEARS. Hard to be more exact when leading scientists in the fields were analyzing very ancient tree ring and ice core gas bubble contents and such. However, this is likely accurate enough. Enough to be a useful timeframe for exemplifying an end-stage climate cascade into a biospheric shift.
The point is, this is what tipping points tend to do...relatively sudden collapses of any scale have and can occur as a matter of natural course, especially the more stressed and unstable things get and we're in new territory now. There's no shortage of examples actually. Though anthropogenic complications make it a much less predictable game, thanx to what we've learned we can speculate on the sane side of caution...and see how we should be seriously getting ready, in various major ways, for "the end of the world as we know it". So, yes, now what?
I wanted to post an image but I don't know how to do it in substack. So please follow this link and look for the graph of the interglacials. Look for the orange and blue graph. How long do those deep up slots right before the orange columns take. Eyeballing it, I would say a few thousand years. Do you agree or disagree?
Thanx for that interesting link. As you may realize, the graph is inconclusive in terms of this discussion. I was talking about analysis of ancient ice core bubbles for CO2 content, etc. which NOAA mentioned in the caption here, but my understanding is that they didn't factor in the tree rings' influence on pinning down the timeline of the rapid shift back to glacial period. Another clarification is that I was talking about the duration of entire glacial-interglacial periods ("ice age"), which averaged over 100000 years, vs the final collapse phase of transition which can be shockingly short. It appears human influence has averted its next glacial period by causing a runaway greenhouse effect collapse, also in a brief timeframe, which we're in now.
P.R.—I agree with a thousands of years for non-traumatic transition to interglacial, but disagree on the transition to glacial periods due to aforementioned climate collapse. That’s what applies here. I’ve have more to say to you, and to Sue’s big topic, but only have my phone till I get home in several hours to my keyboard. Also, I’m “following” you now, for now.
Down below this, I replied to Peter -- for you, too:
Let's table this till you have a look at what I am going to do something with, it is so good about data: "10 Reasons Our Civilization Will Soon Collapse": https://substack.com/home/post/p-119060395
For detailed exchanges, detailed knowledge is in order.
Oh, interesting. It's they change from glacial period to interglacial period that is relatively rapid (5000 years). The reverse takes about 100,000 years.
More on transition from glacial period to interglacial. This is what Google AI says:
The transition from the last glacial period to the current interglacial (Holocene) period, which began about 11,700 years ago, is estimated to have spanned approximately 5,000 years.
You would need to ask Sue what this means. Her words.
>>whereby as early as 2030 we will have lost what keeps advanced civilization going<<
I happen to believe that what keeps advanced civilization going is electricity. A simple marker for collapse or not. As long as the electrical grids function most days, we don't have collapse. If we lose the electrical grids for say 30 days, billions will die. If we lose electricity for 6 months, only a few million humans will be left alive.
So that's what collapse by 2030 means to me. And I'm claiming that if this happens in 2030 or 2050, it will not be because of ecological destruction. Our ecology is simply not changing that fast.
We tend not to notice depleted resources because they are no longer here. Some examples:
Steller's Sea Cow: This large marine mammal, hunted to extinction in the 1760s, was a valuable food source and its extinction impacted the food web and potentially local economies.
Great Auk: This large, flightless seabird, hunted to extinction in the mid-19th century, was a valuable resource for food and oil. Its extinction impacted the food web and potentially local economies.
Passenger Pigeon: Once the most abundant bird in North America, the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction in the early 20th century. Its extinction had a significant impact on the ecosystem and potentially local economies that relied on it as a food source.
Chinese Paddlefish: Declared extinct in 2022, this fish was a valuable food source and its extinction impacted the food web and potentially local economies.
Let's table this till you have a look at what I am going to do something with, it is so good about data: "10 Reasons Our Civilization Will Soon Collapse": https://substack.com/home/post/p-119060395
For detailed exchanges, detailed knowledge is in order.
