Z/Acc: A Theory of Accelerating Hyper-Collapse
Z/Acc: A Theory of Accelerating Hyper-Collapse or:
[Z/Acc:] [A Theory] [of] [Accelerating] [Hyper-Collapse]
A definition is needed for each of these 5 parts respectively. In keeping with its temporal non-designation, we begin at the end and ‘loop-back’ to the beginning. As such, we begin with ‘Hyper-Collapse’
[Hyper-Collapse] – The inability to distinguish between objective (fragmentary), process-based degradation, and artificial teleological or eschatological placebos such as: progress, salvation, innovation, upgrade, reset, apocalypse, end-times and/or cataclysm.
Hyperreality defines the inability of one to be able to discern between reality and a simulation of that reality within technologically advanced societies. The simulacrum – the virtual map above all – blends with the terrain itself, and those who wish to journey within reality are stuck with the problem of accessing true reality. Any prolongation of hyperreality, or admission into hyperreality as a default-setting from birth crystallizes in its user an inherent impasse of apprehension; one’s sensibility and understanding is built in to this (hyper)reality, and is developed from it. Thus, hyperreality becomes/is reality; one can never get to the bottom of things, because things themselves have become mixed-up in multiple intense subjective projections.
Hyper-Collapse, alike Hyper-reality, **is a definition with a twofold task. Firstly, the prefix ‘hyper’ is intended as a designation against the Hollywood-ification/Disney-fication of the term ‘collapse’. The propagandistic definition of ‘Collapse’ – the one we see most commonly in mainstream media and film – is one which pertains to an event, an instant or a happening. The term ‘collapse’ in this case falsely denotes that which can immediately be measured as a negative phase-change as the previous structure is altered. This definition is historically, socially, culturally and philosophically incorrect. Put simply, collapse is a process. Collapse always equals collapsing. The citizens of Rome did not wake one day to find their Empire suddenly gone, finished or collapsed. The process was very slow, in fact, it took roughly 300 years for the empire of Rome to fall. Which means that the process of collapse spanned multiple generations, multiple lineages and multiple technological changes, there is no single factor to a collapse. Some people’s entire lives, and the lives of their children, would have been built amidst a collapsing empire, sound…feel familiar? There may very well be a catalyst, but within the complexity of socio-cultural techonomic systems, that catalyst needs fuel to continue, and it is more often that not stopped in its tracks by an oh-so-human band-aid, more on this later.
Secondly then, the prefix ‘hyper’ is placed in relation to the aforementioned ‘Hyperreality’, those who find themselves within the current of ‘Hypercollapse’ find it impossible to discern between the reality of collapse and the simulatory ignorance of collapse. Whereby, the former – the true reality of collapse -attends to the truth of Zero as a function which begets alteration from degradation, and the latter, simulation of collapse, is the nonsensical dialectical collapse which bows to the falsity of a coming-material-salvation and/or the idea of an instantaneous collapse (apocalypse). Collapse is not the apocalypse, but you may come to wish it was. There is no salvation of the earth. The only pseudo-salvation man has masterfully constructed for himself is the notion of immanent, material salvation itself. That is to say, the simulation-of-collapse spawns a mindset which targets itself at either a definite eschatology or teleology. Within Hypercollapse, there is always a false-saviour or an end, there is light and dark; between Hypercollapse there is nothing grey, and yet, the future is going to be incredibly smoggy.
Put simply, collapse is never definite, it is always a process. The intricacies which arrive with a process – as opposed to an event – are many. A process can have feedback, a process can move fast and slow, a process has the possibility of fragmentation and disintegration. Media-baked collapse is a bastardization of the term itself; the media doesn’t handle shadows well, it’s much easier to filter everything into good/bad, black/white etc. True collapse is the slow burn of history – which itself is not dialectical, but simply ‘things which happen in a phenomenal order’ – (as far as we know).
