Why ‘sustainable urban development’ is an oxymoron—the 2nd law, overshoot and cultural dysfunction

Abstract

Most urban sustainability efforts focus on aspects of climate change and emissions reductions mostly involving technological fixes. These techno-fixes involve massive capital investment and are ‘sold’ to society on the basis of profit-making potential and continuing economic growth, i.e., they designed to extend the unsustainable status quo by alternative means. This orientation is based on a faulty narrative that ignores crucial elements of human evolution, far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, and ecological limits. While global heating is a potentially horrific problem, it is merely one major co-symptom of the real existential threat, ecological overshoot—urban industrial society is depleting and dissipating the biophysical basis of its own existence. From this perspective, the climate focus is a wasteful distraction. It is not reversing global heating and is actually worsening overshoot and its cause, the excessive scale of urban industrial society. Using natural law and material realities this paper validates the claim that contemporary urbanization is inherently unsustainable. Cities are massive far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures that grow and maintain themselves by extracting energy and material resources from their environments and ‘dissipating’ an equivalent quantity of degraded waste back into those environments. In the process, they necessarily generate exploitive ecological footprints orders of magnitude larger than their built-up or political areas. In short, modern cities flourish at the expense of the entropic disordering of the ecosphere. Corrective change is thwarted by the fact that, for most purposes including provisioning themselves, cities remain dependent on fossil fuels. This creates a genuine predicament: ‘stopping fossil fuels’ would make it impossible to supply and maintain cities, leading to contraction and social disorder, but continuing fossil fuel use (society’s current default position) exposes cities to the dire consequences of possible climate chaos. Urban sustainability requires major reductions of energy/resource consumption and pollution (i.e., ‘environmentally conscious’ low-throughput life-styles) and smaller populations. Earth cannot sustainably support eight let alone an anticipated 10 billion+ people.

Introduction: an aberrant proposition?

The title of this collection reflects three implicit assumptions: first, that urban development—and therefore contemporary cities—can be sustainable;¹ second, that the major barrier to urban sustainability is climate change/global heating and; third, that denizens of modern techno-industrial (MTI) societies can assume lifestyles compatible with biophysical reality. But what if these assumptions are wrong? Should we not have a fallback position? This paper assesses the validity of prevailing assumptions about urbanization and the long-term prospects for cities. I hope to show, based on physical law and eco-limits: (1) why contemporary urbanization/cities are not, and cannot become, ‘sustainable’; (2) the extent to which the necessary conditions for long-term urban sustainability have been violated; (3) that while global heating is a daunting problem, it is merely one co-symptom of the real existential meta-crisis, ecological overshoot, and its cause excessive industrialization, both of which are exacerbated by the focus on climate; (4) that on this finite Earth, an ‘environmentally conscious’ sustainable lifestyle that could be shared by eight or ten billion people would be unacceptable to MTI peoples. In short, I argue that contemporary approaches to the long-term sustainability of modern urban civilization start from beliefs and assumptions that are essentially delusional. Global society is dysfunctional, mired in a confusion of self-made crises. The time has come to embrace reality and work toward thriving after the coming necessary contraction.

Methods

Various researchers have claimed that ‘sustainable city is an oxymoron’ (see Blassingame, 1998); the present paper seeks to validate this assertion by drawing on several disciplinary perspectives that are not generally reflected in our understanding of urbanization and ‘the city’. First, I locate a major source of humanity’s eco-crisis in evolutionary biology by showing that, driven by innate survival instincts boosted by technology, H. sapiens may be nearing the peak of an unprecedented, anomalous population boom. I then argue that this natural growth imperative is being reinforced and maintained by a stacked, socially-constructed narrative that abstracts humanity from the natural world. This has driven the modern, mostly urban, human enterprise far into ecological overshoot and assured major conflicts with natural biophysical law. Using theoretical concepts from far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, I show in detail how the expanding human enterprise, as a massive ‘dissipative structure’, must necessarily degrade the ecosphere (increase global entropy) in producing itself. Turning to current practice, I use ecological footprint analysis (a form of material flows analysis) to estimate the size of the global ecological deficit (i.e., the extent of overshoot) and to show with concrete examples that modern cities are virtually all eco-deficit. Thus, both theory and applied human ecology support long-standing arguments that modern cities are inherently unsustainable. Finally, I suggest that, by ignoring most of the above, the current global focus on climate change/global heating is a counterproductive distraction from the real human predicament. This amplifies the probability the human population boom will turn to bust and, in the process, end the era of urbanization.

The unappreciated backstory

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (Dobshansky, 1973).

It is indisputable that H. sapiens, like millions of other species, evolved by Darwinian natural selection. It follows that nothing in human affairs, including the urban prospect, makes (complete) sense except in light of evolution. This is a repeating theme in the present analysis. Consider, first, three evolved human qualities that have helped precipitate the contemporary eco-crisis: nudged by competition for the material necessities of life, natural selection has ensured that humans will: (1) invade and populate all accessible suitable habitats; (2) use up all available resources; and (3) expand geometrically (exponentially) under favorable conditions. It is worth noting in passing that those millions of other species—including species with whom we compete directly for habitat and resources—share these same qualities. However, by playing on manipulative intelligence and technological development, natural selection has made humanity orders of magnitude better at exercising them than are more ecologically ‘normal’ species (Fowler et al., 2024). The main takeaway from evolutional bio-reality is that H. sapiens is potentially unsustainable by nature.

There is ample empirical evidence: humans have occupied every continent and habitable island on Earth—no other vertebrate species’ natural geographic range comes close to that of H. sapiens. As we colonized the planet, humans established an embarrassing record of over-exploiting—often to the point of extinction—other species that we considered edible or that we could be ‘harvested’ for economically valuable body parts from soft warm fur to hard cold ivory (Ponting, 2007); in 200 years, industrial humans have burned through prodigious quantities of climate-changing fossil fuels, about half of what took millions of years to accumulate, and show little sign of backing off; and the world is running up against supply bottlenecks of crucial metals/minerals such as copper and rare earths as we attempt to keep the industrial behemoth growing (B, 2025; Kulik et al., 2025). Meanwhile, in scraping the sides and bottom of our Earthly barrel, H. sapiens has become the dominant geological force changing the face of Earth (Wilkinson, 2005) and the mass of human artefacts (anthropogenic mass) has grown to exceed total global living biomass (Elhacham et al., 2020).

What about population? Normally, if a population a ‘slow life-history’ species like humans becomes excessive, its exponential growth imperative (positive feedback) is held in check by the spread of disease, food/resource shortages, competition for space, higher predation rates, etc. (negative feedback). Thus, suspended between fluctuating push and pull, such populations tend to hover in dynamic equilibrium near the average carrying capacities of their habitats (as Malthus’ understood).