Alien Intervention is very feasible. The following transmission was delivered 70 years ago through the Yogic Medium, Dr. George King (1919-1997) by an intelligence existing upon a higher dimension within our own Solar System:
"The evolution of mankind is now being speeded up, in order to reach a certain point within a certain time limit. Cooperate with the speeding up, help it, become the beings who speed this up and I promise you a million helpers. If you do, you will never regret any time you have spent in this wonderful way. There is so much for all of you to do, but so little time in which you can do it.
…These are the teachings which we, from the Interplanetary Governmental Systems wish you to take, absorb, believe and act upon. Then we can make our next move, which will be free
movement among you and direct help given in your schools, universities, hospitals and governments. If you go out of your way to reach up to us, we can and we will come out of our way down to you, but you must move! We cannot come unless you do this—this is the Law. We do not break the Law."
Sadly, for the most part, these messages have thus far been unheeded despite UAPs - as they are now known - beginning to receive more serious attention. However, it is humanity that has to awaken to a far greater spiritual awareness of our true place within the Cosmos. I was a personal assistant to Dr. George King in the latter years of his life and have written about him and this greater cosmic message in my book, "Maya Mire - A Spiritual Journey into Cosmic Truth and the Dawning of a New World". I will be speaking more about it at The Aetherius Society in Hollywood on Sunday, April 13th: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/maya-mire-a-spiritual-journey-into-cosmic-truth-tickets-1284398242719?aff=oddtdtcreator
When you become aware of how extraordinary Dr. George King was, practicing higher forms of yoga for eight hours a day for some ten years, you can't cavalierly dismiss the contact with off-planet beings that his devotion gave rise to. With or without contact, I am aligned with him when he says, "Cooperate with the speeding up, help it, become the beings who speed this up." Being so threatened and not knowing how to reduce the threat, the best chance we have is to be cooperative where all hands would be on deck to deal with humanity's success instead of its demise.
Here's your book -- that's not Amazon. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/maya-mire-paul-nugent/1144455276?ean=9781803415727
We are part of something much greater than ourselves, not least the Mother Earth as a highly-advanced Cosmic Intelligence. It is all Oneness after all; there is no separation except in states of conscious evolution. Humanity is not quite the "it" that we have, in our ignorance, thus far presumed ourselves to be.
That's the ideation I do a lot of writing about, and that I tried, without success, to tune Erik Michaels into. I had a realization over that. He does his thing very well, showing us what we're dealing with. I'd thought I should tangle with him, but now I'm thinking to each their own if they are resistant. Get the value they have to deliver and use my energy for dealing with receptive people.
What I'm finding most useful so far from the conversation with AI is its question about the "3 legs" of a council, a coalition, and a suggestion box. It was asking how the directives that are come up with would be disseminated:
"...through the same internet networks used for recruiting, or would there be a dedicated platform for issuing calls to action?"
As a most practical matter for next steps, I wonder what this forum's potentials and limitations are. Might much be done relatively unimpeded here along these lines, as it evolves into a launchpad for things like a dedicated platform? The prospect of such a relatively stand-alone platform, app or whatever would bring up plenty of issues and possible stumbling blocks, as "doing it here" would in its own way. A strategy for proceeding, which this post's convo nudges toward, will be good to get into more of the minutiae of. Is it likely there'll be a shift from what tends to get done and not get done on Substack, a 'stepwise leap', into something far more potent? Just trying to look down the best road here...
Also thinking about specific input and feedback, questions about the 3 legs approach. First I'd like to get a better sense of who else is here with such specifics of their own, who might remain on board, who might be brought on board for focusing on such a strategy. Will these Comments to this post be continuing? What do the subscribers think they could most get behind?
I particularly like and would like to hear more about what's behind Pam's general thoughts on a Council creating coherence; on creating an "alliance"; the need for a "mass" primarily decentralized "alignment" with organizations already working on this. She writes, "We can catch up on these later if you like." I look forward to that.