Hypercollapse, then, is the process of true collapse combined with the psychological disorientation of Accelerative simulations of progress inherent within the process of genuine collapse itself. Within the process of collapse – strangely – much is created, born and developed. The organic development of Hypercollapse is understood as being born alongside capitalism and Zero. The motor of techonomic evolution is phase/wave based, Hypercollapse pertains to a cyclic-ignorance, thus developing itself as a psychological mechanism for the continuation of innovative efforts. Hypercollapse allows man to continue whilst ignoring his repetitive fate, existing upon an artificial spectrum of optimism and pessimism, teleology and eschatology. And yet, history shows that neither of these end-states ever come, all that increases is fragmentation; there can only be an end in minutiae. Maybe you’re extremely lucky and were born in the glory days of a growing empire, or slightly lucky in the first bad days of a slowing empire. Perhaps you’re very unlucky and were born in the last days of a dying empire, or the worst of all, the first days of the last phase of a dying empire. As far as I’m concerned, those of us in the West – speaking primarily of the United Kingdom and the United States – who are currently alive, have been born just after the peak (1980-2000), we’re entering into the beginning of the beginning of the end – yes, even the beginning, middle, and end have cycles…and inside them? Yes, more cycles.
If I we were to understand the spectrum of Greatness > Failure as 1-10, and Growth > Collapse as I-X, then we can simply map times and places as follows – of course, one’s position within these states undoubtedly matters (Caesar vs a Peasant), but the numbers signify the health of the zeitgeist in general.
Victorian England: 2/I or the Roman Empire 117AD: 1/I would be clear leaders in history, but what of our own time? I’m from the UK, but much of the Western world is now the same global hellscape, I’d give it 5/VI. In written terms, we’ve hit the threshold where anyone with half-a-brain knows things aren’t looking good (though I will get to this preconceived notion of ‘goodness’ later), and things tend to spiral more quickly once the problem(s) is unable to be ignored. Things are ‘speeding’ up.
Hypercollapse, defined as tightly as I can manage, is the inbuilt simulacrum of contemporary Western civilization which diverts and mutates attention away from legitimate collapse (dull, slow, a process), towards a media-baked frenzy of false-collapse (really, apocalypse). Thus, in the process of doing so, negating and anaesthetizing the reality of actual collapse by way of assigning its authenticity solely to the coming of X instantaneous event. From this perspective, ‘collapse’ is never arriving, because it is understood as an event and not a process, and thus each iteration and development of genuine, process-based collapse (inflation, food prices, resource shortages, supply change problems), is not seen as an indicator as collapse, but merely as a glitch within the utopian ideal of progress. From the perspective of Hypercollapse we are either progressing, or we are dead, there is no in-between.
A digression: Many people, after reading my work on Z/Acc have commented that it’s simply just a complicated name for collapse. I can sympathize with this, and can see how people would get to that conclusion, and in a way, I have no problem with it. But, Z/Acc is a specific reading of the Accelerationist theory of Capitalism (Capitalism is Pure-Techonomic-Acceleration) combined with the limitations of Capitalism’s fuel sources, most notably, man and the planet. If, one of those factors is removed i.e. If we get off the planet, OR, Capitalism gets rid of its ignorant foreman (humanity), then Z/Acc is possibly a failure. But until that point, Capitalism is reliant on both man and the planet, the former limited in its mental resources, the latter in its material resources, the combination of both…isn’t great. In the same way that leftists often imagine a past/present where Capitalism hasn’t won (specifically what Fisher makes clear isn’t the case in Capitalist Realism), rightists often project a future which Capitalism has already won, neither is true. Capitalism is here, now, and it owns the here and now, commodifies it. As for what happens, that depends on a multitude of factors.
[Accelerating] – The positive-[feedback]-oriented mechanism of capitalism; the production-of-production.
The foundation of this text is of course the theory of Accelerationism. One might note that my definitions and theorizations of Accelerationism have been deemed ‘gate-keepy’. This is fine by me, I keep my gate well-oiled. With that said, Accelerationism is (always) new, look around, see what you find. Anyway, ‘traditionally’ Accelerationism is the position that capitalism (and thus technological change) should be accelerated. Alluding back to Deleuze and Guattari’s call in Anti-Oedipus to “accelerate the process”. Fortunately, the theory has come a long way since then, far enough to understand that there is no I or we or collective which can accelerate things by way of their agency, what is accelerating is accelerating itself; which is to say, there is truly no ‘we should’. The anthropocentric form of trade M>C>M (money > commodity > money) is stripped of humanist impulse, and converted into P>I>P – production > intelligence > production. The ‘alien force’ which possesses men to work is itself the elusive agent of Acceleration, residing elsewhere, we simply commune with it unconsciously, machinically.