This was, in fact, the case for local human populations for most of anatomically modern H. sapiens’ 350,000-year evolutionary history. Things changed with the adoption of agriculture ten millennia ago. Food surpluses enabled large permanent settlements and the eventual emergence of ‘civilization’, but it is really post-enlightenment MTI peoples who have (if only temporarily) broken the rules that maintained equilibrium. The industrial/scientific revolution produced technologies, such as improvements in public sanitation and disease control, that greatly reduced death rates while fossil fuels enabled production of all the food and material resources needed to grow the human enterprise. With the suppression of negative factors, positive feedback prevailed; between the early 1800s and 2022, the human population ballooned from one to eight billion, i.e., in two centuries it exploded to eight times the maximum attained over the previous ~3498 centuries! (Figure 1). In arguing that this Trajectory makes H. sapiens, an ecological anomaly, Fowler et al. (2024) estimate that: (a) the current global human population is about 14,000 times greater than the arithmetic mean among non-human mammalian species of similar body size and; (b) if H. sapiens’ population corresponded to those of ‘normal’ populations near the arithmetic mean, there would be only about 500,000 people on Earth (or 0.006% of the present population).

Figure 1

Meanwhile, the world economy grew >100-fold in real terms (OWD, 2024) propelled by fossil fuels and assisted by development of neoliberal market economics and increasing globalization, beginning in the 19th Century. Within a few decades, small villages became towns and well-placed towns morphed into major industrial cities. By 2025, 80% of humanity was effectively urbanized, a transformation catalyzed not only by sustained population growth, but also the migration of millions from rural to urban areas. There are now about 80 cities in the world with populations in excess of five million (UN, 2025)—each has more people than likely existed on the entire planet at the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago!² Remarkably, the MTI community takes this unprecedented, completely anomalous period of explosive growth (Figure 1) to be the norm and strives mightily to ensure that it continues.

Our dominant cultural narrative

In conventional circles, humanity’s truly extraordinary evolutionary journey is cause for celebration. By almost any standard measure, there has never been a more spectacularly successful species. Oddly, this seeming ‘triumph’ is hardly ever recognized as a fundamentally biological phenomenon. Any other species would also exhibit a population boom, albeit not as extreme, in similarly favourable circumstances (Rees, 2020). The explosive expansion of the human enterprise is nothing more—or less—than the phenotypic expression of the human genome exposed to a temporary period of super-abundance.

The post-enlightenment world sees things differently. Modern techno-industrial (MTI) culture operates implicitly, when not explicitly, from the socially-constructed quasi-religious myth of human exceptionalism (Webb, 2025).³ This is the belief that H. sapiens is ‘unlike any other species’. Our sense of morality, high intelligence and alleged possession of a soul set humanity apart from mere nature (Many people are offended at any suggestion that they are animals). From this perspective, humans are exempt from biophysical laws; individual agency and group behavior are purely cultural phenomena; and social learning explains everything. To exceptionalists, human biology and evolutionary history have nothing significant to contribute to understanding contemporary geopolitical or biophysical realities.

Not coincidentally, growth-focused neoliberal economics, the dominant form on Earth today, springs from exceptionalist soil. Its most basic models portray the economy and the environment as separate, essentially independent systems. Mainstream economists assert that human ingenuity is the ultimate resource – technology can substitute for any residual good or service provided by nature—and since ingenuity is unlimited so is everything else (Zimmermann, 1951; Simon, 1981).

Acceptance of these few assumptions alone is sufficient to sustain the prevailing MTI narrative of perpetual economic growth propelled by ever-advancing technology. Some eco-modernists even use human genius to argue for additional population growth; more people imply more techno-inventiveness and therefore ever-expanding economic opportunities and wealth for all (Lemieux, 2023). In short, seen through the expansionist’s narrow keyhole, humanity’s rise to global pre-eminence is fundamentally a successful—and enduring—socio-cultural phenomenon.

There is an obvious misalignment between our constructed narratives and operational ‘algorithms’, and the biophysical reality with which they interact in the real world. This mismatch suggests that H. sapiens is also potentially unsustainable by nurture.

Overshoot: when frail construct meets unyielding reality

Biologists have long understood the ‘boom-leading-to-bust’ population dynamics of many non-human species (e.g., Klein, 1968) as well as H. sapiens’ ominously similar, if technologically driven, trajectory (Figure 1). The (in)famous Limits to Growth report warned 54 years ago that on its business-as-usual course, the human enterprise was headed for collapse around the middle of the 21st Century (Meadows et al., 1972). So forewarned, MTI society might have developed a radically different economic narrative, one that imposed various forms of cultural negative feedback on our specie’s innate expansionist tendencies to ensure that the human enterprise remained within the carrying capacity of Earth.

This did not happen; it seems H. sapiens is not sufficiently intelligent or reflective for self-restraint at macro-scale. Instead, buoyed by early successes of the scientific revolution, global society embraced an expansionist cultural narrative that reinforces humanity’s innate expansionist tendencies. H. sapiens realized its full potential to become unsustainable by both nature and nurture! The inevitable result is that global MTI culture is in a state of advanced ecological overshoot (see Catton, 1982 for a rich introduction).

Overshoot implies that at current global average material standards, the human population is consuming even replenishable and self-producing resources faster than ecosystems can regenerate and generating (often toxic) wastes beyond the ecosphere’s assimilative capacities (Rees, 2023; Fletcher et al., 2024; PIK, 2025). Viewed in this light, anthropogenic climate change/global heating is basically an excess waste (CO₂) problem. It may be the best-known symptom of overshoot and is often alluded to as the existential crisis, but it is just one of many important co-symptoms including biodiversity loss, land/soil degradation, aquafer depletion, ocean acidification, overfishing, tropical deforestation, expanding ocean dead zones, incipient resource shortages, pollution of everything—indeed, all so-called ‘environmental’ problems. Oveshoot means that planet Earth is not now sustainably supporting the energy and material demands of the present 8.2 billion humans; we are depleting essential resources, eroding the functional integrity of the ecosphere and compromising essential life-support functions. In short, MTI culture has long since exceeded the human carrying capacity of Earth—there are too many people consuming and polluting too much (Rees, 2020; Bradshaw et al., 2026). H. sapiens is likely near the peak of a one-off population boom-bust cycle (Figure 1).

Overshoot is, by definition, a terminal condition. On its present ‘development’ tack, MTI culture (which includes all modern capitalist, socialist and communist nations) is sailing into an era of unprecedented biophysical and geopolitical turmoil. Thousands of books and academic papers on achieving ‘sustainable development’ have done little to deflect the MTI Titanic from its course. Cumulative evidence suggests that global industrial culture may well founder from its own hubris later in this century (Turner, 2014; Bradshaw et al., 2021; Herrington, 2021; Nebel et al., 2023; Watts, 2024; Karis, 2025; Murphy et al., 2021).

Chronic global overshoot establishes the real-world biophysical context for consideration of ‘sustainable cities’ and ‘sustainable urban development’. In particular, it forces understanding that no city can be sustainable on its own. The best designed, most aesthetically pleasing, materially efficient, high-density, low emissions city will still go down if embedded within a global socioeconomic system that is unsustainable—and MTI culture is both biologically and socially unsustainable.

The physics and ecology of cities

Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow them (François-René de Chateaubriand).

Large towns and cities have been around for only about six or seven thousand years. They owe their existence to agriculture—with significant food surpluses came large populations, class structure, land ownership (wealth accumulation generally), division of labor, a priesthood, armies, large permanent settlements and the need for hierarchical governments, i.e., all the trappings of what we call urban civilization. While this recent ‘flowering’ of emergent phenomena corresponds with most of recorded human socio-cultural history, it constitutes only about 2% of anatomically modern H. sapiens’ evolutionary history.