All so intelligent. I like that Chat possibility, because for any individual post we just get some thoughts and then we're onto the next, without sticking power, but the Chat would let us stay in conversation. And how wonderful it would be if what I'm talking about caught the attention of our Substack providers, where I'd have instigated the kind of query they could be making so Substack itself turns attention to what humanity can do.
wondering if you've seen what we just watched on NPR, Nature, about how whales evolved from 4 legged mammals to the sea-farers they are today, a reminder how survival dependent upon adaptation...and your question!...."Will we?
Thanks for sharing your conversation with ChatGPT. While we are waiting for alien support, I agree that our best way forward is collaboration and increased public understanding of our conundrum and its source. I’ve also been considering the “wisdom council” that will create coherence among those already on board and an alliance to reach out to bring more people on line.
I appreciate the ideas that ChatGPT had about how to raise awareness and then encouraging action. I appreciate the need to deeply understand the what and why of action so that people engage in transformation and not be treated as sheep. And people need to step into responsibility and accountability.
It seems the most important action now is for us all to step into our leadership potential and talk with our sphere of influence. We increase public awareness and willingness to do the hard things that need to be done. We can step further into leadership in public service, support these ideas politically and vote for people willing to champion the hard decisions we need to make.
We can decide the trajectory we want, from mass alignment. Without mass alignment we will get our deadly business as usual.
There are organizations working on this primarily decentralized alignment. We can catch up on these later if you like.
Also I really appreciate the digital democracy tools used in Taiwan by Audrey Tang. I can see these being very helpful in the sense making and decision making needed at large scales going forward.
A bunch of good thoughts. This is THE directive of the day: "all to step into our leadership potential and talk with our sphere of influence." I comment like crazy and engage in chats, sharing what I think and know, which everyone can do.
I was just on a Zoom where someone recommended Audrey Tang: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/169-audrey-tang.
"Named one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People in AI in 2023, Tang was instrumental in shaping Taiwan’s internationally acclaimed COVID-19 response and in safeguarding the 2024 presidential and legislative elections from foreign cyber interference. Audrey is now focused on broadening their vision of Plurality — technology for collaborative diversity — to inspire global audiences."
I'm going to bone up on what she has to say.
And I trust you don't think I've got all my eggs in the alien basket. I was just trying to give Erik a possibility he couldn't argue with. He still argued.
Can we evolve beyond our divisive anatomy, instead join together our common humanity?
that is my sign for rallying on Saturday!
am delighted Rupert Sheldrake in his first Substack ended with a paragraph I feel validated by, he wrote: In short, materialists reject the idea that everything comes from the Father in favour of the idea that everything comes from the Mother – Mother Nature. When the metaphors are made explicit, it is obvious that they are equally unbalanced. Both mothers and fathers are needed for the creation of new life. In any case these metaphors confuse us. God must be beyond gender, as must Nature. They contain and give rise to mothers and fathers and all genders and all that is genderless, but transcend them.
Maybe better to ask, "Will we"?
yes...it's that together word, seems so pivotal....if we have the will?
what is Brian saying these days...cosmogenesis-ly?....
He's not an activist. "Just" a teacher, who says he accepts that the transition will take a long time without any alarm at how we might not have a long time. To add, I notice that to be true not just of Brian but of the rest of our spiritually oriented world. Marianne Williamson is the exception and I keep touting her as someone who could be a pivot to rally us to become a force for good.
I have not seen much evidence of Marianne lately.....she hasn't been much out there in all this -- has she?
She’s all over the place, usually speaking several times a week in different social media platforms and also via Substack. Just look and you’ll find her, and if you subscribe here you’ll get notifications.
Thank you for sharing this detailed and thought-provoking exchange. Erik Michaels’ perspective represents a stark and deeply challenging viewpoint—one that deserves attention, even as it invites questions about inevitability versus possibility.