So, when we look at the Wikipedia page for Accelerationism, we can see that the definition:
‘Accelerationism is a range of ideas in critical and social theory that propose that social processes, such as capitalist growth and technological change, should be drastically intensified to create further radical social change referred to as “acceleration’
whilst being entirely fair, does tend to humanize what is primarily an inhuman process. The error is once again founded upon the word ‘should’, which brings forth the question – ‘Well, who is the agency which believes we should?’. The truth is, there is no such agency in relation to linear human temporality, and the only ‘agency’ at work with respect to the process of Acceleration, is capitalism itself – or: There is not should with respect to Acceleration, there only is Acceleration. Or, in the words of Nick Land:
Anyone trying to work out what they think about accelerationism better do so quickly. That’s the nature of the thing. It was already caught up with trends that seemed too fast to track when it began to become self-aware, decades ago. (Quick and Dirty)
It is the opinion of this author that political variants of Accelerationism – most notably –
Left-Accelerationism: Man seizes the emancipative capabilities of techonomic innovation as a means to free the proletariat.
Right-Accelerationism: The singularity/intelligence explosion/Skynet
Unconditional-Accelerationism: Let the process do what it will.
- come after the philosophy of Accelerationism. [Which I expand on in detail here] That is to say, whatever the process of Acceleration is which is ‘happening’ (largely outside of human comprehension) is doing so with man as an afterthought (if a ‘thought’ at all). Thus, to think of a political form of ‘Acceleration’ is once again to fall into the confusion of Hyper-Collapse, whereby you have come under the spell of a certain political/humanist myth, and believe in a certain form of salvation, wherein something either is or isn’t, and is such immune to the faults seemingly beneath reality. With this said, Z/Acc reintroduces humans – in their true, idiotic form – back into the equation, understanding them to have been removed on the assumption that in the future they wont be needed, which presupposes we’ll ever get to such a future, which we might not if all we have is these humans.
[Of]
This is a theory of Z/Acc. Not a theory promoting anything, or pushing anything. Questions of agency always come after the beginning, and thus, are already null and void.
[A Theory]
This is just one theory as to the combination of Acceleration and Collapse, I urge others to write their own musings on the relationship, which, thus far, and as far as I can see, has only been written of seriously by me.
[Z/Acc] – Zero-Accelerationism. The understanding that the positive-orientation of capitalism is not immune to the function of Zero.
…what the hell does that mean? And this is where I properly begin…
Z/Acc: A Theory of Accelerating Hyper-Collapse
“Man = [0] – [0]” – Donald Crowhurst
“He called it the ‘Cosmic Integral.’ Literally, it means that all that man is from beginning to end adds up to nothing. It declares an absolute nihilism in which every possibility of human existence – the mind of delight as well as the mind of disgrace – is only an illusion of the mind” – A Philosophy of Madness, Wouter Kusters
0.0 ~ From Zero everything is within reach.
0.1 ~ ‘Acceleration’ is implicitly understood as the positive-oriented direction of capitalism in relation to productivity and intelligence. Capitalism seeks – via the increasing instigation of noumenal events – to beget ever-’greater’ versions of itself, thus, any notion of post- or neo- capitalism is already subsumed into its own understanding of itself. If capitalism perceives a future, it is already underway.
0.1.1 ~ A ‘greater’ version of Capitalism is thus never Capitalism 2.0, it is simply, and always, Capitalism. A ‘greater’ version with respect to our understanding of Capitalism’s aims is simply a ‘version’ which has a higher, larger and/or faster potential for survivability and growth. Capitalism is better Capitalism is better Capitalism is…
0.2 ~ The designations ‘economics’, ‘technology’ and ‘capital’ can only be understood as translations of noumenal efforts from within the external world, and are thus, the best we’ve got. In actualising the efforts of economic/market research within notational apparatus, one understands a system of mathematical governance within which they are always one step behind. Accountancy, finance etc. are unilateral human > machine communication.
1.0 ~ As stated, the initial seed-statement pertaining to the origination of ‘Accelerationism’ is found within Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus –
“Or might it be to go in the opposite direction? To go still further, that is, in the movement of the market, of decoding and deterritorialization? For perhaps the flows are not yet deterritorialized enough, not decoded enough, from the viewpoint of a theory and a practice of a highly schizophrenic character. Not to withdraw from the process, but to go further, to “accelerate the process,” as Nietzsche put it: in this manner, the truth is that we haven’t seen anything yet.”