Much has changed since primitive farming kick-started the urbanization process. Peering down a dusty street in Ur, Mesopotamia, 5,000 years ago it would have been difficult to imagine the modern cities of Toyko (metro population ~37 million) or Delhi (metro population ~35 million). Each of these metropolitan areas, the largest of contemporary mega-cities, house two to three times the planet’s total population when little Ur with its few thousand inhabitants was a thriving concern!

It is important to note that no one planned for metro Tokyo to have 37 million, or metro Delhi 35 million inhabitants, or for there to be 80 cities of more than five million people on Earth. Cities—and urbanization in general—are ‘emergent’ phenomena. Cities happen simply because they can. And they can only because of the availability of usable energy, first in the form of surplus food, more recently as super-abundant fossil fuels.

The ‘far-from-equilibrium’ thermodynamics of cities

Urban designers and planners (but not urban economists) increasingly recognize that, because of this energy dependence, cities are subject to the most fundamental of all physical laws, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (aka ‘the entropy law’). The second law dictates that any physical or chemical change in an isolated system (one unable to exchange energy or matter with its environment) increases the ‘entropy’ of that system. That is, the system becomes more random and disordered—it loses structure, concentrations and gradients disperse, available energy is degraded and dissipated as low-grade heat. It follows that each successive change brings an isolated system closer to a state of maximum local entropy. This is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium in which there is no potential, i.e., no further change is possible. In the extreme case, all form and function are lost; energy/matter are randomly dispersed; no point in the ‘system’ is distinguishable from any other.

That’s the story only for isolated systems; what about open systems, systems that are able to exchange energy and material their ‘environments’?

Consider first the human body. Like other complex, highly-ordered systems, our physical selves are subject to entropic decay—at least 70 billion cells die, and their remains must be discarded, every day. However, we also have anabolic processes that seemingly defy the entropy law through the natural process of tissue renewal. The human body is an ‘autopoietic’ or self-producing living system of sub-systems exquisitely structured to perform numerous biological functions simultaneously while actually complexifying—or at least not running down. Our bodies are fully open systems able produce and maintain themselves (new cells) in a steady-state far-from-equilibrium by importing concentrated energy-rich material (we call it ‘food’) from the ‘environment’. We use a portion of this ingested, ‘low-entropy’ energy/matter for repair, growth (self-production) and physical activity, but excrete most of it back into the environment as bodily waste, including CO₂ and low-grade heat energy. Because living self-organizing systems rebuild and survive—maintain themselves above thermodynamic equilibrium —by continuously degrading and dissipating available energy and matter, they are called ‘dissipative structures’ (Prigogine, 1997).

Now think about ‘the city’ as a far-from-equilibrium entity. In many respects, every city is a living, complex, highly-ordered multi-functional super-organism. It is no coincidence that many urban sub-systems—water and sewage, solid waste disposal, electricity and communications, intra-city transportation, etc.—are analogous to human organ systems that perform the same functions. Cities are also subject to second law erosion but, like our bodies, are open systems maintained by exchange and a compound metabolic process. In addition to the metabolic demands of its human inhabitants, cities must also satisfy the energy and material requirements of their industrial metabolism (Ayres, 1994). Without access to a cheap, abundant source of ‘exosomatic’ (external) energy like fossil fuels, modern cities would not have been possible.

This is a good point to emphasize that cities are fully-contained, dependent sub-systems of the ecosphere. In general, living systems, including cities (and for that matter the entire human enterprise) maintain their local level of organization as negentropic far-from-equilibrium-systems at the expense of increasing global entropy, i.e., the entropy of their immediate host systems (Schneider and Kay, 1994, 1995). In other words, to grow or simply sustain themselves in a smoothly functioning, far-from-equilibrium operational state, cities must import large quantities of low-entropy energy/matter from their host, the ecosphere, and eject their entropic waste back into it.⁴ The imports include all the food and fiber needed by the human inhabitants, plus all the fossil and electrical energy, and all the raw materials, manufactured goods and equipment required to construct and maintain the built environment and supportive infrastructure. To this we must add the energy and material resources embodied in the furniture, appliances, tools, electronic gadgets, automobiles, toys and other artefacts of modern consumer society.

The demands on the ecosphere are overwhelming. In 2025, global material use (biomass, fossil fuels, metals and other minerals) is estimated at 100–110 billion tonnes (Gt),⁵ projected to increase to as much as 184 Gt by 2050 (OECD, 2019, 2025). Ironically, economists’ and eco-modernists fantasize about decoupling GDP growth from resource use even as H. sapiens has become the greatest consumer organism in all major Earthly ecosystems (see Fowler et al., 2024) and the largest force changing the face of the planet (Wilkinson, 2005). True, for certain variables there is some relative decoupling (reduced impact per unit GDP growth) but absolute decoupling (decreasing impact with GDP growth) is rare and total dematerialization is a biophysical impossibility (Haberl et al., 2020).

The key consideration here is that about 75% of the world’s expanding resource throughput (defined as ‘economic energy/material consumption and resultant pollution’) can be attributed to cities. Up to 80% of global carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions (which totaled 38 Gt in 2025) and 50% of solid wastes come from cities—buildings and construction alone generate 40% of the world’s solid waste and 37% of CO₂ emissions (UN, 2024). All this entropic detritus is injected back into the atmosphere, waters and soils, i.e., the ecosphere. Cities are the major contributors to the entropic disordering of their ecosphere and qualify as archetypal ‘dissipative structures’.

The aggregate product of this socio-biophysical phenomenon is what people deflectively term the ‘environmental crisis’ (aka ‘overshoot’). And the crisis can only worsen; the ecosphere may already be reeling from too many people consuming and polluting too much but the world community remains addicted to additional population and material growth. Between 2023 and 2050, GHG emissions will continue to set records and, with the increase in material consumption, municipal solid waste is expected to balloon by >80%, from 2.1 to 3.8 billion metric tonnes.

There is a significant equity dimension. Cities are not all thermodynamically equal. The entropy law at work reveals clearly the egregious wealth/income gap between rich and poor cities (and, for that matter, between rich and poor neighborhoods within cities). High-quality energy and resources (negentropy) are expensive. Wealthy consumer cities can therefore afford the maintenance costs (e.g., infrastructure upkeep, solid waste collection and disposal, waste water treatment, etc.) of keeping material entropy at bay locally while dissipating their 2nd law dregs into rural areas and the global commons. By contrast, the crumbling buildings, run-down infrastructure, polluted waterways and general squalor of impoverished cities bear witness to the relentless corroding effect of the 2nd law when it cannot constantly be papered over or exported. Keep in mind, however, that for all their glittery splendor, high-income cities actually impose a much greater per capita entropic burden on the ecosphere than do low-income cities. Extremes of energy/material consumption necessitate extremes of entropic dissipation.