Your response, rooted in a vision of collective care, education, and mobilization, offers a constructive counterpoint. The idea of activating an already-aware community and providing tools, stories, and structures for wider engagement seems both timely and necessary.
I appreciate your efforts to bring these ideas into public conversation through Now What?. Creating a space for dialogue, especially one grounded in science, interconnection, and actionable guidance, could be an important step forward. I’ll be following with interest—and yes, the idea of a Chat space on Substack has real potential for meaningful exchange.
A wonderful comment. It is so encouraging to be gotten!
Yes, if she builds it, I will come. I'm here a lot because I haven't found a forum that is more perceptually and topically inclusive, as in so little gets left out. How can such a maximally expansive perspective as what Suzanne welcomes and presents, what she represents, not be crucial to include in the strategic mix? An overview which leaves out any big section of the Puzzle is fundamentally flawed right out of the gate, right? To me, this is an oasis for...not that.
Suggestion for Sue-- Maybe clarify a bit again for those of us a bit behind the curve, about exactly what you're to build to enhance discussion--by "writers" you mean any subscriber, including readers who don't have their own Substacks? I think a lot of readers here differentiate the term writers as those who do have them. I thought I read that it'd be a chat for paid subscribers only?
This seems to be one of your longest posts ever(?) Definitely fascinating and juicy and important enough I'll have to come back later to finish assimilating. Can we actually discuss this stuff here folks?
"Chat, a new space for writers and creators to host conversations with their subscribers. It’s like having your own private social network where you make the rules. Writers set the topic and the tone for every discussion. Writers can host Chat conversations for all of their subscribers."
It's new to me so I don't know the nuances, but it looks like it's a space that's always open where subscribers can say anything anytime, but there also would be set times I would let subscribers know about for meetings there, so we could have conversations.
I appreciate your insight and ideas, Sue. I’m on board.
SUE Speaks has provided a very interesting human/machine conversation. Most importantly, while it covers all the elements involved (except one) and issues that inevitably lead to mobilization, it is a great thought stimulator:
https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/we-are-going-to-be-dead-regardless?r=11v5mn&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
It almost feels like the machine learning system reflects Susan's thinking by drawing on all past and present knowledge and perspectives to amplify her thoughts and perspectives.
Nevertheless, and most important, this exercise effectively organizes the full range of thinking on the potential inevitability of collapse and the widely discussed issues and points of view out there.
The one exception that I would point out is that the discussion ends at mobilization for collective consciousness, and fails to take it to the next level, which is to mobilize for collective action to force the intransigent corporate and government elites to take the actions necessary to transform societies in ways that produce ecological civilization.
The vast body of research on civilizational crises leading to collapse suggests that only when a mass mobilization for nonviolent civil resistance actions does the outcome look compatible with a 'good society,' not another authoritarian regime. (Despite our labeling of our own society, the global political economy IS an international AUTOCRATIC regime, and must be addressed as such.)
In any case, despite my extensive reservations with ChatGPT and all such machine learning systems (some of which do have valuable applications such as medical diagnostics), SUE Speaks has provided us with a significant basis for seeking the best response to the existential threat of the multiple converging crises that together constitute the basis for the impending catastrophic collapse of industrial civilization.
(BTW, ChatGPT casually refers to "advanced" civilizations, ours and alternatives. We must seriously address what is really advanced.)
As a Hopeful Realist, I applaud SUE's efforts, and I think they can help us move forward quickly, as is necessary.
Onward!
It’s great to get such a thoughtful commentary, let alone such a complimentary one.
The purpose of conversation with AI was to get help refuting the idea that it’s over for humanity, which is why it stopped at changing humanity’s mind and didn’t go on to what then must we do. One of the most interesting aspects of this post was the reaction of Erik Michaels, where I thought the AI contribution would be fodder for continuing to deal with his contention that collapse is inevitable. Instead, without naming me he did a post making fun of this weirdo who says we are going to be saved by ETs.