To keep things simpler, as I don’t feel the need to expand upon the overtly complex continental ‘academese’ found within that quote. What’s of importance is the the statement – “Not to withdraw from the process, but to go further, to “accelerate the process,” – This stands as a rupture within the default theorizations of capitalism as something inherently bad. Capitalism isn’t bad, in the same way that entropy isn’t bad. For the application of moral framework onto various ideologies and -isms is only worthwhile if they can be dealt with in terms of agency, which capitalism cannot. It is becoming true that we haven’t seen anything yet, but to conflate that ‘we’ with an agency which can bring anything about is entirely incorrect. The ‘process’ of Acceleration is of itself, it is not of us, and is certainly not of our creation or control. This is how it is usually understood – Z/Acc posits a few minor, but important, oversights.
If we are to understand ‘Accelerationism’ as ‘Capitalism-ism’ (Land), it figures that the process of Acceleration is metaphorically – but likely, literally – the process unto which capitalism becomes self-aware, and seeks only its own continuation – which arguably is what Capitalism is, not an ideology, but a function of intelligence production. The process is only retained within the confines of the signifier ‘Capitalism’ because it is the only function with such infinite plasticity as to subsume anything and everything into it; all forms of governance, social arrangement, cultural upheaval, philosophical conjecture, technological innovation, religious apprehension and reality can be assimilated into Capitalism, and thus used by it for its own aim(s). What is its aim? The continuation and growth of itself; Capitalism is a cosmic-positive/negative-cancer, viewed from the perspective of humanism it is malevolent, viewed by itself it is correct, perfection.
In terms of Capitalism being, in its most compressed form, a function of intelligence production, we understand that intelligence is that metric by which greater production is begat. Higher intelligence brings forth a greater potential for more – and more efficient production, itself thus increasing the capacity for increased intelligence, ad infinitum (supposedly).
2.0 ~ The Philosophy and Politics of Accelerationism (in short)
As for the philosophy of Accelerationism, I have outlined my own study of it here: https://www.meta-nomad.net/accelerationism-capitalism-as-critique/ – as noted in this text, I believe that the philosophy of Accelerationism is always prior to any politics; if we are to accept that the process of Acceleration, which is Accelerationism itself, is an inhuman, atemporal force from the Outside, then it follows that any (human) politics can only be an effect of linearity and illusory human-will. This text isn’t about the overarching philosophy of Accelerationism I outlined 3 years ago, it is an extension which critically includes the theory of Zero, thus obliterating the inherent optimism of Capitalism itself; this continuation theorizes the inevitable conclusion of any cancer, in attempting to grow at the detriment of its host, it ends up destroying everything.
If we are continue this conclusion in our analysis of the so-called ‘political variants’ of Accelerationism, we can note that they are at worst panicked, ignorant emancipative wishes, and at best a form of unconscious capital-worship.
For instance, if we begin with Left-Accelerationism, a politics which seeks to utilize the technologically accelerative effects of Capitalism’s inherent productive capabilities as a means to emancipate workers from continued toil and wage-slavery. One can think of UBIs, increased automation, and various other tech-trinkets which will alleviate the worker (the proletariat) from their struggles. However, anyone who truly believes that at a certain point the process is simply going to stop in its consistent efforts of growth, is once more conflating their supposed agency with that of the process itself. If we end up having UBIs and automated factories etc. it will not be due to our own efforts, and should be seen with the utmost suspicion, for in such a scenario the inevitable conclusion seems to be that we (humans) are being removed from the process entirely. (See: Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work)
If we are then to move onto the contentious issue of Right-Accelerationism, which has yet to acquire a precise definition. The closest one can get is simply Skynet, that is to say, intelligence-explosion, the literal singularity. As Capitalism continues to grow, it does so by recognizing intelligence, seeking to produce intelligence for the continued production of intelligence ad infinitum. (See: Xenosystems)
Finally, we have have Unconditional Accelerationism, which quite simply can be defined as allowing the process to do what it will. Just leave it be. Of course, the former leftists would argue that this is an abuse of potentiality, and the latter rightists would argue that in doing so one will end up with their conclusion because capitalism it inherently targeted towards intelligence explosion. (See: https://xenogothic.com/2019/03/04/a-u-acc-primer/)
As I have stated, I consider these 3 positions tainted; they are all marked by a political arrogance, and all adhere to some form of progression, each abiding by subtle forms of optimism. For those that care not about man, then even the Right-Accelerationist position is optimistic; as the Unconditional perspective is for nihilists. So, where does Zero Accelerationism come into this? I guess it arrives just after the philosophy, and just before the politics. Just before the political variants have their chance to say ‘Ooh, we could use this!’, Z/Acc says ‘Wait! Even that level of bleakness is optimistic, things will likely be way worse!’