In summary, cities are model dissipative structures. They can grow and thrive only by extracting negentropy (high-grade energy and resources) from their host environments and exporting (dissipating) entropy—low grade heat and useless waste—back into those same environments (i.e., the ecosphere). Keep in mind, too, that no energy/material transformation is close to 100% efficient. This means that any incremental increase in the size of the city, or improvement in infrastructure, or act of simple maintenance (e.g., street cleaning), can be purchased only at the cost of a greater increase in the entropic disordering of the ecosphere. Indeed, the law of conservation of mass and the 1st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) ensure that 100% of the energy/material inputs imported to maintain or expand the city eventually joins the entropic waste stream. People in high-income cities generally do not notice the (exported) entropic damage caused by their consumer lifestyles but residents of low-income cities literally live with the obvious degradation.

Bottom line? On a planet in overshoot, cities cannot exist without degrading the structure and life-support functions of the ecosphere: The 2nd law dictates that to create a little patch of order over here (the city) means a greater increase in disorder over there (elsewhere in the ecosphere).

Why cities as usually defined do not qualify as ecosystems

For the past couple of decades there has been increasing interest in the idea of cities as ecosystems (e.g., Feffer and Register, 2009). It is true that cities are complex systems consisting of many subsystems but, this does not mean they are functional ecosystems.

Ecologist Eugene Odum defined ‘ecosystem’ as a biotic community interacting with its physical environment such that the flow and dissipation of energy results in a defined trophic (feeding) structure, the emergence of biodiversity, and characteristic material cycles between the living and non-living components (Odum, 1971). A functionally complete ecosystem consists of a self-sustaining assemblage of living species—producers (green plants), macro-consumers (animals) and micro-consumers (bacterial and fungi or ‘decomposers’)—existing in complementary relationships with each other and their physical environs.

Thermodynamically speaking, ecosystems are complex, self-organizing, quasi-independent, far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures that continuously (re)generate themselves via relatively high-grade energy from the sun. Using photosynthesis, plants assemble simple inorganic chemicals (water, carbon dioxide, nitrates, phosphates and a few trace minerals) into complex, energy-rich biomass that cascades through the ecosystem via the consumer food chain. Crucially, all nutrient compounds are returned to air, water and soil via by decomposer organisms to be taken up again by plants for complete recycling. Waste energy (heat) is dissipated off the planet as low-grade infrared radiation.

By this definition, modern cities do not qualify as complete ecosystems. Cities do have one major consumer organism, their human builders and occupants. However, to meet Odum’s standard, the city would have to include a sufficient complement of producer organisms, micro-consumers and abiotic factors to support its human population more or less indefinitely (i.e., ‘sustainably’). Problematically, most cities today lack sufficient producers—the vast assemblage of green plants that produce the food, fiber and oxygen consumed by the human inhabitants—and decomposers (bacteria and fungi) as needed to complete the nutrient cycle and otherwise maintain life-supporting conditions. Both producer and decomposer organisms with their crucial functions are located mostly at great distance from ‘the city’ in rural environments and the seas. Because of globalization and lengthy supply chains, most cities are now dependent for survival on distant ecosystems and systems processes in multiple locations scattered all over the planet.

This last fact further contributes to the unsustainability of MTI urban culture generally. The distancing of urban consumers from the producer and decomposer components (supportive agricultural and forest lands) of the bipartite human ecosystem, prevents the replenishment of soil organic matter and the recycling of phosphorus, nitrogen, and other nutrients contained in household and human wastes. These are typically flushed away (i.e., dissipated), polluting rivers and streams before being washed out to sea where they contribute and the emergence of anoxic marine ‘dead zones’. In effect, urbanization transforms what were once (and could be again) local, integrated, cyclical human ecosystems into global, horizontally disintegrated, unidirectional, throughput systems.

At the risk of offending the sensibilities of some humanists and staunch urbanists, it is instructive to think of even our greatest cities as human analogues of livestock feedlots. Just like cities, industrial feedlots are densely populated by a single macro-consumer species such as cattle or hogs. And, like cities, there is a total absence of primary producers—the fields that produce fodder for feedlot populations may hundreds or thousands of kilometres distant from the feedlot operation. China may be the world’s largest pork producer, but Chinese swine are raised on soybean meal imported from Brazil and the US (So, where is Chinese pork really produced?).

Also missing from both cities and feedlots are adequate populations of micro-consumers (decomposers). Cities and feedlots both separate what should be functionally inseparable systems components, short-circuiting even the possibility of within-system organic decomposition and nutrient recycling. Feedlots generate vast quantities of organic manure containing vital nutrients that are often not re-deposited on range-or cropland for recycling (artificial fertilizer is cheaper), but rather are disposed of inappropriately, contaminating the atmosphere, soils, and surface and subsurface waters at great distance and over large areas. Cities do much the same with human waste. Meanwhile, demand for artificial fertilizer grows as if it were a suitable substitute for the real thing.

Since feedlots are de facto sub-systems of the human urban industrial system, and constructed from the same efficiency- and profit-oriented paradigmatic framing, it is not surprising that they are eco-structurally similar to cities in their treatment of natural nutrients.

The ecological footprints of cities

There is another fundamental problem with how we view cities. It is often said that only about one or 2 % of the earth’s land area is urbanized or physically built-up so there is plenty of room for growth. These are ecologically naïve assertions. The forgoing analysis shows that the political or geographic area we call ‘the city’ is only one small part of the complete human urban ecosystem. Modern cities are consumptive nodes—ecological black holes—in in the fabric of a diffuse productive system which, thanks to globalization, is spread all over the planet. Ask yourself what would happen if your favorite city were enclosed in an impenetrable glass bell-jar.⁶ Answer: its human population would starve and suffocate in just a few days; most of human ecosystem—the producer and decomposer components—is missing. This thought experiment suggests what should be the first question of human urban ecology. Just how big would we have to make that conceptual bell jar for it to enclose a sufficiently large area of average productive and land and waterscape (biocapacity) to sustain the city’s human population indefinitely?⁷

We can approximate an answer to this question using ecological footprint analysis (EFA) (Rees, 1992; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). EFA uses international data sets, a variation of material flows analysis and ecosystems productivity to quantify the energy and material flows required annually to feed, clothe, house, transport and otherwise maintain specified study populations. Eco-footprinting also accounts for the sinks required to assimilate carbon dioxide.

Eco-footprint analysts convert data on significant consumption categories into the corresponding area of productive land and water ecosystems required to produce those products and assimilate associated CO₂ emissions⁸ (see GFN, 2026a). To facilitate comparisons between populations, national data are further converted into standard ‘hectares of global average productivity’ (gha). Thus, the ecological footprint (EF) of a specified population is:

The total area of productive ecosystems that the population requires, on a continuous basis, to produce the bio-resources it consumes (e.g., plant-based food and fiber products, livestock and fish products, timber and other forest products, and space for urban infrastructure) and to assimilate its wastes, particularly carbon dioxide emissions, wherever on Earth the relevant ecosystems are located (Rees and Wackernagel, 2023).

The size of a population’s EF depends on population size; average material standard of living (the EF is consumption-based); productivity of the supportive ecosystems; and the efficiency of resource harvesting, processing and use in the year of the analysis. Note that ecological footprint accounts also quantify the area of productive ecosystems (biocapacity) available for study populations to draw upon. This enables us to compare urban EFs with national EFs and both city and national EF with the country’s domestic biocapacity.