For what to do, getting a force of millions would be basic. But what guides it? That’s what the Occupy movement died out from. It was a body without a head. How we might steer a massive coalition, where it isn’t top down, is in my recent blueprint, as are ideas that a coalition could get into play.
An epidemic of courage
For doing what saves humanity
https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/an-epidemic-of-courage
Now I'm looking to put some savvy heads together to talk game plan, and will be happy to include yours.
I'm sorry she isn't more visible...in another life back in early 90's I initiated her being our 'cover story' of Hearst's erstwhile Healthy Living,..holistic thinking magazine...sadly no sign on line any more :(
This is a reply you're making that's not in sequence talking about Marianne Williamson. She's pretty visible. And I promote her all over the place, holding a vision that there will be an organic growth of listeners because she is just what is wanted and needed now. So many people asking what they can do and touting her everywhere is an answer.
That's the big challenge isn't it? If even Marianne is still going unnoticed by most concerned citizens who are trying to pay attention............
There's so much there that could be, should be dug into. Which, hey, may be a perfect first topic for a new chatroom? I can see the advantages over comments sections, and especially in conjunction with them.
I can't dive into something like this without some marveling at this newish, major sign-of-the-times factor, of Suzanne setting up a sort of co-interview convo with a source of "artificial intelligence". And it was actually pretty intelligent. I don't need to lay out a lot of implications, though it'd be interesting to hear what others have to say. Not feeling heavy about it, for now I'll just go back and pull out the passage that made me laugh...
"ChatGPT said: Posting this conversation as-is makes a lot of sense – it captures the organic unfolding of the ideas and invites others to step in where they feel called. Some additional suggestions you might consider: "
The thought of a source of AI encouraging the posting of its conversation with a human by starting out saying 'it captures the organic unfolding of the ideas...', then making quality practical suggestions to her...well that's genuinely kind of comedic to me. I mean, who knows an example of anything more ironic? This ChatGPT non-person comes across as sort of an ultimate super-supportive convo mate, without skeptical bias. I know the whole concept of using this tool in this way to help figure out how to save the world, of course it's not new and it's going on elsewhere. Much insightful stuff has been written about it, but to see it in practice right now here and like this, is a very intriguing and sort of mind-bending experience for me that I'm still processing.
One of my favorite essays submitted to my contest had an idea I LOVED. Being appreciated and acknowledged is so wonderful and his was about an AI application that would give that to you:
"I worked to shape a companion from this technology, a companion that could listen at the speed of thought. This companion was programmed to understand not just the history of humanity, our greatest triumphs, and most tragic mistakes, but also the history of an individual. Once coupled, the companion knows you. It knows your anxieties, fears, strengths, and weaknesses. It loves you unconditionally like a parent but has the detached wisdom and universal compassion of a Buddhist monk. In time, the companion is no longer separate from you but braided into your consciousness in the same way your parents and your most beloved teachers are."
It's short and you can read all of "The Empathy Chip" here: https://suespeaks.org/the-empathy-chip/
It seems to me that the situation is very simple. A modern civilisation (and probably any civilisation) needs to either use non-renewable resources or to eventually use renewable resources beyond their renewal rates. I can't think of an alternative. In addition, damage to the environment that can't be assimilated by the environment in a timely manner is unsustainable. So that means our civilisation is unsustainable. If it's unsustainable, then it must end. The only question is when.
This civilisation is even worse off because we have a global economy that requires growth (to pay off interest on debt, which underlies almost all money). Growth, of course, is unsustainable.
One can hypothesise about all sorts of ways that the end can be delayed (technical innovation, alien intervention, etc.) but it can't be delayed for ever because civilisation is unsustainable.
That's what Erik says. I don't disagree about any of that, that people need to be aware of. However, this universe is a much more dimensional place than just where humans are behaving so wretchedly, where there are forces beyond materialism to factor into "now what?," and opening ourselves to what might be is life-saving, emotionally for us as individuals and also could be from whence salvation could come.