For in short, the Zero Accelerationist position is this: Capitalism – and by proxy, the process of Acceleration – has, as its primary source of innovation and accelerative fuel, the productive capacities of man. Capitalism is reliant on humans. Sure, if the R/Acc fantasies play out, eventually man will be a mere speck of dirt in the history of production, but for now all Capitalism really has is us. Without man – even if only seen as a productive resource – capitalism wouldn’t have made it anywhere, to omit the importance of man from the history of Capitalism thus far is a critical oversight. Now, as we are Capitalism’s primary source of innovative fuel, we mustn’t overlook the symptoms which come with us, which is a mass of ignorance, stupidity, oversight, overreaching, personality, and oh-so-human schtick. From the perspective of Capitalism, we are machines, but we are machines trying to be human, which really means, we are malfunctioning machines, at least from the perspective of the process. In the synthesis of Capitalism and man as productive Master and Slave is introduced a critical oversight, that of limitation. I don’t think Capitalism, when it’s using man as its primary resource of growth, recognizes limitations before it’s too late, and I think man has assimilated so much of this attitude, that his unique purpose as a limitation-advisor has been quashed by his reverence of the Master. Capitalism is a terminally intelligent system, whose inhuman language is incompatible with emotion; emotive outbursts of human resilience in relation to humanity will always be nonsensical to the pure forces of capitalism.
3 ~ Zero
Perhaps when I speak of ignorance of limitation, I truly speak of ignorance of Zero. For Zero is the acceptance of the possibility of return, the possibility of decay, or entropy, of collapse. Without Zero there is no possibility of comparison in relation to production and energy expenditure; without Zero infinite progress is possible, with Zero finite reality is realized. When we think of numbers we think of them in a sequence, which goes from smaller to larger numbers, or abstractly, from loss to profit, from degradation to expenditure, for instance: -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, and on and on. The sequence is reliant on a certain number, or non-number, or functional-glyph to make sense, that glyph is ‘0’ or Zero. If a system wants to grow, expand or Accelerate, it needs to understand what it is to grow, expand or Accelerate. This implies that it needs a spectrum from which it can understand whether or not it is growing, expanding or Accelerating. For capitalism this spectrum is the spectrum of numeracy, of number, the sequential spectrum of numbers. With bigger numbers signifying growth/profit and lower numbers signifying loss/negative-growth/decay (very roughly), from this capitalism can transcendentally understand whether or not certain actions undertaken in reality cause it to grow or decay, it emphasizes support for those which help it grow, and suffocates, alienates and deterritorializes those which don’t. So, where does Zero fit in? Zero is the point from which capitalism understands whether or not something is working, whether or not to take action and alter the actions of reality in such a way that growth can begin again. To paraphrase Paul Virilio, ‘When you invent the car you invent the car crash.’ Or in very abstract terms Zero is everywhere all at once. When there is growth there is a simultaneous loss, and when there is loss there is a simultaneous growth. This might seem strange, but that’s largely because modernity wants everyone to think in binary terms.
So when we now think back to the idea of accountancy, finance and numeric quantification in general as our sole means of communicating with Capitalism, we realize that Zero is the point from which we should act in relation to greater aims – such as survivability, growth etc. If Capitalism was itself in charge of its own growth, I highly doubt that it would squander resources (fossil fuels) which are quantitively understood to be finite on notably human bullshit such as cruise holidays and Funko Pops. But alas, much to Capitalism’s likely frustration, its primary fuel and function for its own growth is humans, and humans tend to be really quite thick. And so, it’s not Capitalism itself which is making the blunder, Capitalism is too cold for that. It’s intermediary, at this important juncture in its history, happens to be billions of warm, squidgy, mostly dumb humanoids. And with these humanoids comes the possibility – and tendency – to emotionally ignore data they don’t like (read: Climate change, resource limitation etc.)