National EFs vary widely. This reflects differences in GDP and reveals the widening rich-poor income gap. Rich nations have large EFs—Europeans typically average four to six global average hectares per person; Canada, the US and Australia range between seven and eight gha/capita; Japan comes in at 4.0 gha/cap and China at 3.6. Poor country EFs may be as small as one gha/capita—burgeoning India’s is still only 1.1 gha/capita (all EF estimates for 2024, from GFN, 2026b).

We can estimate urban EFs by multiplying a city’s population by national average EFs. This method produces reasonable, but probably low, estimates because 80% of the world’s population now live in urban regions and, with higher income/consumption, urban populations have larger than rural EFs.

Numerous studies reveal that the cities can have EFs hundreds of times larger than their political areas (Folke et al., 1997; Warren-Rhodes and Koenig, 2001; Shi et al., 2020). Consider Tokyo Prefecture, Japan, for example: with a population of 14.2 million and an EF of ~4.0 gha/capita this city has an EF of 56.8 million gha. This is ~260 times the city’s geographic area of 2,194 km² and >77% of Japan’s domestic biocapacity of ~74 million gha. If we consider the Tokyo metropolitan region of 37 million people—30% of the national population—the regional EF is 148 million gha or twice the biocapacity of the entire country.

This last is not a unique result. The capital metropolitan area of Athens, Greece, has 3.7 million inhabitants (35% of the Greek population) with a per capita EF of 4.8 gha. This creates an urban footprint 1.2 times the nation’s domestic biocapacity (GFN, 2015).

EF data show that: (a) many whole countries, including Japan, European nations, the US, India and China are running significant ‘ecological deficits’ (GFN, 2026b) and that: (b) modern cities are virtually all eco-deficit. This is a widespread but little acknowledged problem, particularly among densely populated high-income countries. By 2025, over 72% of the world’s nations (with 85% of the human population) were running ecological deficits; i.e., their EFs exceeded domestic biocapacity, putting the countries into national overshoot (GFN, 2026a, 2026c). Such populations are at least partially dependent on imports to survive at prevailing material standards.

In summary, eco-footprint studies show clearly that cities and urban regions, humanity’s dominant immediate habitat, comprise only a small portion of the total human ecosystem. Cities are relatively small, consumptive, entropy-generating nodes that must satisfy their material needs through exchange. The essential productive and assimilative components of complete urban systems are in the rural, globally distributed ‘hinterland’ areas captured by urban eco-footprint analysis; the physical area of productive component is typically orders of magnitude larger than the consumptive urban core. This appropriated hinterland plus the core constitutes the full urban human ecosystem.⁹ Significantly, urbanization alienates city dwellers both spatially and psychologically from essential components of their supportive ecosystem(s). Urbanites are often oblivious to what remains a vital relationship.

Recognition of these realities is crucial to a full understanding of urban sustainability; it illustrates the dependence of the urban on the rural and the extreme vulnerability of urban populations to disruptions of established world order. Cut off from international trade flows without a ‘Plan B,’ most large cities would collapse chaotically in a matter of days.

Could cities become sustainable or at least less vulnerable? Consider that the world average EF is 2.6 gha per capita but there are only about 12 billion ha of productive ecosystems or <1.5 gha (biocapacity) per capita on Earth (GFN, 2026b). This implies that for a contemporary city to be sustainable, it’s average per capita EF should be less than 1.5 gha and, to avoid overshoot, this standard would have to apply to all cities everywhere. Contrast this requirement with contemporary bloated high-income urban EFs of 4 gha to 8 gha. In today’s world of 8.2 billion, urbanites with EFs of 8 gha would have to reduce their energy and material consumption by ~80% to meet the sustainability criterion. This is a politically daunting challenge, certainly unacceptable to urbanites in any wealthy country today, and therefore not under serious discussion.

Alternatively, if we insisted on having EFs of 8 gha/person, Earth could theoretically support only ~1.5 billion people sustainably (at least until essential non-renewables ran out). However, this population could be distributed among 300 well-managed bio-regions of five million inhabitant each; some could have cities of millions (Does that sound so bad?).

There is another contextual problem: The world community as a whole is running an ecological deficit of ~73%. This eco-deficit—a.k.a. ecological overshoot—is a stark reminder that the human enterprise grows and maintains itself by draining its ecological bank account, i.e., by depleting/dissipating essential natural capital assets and simultaneously undermining global life-support functions.

This is not just a casual observation safely ignored. It is a dire warning that MTI civilization seems bent on exercising its death wish. Only recently has any major government acknowledged (with high confidence) that the degradation of ecosystems constitutes a significant threat to national and global security (UK, 2026). Among the UK report’s many conclusions is the assertion (again with high confidence) that “Ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions. Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse (irreversible loss of function beyond repair).” While this should alarming enough, it seems that the public document is actually a dumbed-down version of the full study: “The omissions appear deliberate, consistent with an effort to satisfy Freedom of Information requirements while withholding the most politically sensitive and disturbing findings” (Read, 2026).

Finally, it is worth noting that every individual and population, regardless of income or material standard of living, imposes an ‘ecological footprint’ on Earth. Since bio-capacity used by one person or population is not available for use by another, all human sub-groups are competing for access to the finite and diminishing area of productive ecosystems on Earth. While not acknowledged out loud, increasing competition by growing economies for diminishing biocapacity is a significant contributing factor to the heightened geopolitical tensions and territorial disputes described in the UK report. Almost certainly then, urban, national and the global eco-deficits will ultimately prove to be more important than the fiscal deficits that currently preoccupy governments everywhere.

Cities and the fossil fuels/climate chaos conundrum

Let's face reality: oil, natural gas, and coal are moving the world. Full stop. We cannot manufacture a wind turbine, a solar module, or a nuclear power plant without huge amounts of oil, gas, and coal. This is how the world works (Chris Wright, US Energy Secretary [CNBC, 7 January 2026]).

We have already noted that cities owe their status as high-functioning ‘far-from-equilibrium’ dissipative structures to the existence of vast quantities of cheap fossil fuels (FF). All the food and fibre consumed by urban dwellers is grown, harvested, processed and transported to the city from its ‘hinterland’ using mostly FFs; all the stone and gavel, minerals, bitumen and metals from which the city and supportive infrastructure is constructed is mined, transported, refined, processed, and manufactured using mostly FFs; all the trucks, ships, trains and aircraft needed to move all that food, fiber and construction material are manufactured using, and powered by, mostly FFs (or electricity generated by FFs);¹⁰ most of the machinery used to erect then operate and maintain the ‘build environment’ itself, is made with and operated using FFs. Indeed, one might say that cities are a major product of FFs—coal, petroleum and natural gas—and could not even be provisioned in the absence of FFs.