There is nothing we know of, in this universe, that is not made of the same stuff as us (neutrons, protons and electrons). We can imagine other stuff but the imagining also happens because of the same stuff interacting (our neurons and their connections are made of the same stuff). Imaginary stuff, though, can't be of any physical use. Salvation is not on the way. That's what we need to be aware of so that maybe, just maybe, we can agree on a less painful way down. Perhaps that would be a kind of salvation.
The universe is too mysterious a place to draw such absolute conclusions. And it's not good energy to hang out out in aint-it-awful. It is better for your well-being and for serving humanity to stay open to whatever the best action could be. It's okay to talk about less painful ways down. It's just not propitious to close the door on life.
I'm not sure what you mean by "close the door on life" but I'm merely talking about what we've discovered about the universe. Of course, we don't have a full understanding of it and probably never will. However, we can say that every event has a cause, at the macro level, and that we appear to have a pretty good handle on how the particles of matter and energy (which are ultimately the same thing) interact. This can explain everything we see.
I'm quite happy accepting that there is nothing but the basic particles of matter and the energy fields we can measure. I can't think how my well-being is affected by imagining that there is other stuff, since I'd have no idea how it could affect me. That may change if we learn more but the time, for learning more, seems to be fast running out.
That the time for learning "seems to be fast running out" is what I'm railing against being the last word. Yes from a scientific perspective, but it's not propitious to say that from the biggest picture of the mysterious universe.
Well, we live on this planet, not in the rest of the universe.
I am amused by how many humans are comfortable with the thought of human Extinction. This must come from some deep feeling of karma or sin that the human race has screwed up so badly that there is no salvation. It's an interesting psychological yearning, but it's not helpful to rational thought.
Here are some facts that should be kept clearly in mind.
1) Resources are not a problem. In the seventies, many of us were convinced (myself included) that lack of resources would doom civilization. The truth is that the price of oil (with inflation removed) has not risen since the seventies. In other words, oil is no less available right now than 50 years ago. Some countries have huge petroleum reserves. We will not run out of oil within this century. There was a huge iron ore discovery in Australia lately. When resources become scarce, prices will rise, and exploration will increase.
2) Ecological degradation, the destruction of nature, is the main threat to humanity, but this process moves slowly. Consider the suggestion that collapse could haopen by 2030. If it does, it will not be because of ecological degradation.
3) Human fertility, the birth rate, is dropping rapidly in every country in the world. This is our salvation. The question is will it happen soon enough. You should ask ChatGPT these two questions. When will global population begin to shrink? (The UN projects 2085.) What will be the effect of knowing that there will be fewer humans on Earth a year later, and still fewer 10 years later, and 100 years later? For example, how would this change the price of land and real estate? How would this change attitudes towards immigration?
If global fertility stabilizers at a fertility equal to Italy's, global population will be less than a billion in 200 years. Ask ChatGPT could humans and nature thrive if there were less than a billion humans on Earth?
Any discussion of collapse which does not focus on these three facts is fundamentally flawed.
Did you read my conversation with AI? Erik would shred your arguments with scientific data. Your premise is all would be well till we adjust, but there's an immediacy to the threat that wouldn't have us around for as long as your timelines would take -- and for the first item, using what we have of fossil fuels is what creates the global warming catastrophe where oceans would rise, among other catastrophic consequences, before your timelines have things working out.
What it tells me, as I am setting an agenda for a few tuned-in people to put heads together about what to do, that informing the public would be #1. You are a savvy person, and if you don't take this as seriously as it would seem it needs to be taken, given the survival of humanity is at stake, there is educating to do. I don't mean to demean you, but I know enough to argue with what you've said.
I asked AI about mineral depletion:
Biggest Immediate Risks:
Water shortages -- Next 10-30 Years. Without water, food production collapses.
Phosphorus depletion -- Next 30-50 Years, but critical for food now.