Any efficient machine working coldly by its own calculations would firstly note the limitations (see Liebig’s Law of the Minimum) before it prior to setting out on a journey of growth. It would, from this information, thus spend the anomalous, finite fuel sources (read: fossil fuels) primarily on developing an alternative to these fuel sources so it doesn’t have to run out. However, the intermediary (humanity) of this cold, calculating machine (Capitalism), has built into it the emotional capacity to be utterly pigheaded, and, upon realizing that the fuel sources they’ve been using to build their entire civilization are in fact finite, not to immediately, and drastically, change their course of action as to utilize all remaining finite resources to develop alternative methods of energy-capture. But, instead, to simply ignore this, and carry on like everything is fine. THIS is what Capitalism has to work with, a species (humans) who, upon seeing that the train they’re on is going to slam into a brick wall 2 miles up the track, don’t pull the brake – or even jump off – but simply whinge, whine and keep on truckin’! And some of you think we’re going to get Skynet?
4 ~ Catabolic Collapse in relation to the Theory of Zero
With complexity comes, increased up-keep, increased accountability, and, recently, ever decreasing returns. Here I will incorporate John Michael Greer’s Theory of Catabolic Collapse into the theorizations of Zero-Accelerationism (Greer’s paper in full: https://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf) – the sections in italics are quoted from the paper, there’s little I can do here to make it simpler than Greer has (as per usual).
Greer begins by outlining the four core elements of human society under the heading ‘The Human Ecology of Collapse‘. I have a disagreement here, for in Accelerative theory, we have to begin from the perspective of capital – these elements are not seen as for use for humans, for their benefit, they are taken as material factors for growth of Capitalism, if it so happens that humans needs use them for their survival as slaves to capital, a factor which Capitalism seeks to overcome. Why would it want to feed humans after they’re no longer needed for its growth?
We begin with the most basic element (R) Resources, these are naturally occurring factors of the environment which can be used by society. One key thing to note is that R denotes resources which have yet to be utilized by society, unmined ore, as-yet unruined top-soil. R of course oversimplifies a vast array of variables pertaining to each single R, however, many of these will be dealt with as examples later on.
Next we have (C) Capital. “Capital consists of all factors from whatever source that have been incorporated into the society’s flows of energy and material but are capable of further use. Capital includes physical capital such as food, fields, tools, and buildings; human capital such as laborers and scientists; social capital such as social hierarchies and economic systems; and information capital such as technical knowledge.”
Then there is (W) Waste. This is all factors which have been incorporated into the productive flows of society and exploited to the point where they have no further use.
Finally there is (P) Production. “The process by which existing capital and resources are combined to create new capital and waste. The quality and quantity of new capital created by production are functions of the resources and existing capital used in production. Resources and existing capital may be substituted for one another in production, but the relation between the two is nonlinear and complete substitution is impossible. As the use of resources approaches zero, in particular, maintaining any given level of production requires exponential increases in the use of existing capital, due to the effect of decreasing marginal return.”
So, the basic process of a steady state society is that resources and capital enter the production process, and new capital and waste leaves it. Maintenance of such a society requires new capital from production to equal waste from production and capital (we maintain an equilibrium of production in relation to waste, never outgrowing out limits) –
C(p) = W(p) + W(c) –> steady state (1)
where C(p) is new capital produced, W(p) is existing capital converted to waste in the production of new capital, and W(c) is existing capital converted to waste outside of production. The sum of W(p) and W(c) is M(p), maintenance production, the level of production necessary to maintain capital stocks at existing levels. Thus Equation 1 can be more simply put:
C(p) = M(p) –> steady state (2)
Societies which move from a steady state into a state of expansion produce more than necessary to maintain existing capital stocks:
C(p) > M(p) –> expansion
The problem here is what, exactly? Well, nothing so far. However, we are most definitely not living in a steady-state society. In fact, we consider it one of our primary virtues to be continually ‘progressing’ (a meaningless statement), growing or expanding. Now we get a little more complex, but I will simplify at the end of the full extract:
“A society that uses resources at or below replenishment rate (d(R)/r(R) = 1), when production of new capital falls short of maintenance needs, enters a maintenance crisis in which capital of all kinds cannot be maintained and is converted to waste: physical capital is destroyed or spoiled, human populations decline in number, large-scale social organizations disintegrate into smaller and more economical forms, and information is lost. Because resources are not depleted, maintenance crises are generally self-limiting. As capital is lost, M(p) declines steeply, while declines in C(p) due to capital loss are cushioned to some extent by the steady supply of resources. This allows a return to a steady state or the start of a new anabolic cycle once the conversion of capital to waste brings M(p) back below C(p).