This is regrettable—and dangerous. Burning fossil hydrocarbons is a major source of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. CO₂ is an unavoidable entropic product of fossil fuel combustion and the principal driver of anthropogenic climate change—the most obvious symptom of overshoot. MTI culture’s current trajectory implies a potentially catastrophic ~2.8 C^o mean global heating by 2,100 [the 2015 Paris Accord more stringent target of 1.5 C^o warming may be exceeded in this decade (Hansen et al., 2023)]. The world desperately needs to reduce emissions but the only effective way to do this at scale is to abandon the use of fossil fuels.

To tech-optimists and eco-modernists, this should not pose a problem; we can count on the much-heralded green renewable energy revolution, particularly wind and solar (W&S) electricity to replace hydrocarbons. True, the spectacular growth of W&S infrastructure has apparently halted growth in fossil-fueled electrical power production. That said, wind and solar energy has a very long road ahead. The energy mix is additive with no new source fully replacing that which has gone before. Humanity uses even more traditional biomass energy—peat, wood, dung, etc.—today than it did in 1800, near the beginning of the FF boom (Ritchie and Rosado, 2024). Thus, despite decades of promotional hype W&S supplied only 4–5.0% of the world’s final energy consumption in 2024 (data from EI, 2025).¹¹ In 2026, the urban world remains more than 80% dependent on FFs (virtually unchanged for decades). Note, too, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to substitute electricity for FFs in many energy applications essential to the survival of cities. The reality is that, in practical terms, “…the so called ‘energy transition’ has not even started yet” (Schernikau 2024; also Berman, 2025). ¹² According to Fressoz (2025) there has never been an energy transition; much of the current transition myth can be traced to the energy sector’s self-promoting efforts to delay definitive action on global heating.

FF addiction helps to explain the meager accomplishments of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Thirty-three years of ‘action’, including 30 COP conferences, have failed in the primary goal of reducing atmospheric carbon concentrations; FF use and carbon dioxide emissions are at all-time highs and rising—as is mean global temperature (NOAA, 2026). Bottom line? There is virtually no possibility that the world can achieve net zero emissions by 2050, if ever, using known technologies without a dramatic reduction in total energy use.

This puts an ominous perspective on urban society’s overshoot crisis—the world community is in a quintessential ‘rock-and-a-hard-place’ 2nd Law predicament. A living system can maintain itself in a dynamic, organized ‘far-from-equilibrium’ state only as long as there are concentrations of energy/matter to dissipate. There are many possible responses to this conundrum, but we will briefly consider just the ends of the spectrum—these and all intermediate options arguably lead to similar outcomes as both ancient and novel forms of negative feedback kick in:

• (1) If, to avoid disastrous climate change, the MTI world rapidly ‘stops fossil fuels’ in the absence of quantitatively adequate substitutes, then everything connected slows or stops (The effect of the US/Israel vs. Iran war on global petroleum and gas supplies provides a taste of this scenario.) At best we would witness greatly reduced economic production, declining incomes, collapsed transportation systems, rising inequality, widespread unemployment, local famines, and civil unrest, i.e., imploding economies. Cities would be particularly at risk from inadequate energy supplies, broken supply lines, food and other resource shortages. Mega- and many large cities would be abandoned; mass out-migrations would contribute to civil conflict, land degradation and geopolitical chaos. In short, inadequate energy puts billions at risk (and humanity—as well as millions of other species—would still suffer the effects on-going climate change).

• (2) On the other hand, should the MTI world attempt to maintain the growth-bound status quo by continuing use of FFs as long as economic reserves last (society’s apparent default position), then humanity will be exposed to potentially runaway global heating and related consequences. We risk more and longer heat waves, extended drought, water supply crises, spreading desertification, melting permafrost, heat-trapping methane releases, resource shortages, failing agriculture, at least local famine, rising sea levels, the flooding (and eventual loss) of many coastal cities, uninhabitable regions, and mass migrations, i.e., collapsed economies and geopolitical chaos. Recent research shows that just 2.7 Celsius degrees of warming alone could push as many as three billion people outside humanity’s historic safe climate niche in this century (Lenton et al., 2023). In short, sticking with FF puts billions of humans—and other species—at risk (and we would still eventually run short of usable energy).

Summary, discussion and conclusions: the urban sustainability predicament

[Thermodynamics]…holds the supreme position among the laws of nature… If your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation (Eddington, 1929).

This paper shows unambiguously that, from a biophysical perspective, modern techno-industrial culture, and high-income cities in particular, are fundamentally unsustainable and cannot be otherwise at prevailing average material standards on a finite planet. Others have long agreed. Bio-regionalist Peter Berg famously argued that there are no sustainable cities (Berg et al., 1989). In reviewing a conflicting literature on prospects for urban sustainability (dismal to utopian), Blassingame (1998) concludes: “To the degree that a sustainable city is defined quantifiably it is currently an oxymoron”, but then goes on, rather blithely: “To the degree that [sustainability] is seen as a vision (utopian to some and inevitable to others) and a process, then sustainable cities are not only inevitable, they are a wide spread reality” (p.11). This rather tenuous logic and conclusion flow from an earlier assertion that people will simply have to “…learn to live sustainably. Inevitably, then, they will be living in sustainable cities” (p.3).

Perhaps so had utopians prevailed, but in the real world the unchecked momentum of MTI societies ensures that ‘sustainable urban development’ retains its oxymoronic status. Humanity has long breached the sustainable carrying capacity of Earth. Plunging biodiversity, fisheries collapses, ocean dead zones, tropical deforestation, global heating, permafrost decay, methane releases, ocean acidification, soil/land degradation, urban sprawl, falling sperm counts, micro-plastic contamination,¹³ and the pollution of everything else are just some of the co-symptoms of overshoot. Overshoot is indicative of extreme cultural dysfunction.

From the perspective of the 2nd Law, it is easy to explain this phenomenon. The human enterprise is a fully-contained, wholly-dependent far-from-equilibrium dissipative structure whose energy and material demands far exceed the regenerative and assimilate capacity of its host system, the ecosphere. Global unsustainability is an emergent phenomenon resulting from multiple interactions between the reality-denying, mostly fossil-energy-dissipating, material-demanding, continuously-growing, modern human enterprise and its host system, the solar-energy-dissipating, non-growing, steady-state ecosphere. Our urban ecological footprints have grown too large; in their present configuration, cities are to the ecosphere as parasites are to their host. In simplest terms, there are too many people consuming and polluting too much.

The mainstream rejects this view. Most governments, international institutions and corporations are borne aloft by blind belief in the quasi-religious concept of human exceptionalism: H. sapiens is not of the natural world, our ambitions are unconstrained by natural laws. Modern societies operate from a socially-constructed, other-worldly fantasy of unlimited economic and population growth propelled by ever-advancing techno-prowess. After all, “human ingenuity is the greatest resource” (Simon, 1981). From this perspective, the symptoms of overshoot cannot emerge—or if they do, can safely be ignored or, at the very least, can be overcome.

Human alienation from nature is not an accidental aberration. It is the inevitable product of the particular MTI way of perceiving the world. MTI culture is trapped in a dangerous delusion of its own making, seemingly unable to access reality. The misalignment of humanity’s growth trajectory with natural limits has been evident for at least 50 years but has proved impossible to correct. ¹⁴ Moral suasion and concrete analysis, no matter how rigorous and reasoned, are no match for mythic construct. The exceptionalist fantasy alone shows that H. sapiens is not primarily a rational species: we are creatures of wish, hope and habit by nature.