Copper & lithium bottlenecks-- Copper (for electrification) shortages could hit by 2035. Lithium for batteries by 2050 (slowing the clean energy transition).
Soil degradation -- Immediate threat to agriculture leading to food system collapse.
Please ask Eric if he thinks I am wrong when I state that the uninflated price of oil has not risen since the 1970s.
Best you ask him. I wasn't able to get him engaged to have an ongoing conversation with me.
Have you noticed that critical resource depletion is always in the future? Never in the present.
Human population will be much smaller in 100 years. You say that not quick enough. What is your plan, and how quickly will it work?
Peter, it's near future. If it were now we might not even have the internet for this conversation.
My "plan" is to change human consciousness, upleveling it so we are aware of the one humanity we are so that we help each other instead of hurt each other. Details are in the two years of my Substacks.
Gotta feed back a couple quick counterpoints here. It does sound like Mr Robinson has a must-check-out forum with "Utopian Solutions". I'm sure he has a lot of good material to share. A quick Substack search failed to turn up "Utopian Solutions"; maybe it's elsewhere? Meantime…
1) "Resources are not a problem." Say what?! I wonder how this claim might be rescued from the fate of coming across as fatally simplistic. Surely not by citing as evidence that "we will not run out of oil", especially without even mentioning the climate catastrophe factor. Supply is not the real issue when we're talking .
2) Same issue with the statement that "Ecological degradation...moves slowly." In the interest of truth, must say it's a misleading linear projection that's not close to predictive. It's not uncommon knowledge that as tipping points are passed, due to positive feedback loops and such, systems tend to collapse exponentially. For example, most past interglacial periods changed over to glacial with amazing abruptness after many thousands of years of stability followed by relatively slow change, even near the end, compared to final cascades which took, say, a couple decades or less. Add in the human acceleration factors that make this time so different in so many ways, driving a climate emergency...how can we not be hitting tipping points?
3) I can think of no rational reason humans and nature wouldn't be more likely to thrive with fewer than a billion of us. As long as the biosphere, or human nature itself isn't too trashed in the process. Quite the unknowable big IF, but apparently a definite possibility.
>>Supply is not the real issue <<
Sounds like you are saying "resources are not the problem."
I'm saying "destruction of nature is the problem."
A little apples and oranges here. Supply of fossil fuels is what Jolt refers to. Running out of minerals we mine for, and topsoil, and rubber, are a few examples of the destruction of nature going on.
Jolt, have you noticed that critical resource depletion is always in the future?
Is there any material that is not available right now?. I'm not aware of any.
Do you think ecological degradation will cause collapse in 5 years?
>>most past interglacial periods changed over to glacial with amazing abruptness<<
How many years? Please be specific.
So you agree with my proposed solution: human population on Earth of less than 1 billion.
Yes and no, Peter, in response to your appreciated reply above. You'd have to define what would constitute "collapse in 5 years". The exponential acceleration is surely well underway. It used to seem to be "always in the future", but now the most important of those assumptions (that "there's still time" to get going more than incrementally), well they do continue to bother me a lot, only less so. More and more, trend trackers and scout-ahead-ers see that scenario changing fast now. Pivotal but had to happen absent actual action. In essence, what used to be the future is no longer still confined to the future when it comes to much of what matters most.
You ask me to "be specific" about "how many years?" for such a documentable climate regime change-over having occurred with "amazing abruptness". Ok. Now I'm not saying this was an average by any means, not sure there, but I recall the most memorable and what I considered to be the most credible example from decades ago now: We're talking approximately TWENTY YEARS. Hard to be more exact when leading scientists in the fields were analyzing very ancient tree ring and ice core gas bubble contents and such. However, this is likely accurate enough. Enough to be a useful timeframe for exemplifying an end-stage climate cascade into a biospheric shift.