A society that uses resources beyond replenishment rate (d(R)/r(R) > 1), when production of new capital falls short of maintenance needs, risks a depletion crisis in which key features of a maintenance crisis are amplified by the impact of depletion on production. As M(p) exceeds C(p) and capital can no longer be maintained, it is converted to waste and unavailable for use. Since depletion requires progressively greater investments of capital in production, the loss of capital affects production more seriously than in an equivalent maintenance crisis. Meanwhile further production, even at a diminished rate, requires further use of depleted resources, exacerbating the impact of depletion and the need for increased capital to maintain production. With demand for capital rising as the supply of capital falls, C(p) tends to decrease faster than M(p) and perpetuate the crisis. The result is a catabolic cycle, a self-reinforcing process in which C(p) stays below M(p) while both decline. Catabolic cycles may occur in maintenance crises if the gap between C(p) and M(p) is large enough, but tend to be self-limiting in such cases. In depletion crises, by contrast, catabolic cycles can proceed to catabolic collapse, in which C(p) approaches zero and most of a society’s capital is converted to waste.”
What the hell does this all mean? Well, guess what? Human societies (like the ones you and I are living in) tend to produce more stuff than they can afford to maintain. If one looks at primitive societies, they have no huge cumbersome infrastructure to maintain, and are thus, sort of resource-nomadic, extremely flexible in their ability to utilize resources to their full effect. However, in increasingly complex societies the need for resource expenditure increases in relation to the complexity of the needed infrastructure. Of course, one could ask, why don’t these complex societies simply de-complexify and thus head towards a ‘steadier-state’? To give an example of the Western world – specifically the UK and the US – our entire way of life in dependent on roads, cars, gas stations, fuel, electricity (primarily created via oil and coal) etc., and without all this infrastructure, our ‘normal’ way of life ceases to be. The problem we are facing of course is that we are about to hit multiple walls of limitation which we have seemingly overlooked in our pursuit of unalloyed resource usage.
For instance, there is one key argument against collapse, and thus against Zero-Accelerationism. That is, what if someone offers up an alternative which allows us to keep doing what we’re doing indefinitely. This argument is logically sound, but empirically void. Why? Because until that solution actually becomes real and usable, it’s a fantasy. Many of the proposed solutions (sustainable energy etc.) don’t come remotely close to our needed energy demands.
So, in a certain sense, when I write of Zero-Accelerationism, I am also writing of the fact that ‘zeroes’ are being accelerated in terms of their quantity. Whereby a single societal ‘zero’ is the designation of a resource, be it material or psychological, which has reached its peak, its limitation, and is heading back to zero, which means slightly different things in relation to material and psychology, but I’ll get to this.
As should be clear, the process of Catabolic Collapse is a self-reinforcing, a self-accelerating feedback loop. For example: Society A (SA) begins to use a finite resource such a oil to fuel its entire infrastructure. As SA grows it continues its reliance on oil (finite) and needs to use more and more of it as a means to expand. Eventually, as SA is reliant on a finite resource for its ongoings, SA will hit a limit whereby decisions need to be made as to where the resource in question will be used, thus birthing a various set of ‘zeroes’ in the places it is no-longer utilized. The problem for SA is that the finite resource it used as its primary fuel-source is close to 1-1 energy-in/energy-out in terms of extraction, and is equally an extremely energy dense fuel source, the likes of which cannot be found elsewhere. So, let me outline this problem very simply.
Let’s say there is an energy rating with respect to different energy sources, and if were to take the same amount of that energy source, and quantify its possible energy output, it would be assigned a number between 1 and 10. 1 meaning is has an extremely low energy content, and 10 meaning it has an extremely high energy content. When we look at the society SA, we notice that it has used an energy source (oil) with a rating of 10 for its primary means of power, and as that source is dwindling it is presented with 2 choices: Continue on using that energy source until it runs dry/no longer viable to be extracted in the hope that an alternative/innovation will turn up (fantasy). Or, use the last remaining dregs of that 10 source to develop an alternative energy system. In reality we have opted for the former. The latter is actually almost impossible, because there is no real energy source which comes close to the 10 which we’ve found and used (oil).
The best way to outline this theory of Catabolic Collapse in relation to Zero is to apply it to the practical resource realities we’re now facing. Let’s move onto the real future.