The latter problem is deeper than most people can fathom. The behavioral traits at cause are innate and operate subconsciously. Neuroscience reveals that oft-repeated experiences and concepts help shape the synaptic circuits of the developing brain. Repeated thought patterns—think ‘political ideology’, ‘religious doctrine’, economic paradigm, even ‘scientific theory’—can thus acquire a physical presence in human ‘wetware’ with important consequences for subsequent behavior.¹⁵ Adult humans strive to maintain early environment-brain homology by seeking out experiences and other people that reinforce their acquired synaptic presets; they tend to avoid, reject, deny, or forget contrary stimuli and information (Wexler, 2006). Some people attempt to manipulate their environments to make them match their pre-established internal structures (Wexler, 2011).¹⁶

Among the simplest indicators of this innate process are so-called ‘normalcy bias’ (King, 2026) and ‘optimism bias’, peoples’ subconscious tendencies to assume that, despite cascading evidence to the contrary, things will all work out and return to ‘normal’, i.e., growth-oriented business as usual. These predispositions are often strong enough to override personal sensory evidence—not to mention the plethora of scientific data—that our prevailing operating paradigm is a hazard to survival.

Yet another fact of human evolution affects our capacity to respond. H. sapiens and, therefore, the human brain, evolved in relatively simple, stable social and biophysical environments that posed only limited challenges to the developing nervous system. Modern humans have what are essentially Paleolithic brains and still tend to think in simple, reductionist cause-effect terms. Human brains process data at only 10 bits/s and most people can focus on only one thing at a time (Zheng and Meister, 2025). Think how popular attention leaps from global heating to the pandemic, to territorial conflict in Ukraine or Gaza or Iran (but rarely together), to plastics pollution, to the rising cost of living and back again to climate change. This minimal level of information processing was adequate for survival in simpler times but is failing today. Most people do not—cannot—connect the dots. How many people are aware that all the above issues are co-symptoms of the same overriding meta-crisis, overshoot, and that the material cause is excessive scale of the human enterprise?

Collective cognitive failure is clearly not a matter of ignorance or stupidity as normally understood. It is the result of MTI peoples’ culturally-acquired neural presets combined with the limited processing capacity of humanity’s outmoded ‘wetware’. Cultural evolution—e.g., modern technologies—-and its effects have vastly outpaced biological evolution. We have arguably rendered our brains functionally obsolete to cope with the mind-numbing complexity of the modern world in which we actually live; in particular, people simply do not ‘get’ chaotic behavior of complex natural systems under stress.¹⁷

These cognitive quirks actually help account for the relative narrow foci of most urban sustainability efforts. The prominent ‘C40 Cities’ initiative, for example, primarily “champion[s] cities as the catalysts for climate action” (C40 Cities, 2026). Indeed, one recent survey found that most cities frame their urban sustainability efforts in terms of emissions reductions and related climate issues (Vigier et al., 2023). Very few cities acknowledge limits to global productive capacity or overshoot. Vigier et al. (2023) conclude that the “… singular focus [on emissions] risks underestimating cities’ total global ecological impacts” and that “the world generally, and urban decision-makers in particular, greatly underestimate cities’ ecological and social impacts.”

If climate change/global heating is not the existential crisis many believe it is, then urban sustainability should not be mostly about emissions reductions, climate mitigation/adaptation, renewable energy, smart grids, EVs and green buildings. Urban sustainability should be about correcting cultural dysfunction, about rewriting our economic narrative in a way that sees humans in nature, accepts 2nd Law realities, confronts the fact of eco-overshoot, tames our innate expansionism, shrinks urban ecological footprints, fosters population reductions and determines a corresponding sustainable size and distribution of human settlements.

The “singular focus” on climate addresses none of these things directly: in fact, it is arguably a dangerous distraction from the greater issue. Wind turbines, solar PV panels, EVs, etc., are all mined, refined, manufactured, transported, installed and maintained using climate-wrecking, CO₂-emitting fossil fuels. It is no coincidence that such politically acceptable techno-fixes require massive capital investment. They are ‘sold’ to governments and the public on the basis of profit-making potential and their contributions to GDP growth; they epitomize techno-hubris and eco-destructive ‘business-as-usual-by-alternative-means’ in full conformity with the dysfunctional MTI mindset. While there may be local short-term benefits such as cleaner air, techno-fixes are not actually ‘fixing’ the global climate system (which remains a horrific and worsening problem). Moreover, to the extent these measures enable extension of the status quo, they actually exacerbate overshoot.

Clearly, urgent action is needed if humanity is to avoid a ‘ghastly future’ (Bradshaw et al., 2021). The task is daunting. MTI culture should have abandoned its delusional expansionist mindset decades ago. Achieving sustainability requires a personal-to-civilizational transformation of mainstream beliefs, assumptions, values, and behaviors to a less abstracted, more immediately relational way of being on Earth in which fewer people can live materially adequate and spiritually satisfying lives more equitably within the biophysical means of nature. In this context, sustainable urban life-styles would see major reductions in energy/resource consumption/pollution and a non-coercive procreation ethics to shrink human numbers (Rees and Szocik, 2026). Earth cannot sustainably support eight let alone the anticipated 10 billion+ people.

How different things might things be today if the world community had come together in response to Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972) to implement a cultural narrative that: (a) embraced biophysical reality and; (b) understood humans to be integral to ecosystems. What if we had worked to actualize the concept of ‘one-planet living’; had negotiated the elements of a satisfying, more-than-adequate material standard of living that could be shared by all; had agreed upon policies to limit global inequality; had acknowledged the need to rein in human population growth; had implemented policies to facilitate the emergence of a smaller more equitable human enterprise; had established the optimal size and distribution of urban settlements? Would we not be better off had global society self-organized around reality in ways that would enable humanity to function indefinitely within the biophysical means of the ecosphere?

As matters stand it is too late for a painless descent. Maladapted to the contemporary socio-biophysical environment of its own making, H. sapiens risks being ‘selected out’ by that same environment. To avoid the worst, we would need that dramatic contraction of the scale of the human enterprise in just a few decades. But how many high-income countries are working on plans for an orderly, fair 80% reduction in economic throughput? Is the global community organizing for non-coercive fertility reductions everywhere? Are any cities actively re-localizing essential economic activities, reorganizing spatially and ensuring access to adequate arable land? (We should be striving relocalize as much as possible of our scattered eco-footrpints).

The simple reality is that these things are not going to happen voluntarily. On the contrary, back in the (un)real world, most governments and international organizations remain dedicated to the economic growth fixation: economic efficiency above self-reliance, globalization, just-in-time supply chains, spawning techno-fixes and pro-natalist policies. Policy makers struggle within the existing paradigm, still trying to make it work, not recognizing that no recombination of the beliefs, values, assumptions, and the innate and learned behaviors characterizing MTI culture, can produce a sustainable convergence of the human enterprise and the ecosphere on a finite planet already wracked by depletion. The contemporary human (un)sustainability crisis is not solvable problem. It is a true predicament with myriad possible, mostly unfortunate, outcomes.