The point is, this is what tipping points tend to do...relatively sudden collapses of any scale have and can occur as a matter of natural course, especially the more stressed and unstable things get and we're in new territory now. There's no shortage of examples actually. Though anthropogenic complications make it a much less predictable game, thanx to what we've learned we can speculate on the sane side of caution...and see how we should be seriously getting ready, in various major ways, for "the end of the world as we know it". So, yes, now what?
I wanted to post an image but I don't know how to do it in substack. So please follow this link and look for the graph of the interglacials. Look for the orange and blue graph. How long do those deep up slots right before the orange columns take. Eyeballing it, I would say a few thousand years. Do you agree or disagree?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf
Thanx for that interesting link. As you may realize, the graph is inconclusive in terms of this discussion. I was talking about analysis of ancient ice core bubbles for CO2 content, etc. which NOAA mentioned in the caption here, but my understanding is that they didn't factor in the tree rings' influence on pinning down the timeline of the rapid shift back to glacial period. Another clarification is that I was talking about the duration of entire glacial-interglacial periods ("ice age"), which averaged over 100000 years, vs the final collapse phase of transition which can be shockingly short. It appears human influence has averted its next glacial period by causing a runaway greenhouse effect collapse, also in a brief timeframe, which we're in now.
P.R.—I agree with a thousands of years for non-traumatic transition to interglacial, but disagree on the transition to glacial periods due to aforementioned climate collapse. That’s what applies here. I’ve have more to say to you, and to Sue’s big topic, but only have my phone till I get home in several hours to my keyboard. Also, I’m “following” you now, for now.
Down below this, I replied to Peter -- for you, too:
Let's table this till you have a look at what I am going to do something with, it is so good about data: "10 Reasons Our Civilization Will Soon Collapse": https://substack.com/home/post/p-119060395
For detailed exchanges, detailed knowledge is in order.
Oh, interesting. It's they change from glacial period to interglacial period that is relatively rapid (5000 years). The reverse takes about 100,000 years.
"deep up slots" should be "steep up-slopes"
More on transition from glacial period to interglacial. This is what Google AI says:
The transition from the last glacial period to the current interglacial (Holocene) period, which began about 11,700 years ago, is estimated to have spanned approximately 5,000 years.
Re: "collapse in five years"
You would need to ask Sue what this means. Her words.
>>whereby as early as 2030 we will have lost what keeps advanced civilization going<<
I happen to believe that what keeps advanced civilization going is electricity. A simple marker for collapse or not. As long as the electrical grids function most days, we don't have collapse. If we lose the electrical grids for say 30 days, billions will die. If we lose electricity for 6 months, only a few million humans will be left alive.
So that's what collapse by 2030 means to me. And I'm claiming that if this happens in 2030 or 2050, it will not be because of ecological destruction. Our ecology is simply not changing that fast.
We tend not to notice depleted resources because they are no longer here. Some examples:
Steller's Sea Cow: This large marine mammal, hunted to extinction in the 1760s, was a valuable food source and its extinction impacted the food web and potentially local economies.
Great Auk: This large, flightless seabird, hunted to extinction in the mid-19th century, was a valuable resource for food and oil. Its extinction impacted the food web and potentially local economies.
Passenger Pigeon: Once the most abundant bird in North America, the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction in the early 20th century. Its extinction had a significant impact on the ecosystem and potentially local economies that relied on it as a food source.
Chinese Paddlefish: Declared extinct in 2022, this fish was a valuable food source and its extinction impacted the food web and potentially local economies.
You must be a romantic. What a tender reflection this is.
When I say resources, I mean mineral resources. Living stuff I refer to as nature or ecology.
Did you see where I said that the greatest threat to humanity is destruction of nature? What destroys nature?
Cities and towns.
Highways and roads.
Farms.
Clear cutting.
Over-fishing.
Poisons.
Nature as a whole is not much concerned about global warming.
Let's table this till you have a look at what I am going to do something with, it is so good about data: "10 Reasons Our Civilization Will Soon Collapse": https://substack.com/home/post/p-119060395
For detailed exchanges, detailed knowledge is in order.