We can, of course, speculate one possible outcome based on decades of data and analyses, well-documented biophysical trends, de facto human behavior, at least one major government report (UK, 2026) and a long history of societal collapses: On its present tack and ignoring all the signs of its own entropic disintegration, MTI urban civilization is sailing into the gathering winds of an unprecedented 2nd Law tempest. In present circumstances, “…there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

A tragedy? Perhaps, but ordinary people should let the MTI Titanic go—the time has come to redirect resources, to re-group as communities, to get on with the essential work of launching survivable lifeboats before all are sucked down by the sinking ship’s inevitable whirling vortex. The paragraphs above suggest a variety of conceptual goals and planning guidelines consistent with unfolding realities and various other analysts have advanced detailed approaches to facing the coming implosion. While It is beyond the scope of this analysis to fully outline alternative ways of living or more viable urban forms, I can suggest a few excellent sources: the degrowth initiative has inspired an increasingly global conversation on how to evolve smaller more socially equitable communities (Kallis, 2018); starting from the proposition that we need a “transformation of human civilization everywhere on the planet, and immediately” Bendell (2023, p.14) advances a cooperative eco-libertarian scheme of action to rebirth a different world; Fry (2012) argues that the co-evolution of humanity and the human-made environment are inseparable, that present realities should provoke a serious rethink of how we shape our place in nature, and that if society fails to adapt through an new design strategy that maps to biophysical reality, it risks becoming a casualty of (negative) natural selection; the ‘transition towns’ movement is a modest step in the direction of spatial and social design for economic re-localization and more resilient communities (Transition Network 2026); and bioregionalism provides a philosophy for people to live ‘in place’ as participants in their supportive ecosystems (Heinberg, 2025; Berg et al., 1989).

With these and many other life-boats floating free, there will certainly be life after the contraction and those best prepared today will be the most likely thrive in the future as it unfolds.

References

• 1

  AyresR. U. (1994). “Industrial metabolism: work in Progress,” in The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems, eds. RichardsD. J.AllenbyB. R. (Washington, DC, USA: National Academy of Engineering).

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  B (2025). Running on Empty: Copper. The Honest Sorcerer. Available online at: https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/running-on-empty-copper

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BendellJ. (2023). Breaking Together: a Freedom-Loving Response to Collapse. Bristol, UK: Good Works.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BergP.MagilavyB.ZukermanS. (1989). A Green City Program for the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. San Francisco, USA: Planet Drum Books.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BermanA. (2025) The energy transition that never was Available online at: https://www.artberman.com/blog/the-energy-transition-that-never-was/ (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BlassingameL. (1998). Sustainable cities: oxymoron, utopia, or inevitability?Soc. Sci. J.35, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/S0362-3319(98)90055-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BradshawC. J. A.EhrlichP. R.BeattieA.CeballosG.CristE.DiamondJ.et al. (2021). Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. Front. Conservation Sci.1:615419. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BradshawC. J. A.JudgeM. A.BlumsteinD. T.EhrlichP. R.DasguptaA. N. Z.WackernagelM.et al. (2026). Global human population has surpassed earth’s sustainable carrying capacity. Environ. Res. Lett.21:064023. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ae51aa

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  C40 Cities. (2026) Cities have always shaped ideas, trade, and culture. Today, they shape climate action too C40 cities climate leadership group Available online at: https://www.c40.org/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=15853598856&gbraid=0AAAAAoVvOwg9vly4eW8K_yunpNi1cC50b&gclid=Cj0KCQiAkPzLBhD4ARIsAGfah8jKf6JPE2E0PBjd0gF1noV6Np4lUuCQ6j3hAl5X5ZbtJafAYiKIpT8aAlqeEALw_wcB (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  CattonW. R. (1982). Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, USA.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  DobshanskyT. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am. Biol. Teach.35, 125–129.

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  EddingtonA. S. (1929). The Nature of the Physical World. New York: Macmillan Company.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  EI. (2025). 2025 Statistical Review of World Energy. Energy Institute. Available online at: https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  ElhachamE.Ben-UriL.GrozovskiJ.Bar-OnY. M.MiloR. (2020). Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass. Nature588, 442–444. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-3010-5,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  FefferJ.RegisterR. (2009). Cities can save the earth. Foreign policy in focus, Available online at: http://www.fpif.org/articles/cities_can_save_the_earth (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  FletcherC.RippleW. J.NewsomeT.BarnardP.BeamerK.BehlA.et al. (2024). Earth at risk: an urgent call to end the age of destruction and forge a just and sustainable future. PNAS Nexus3:pgae106. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  FolkeC.JanssonA.-M.LarssonJ.CostanzaR. (1997). Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio26, 167–172.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  FowlerC. W.HobbsL.RoddenM. (2024). Holism in dealing with global problems. Zygon J. Relig. Sci.59, 126–154. doi: 10.16995/zygon.10885

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  FressozJ.-B. (2025). More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy. New York, USA: Harper.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  FryT. (2012). Becoming Human by Design. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  GFN (2015) Mediterranean Initiative Available online at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/2015/10/26/med/ (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  GFN. (2026a). Data and Methodology. Available online at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/ (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  GFN. (2026b). Open Data Platform. Available online at: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.215548759.1727548197.1769561888-1947591378.1769561888#/ (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GFN. (2026c). Ecological footprint vs biocapacity—the real Deal. Global footprint Network Available online at: https://ecologyprime.com/sustainability-reality-ecological-footprint-vs-biocapacity/#:~:text=Earth's%20human%20population%20currently%20operates,and%20capacity%20in%20real%20time (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  HaberlH.WiedenhoferD.VirágD.KaltG.PlankB.BrockwayP.et al. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environ. Res. Lett.15:065003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  HansenJ. E.SatoM.SimonsL.NazarenkoL. S.SanghaI.KharechaP.et al. (2023). Global warming in the pipeline. Oxf. Open Clim. Change3:kgad008. doi: 10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HeinbergR. (2025) MuseLetter #389: Bioregioning Is Our Future Available online at: https://richardheinberg.com/museletter-389-bioregioning-is-our-future (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HerringtonG. (2021). Update to limits to growth: comparing the world3 model with empirical data. J. Ind. Ecol.25, 614–626. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  KallisG. (2018). Degrowth. Newcastle, UK: Agenda Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  KarisD. (2025) Civilization will collapse (high confidence): a compendium of relevant biophysical, political, economic, military, health, and psychological information on climate change (ongoing, non-reviewed) Available online at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xHvUneUT-1xx1W72yZTXpqrtNfIqUKB5oooOvwcw1OM/edit?tab=t.0 (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  KingN. (2026). Normalcy Bias—a latent Hazard. Resilience. Available online at: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2026-01-12/normalcy-bias-a-latent-hazard/?mc_cid=ffffe02e16&mc_eid=ed58ee9514

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  KleinD. R. (1968). The introduction, increase, and crash of reindeer on St. Matthew island. J. Wildl. Manag.32, 350–367. doi: 10.2307/3798981

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  KulikV.LechM.MöncksT.CapucciL.NaudeN. (2025). The Mineral Shortage Is a Growing Problem: Hubs Offer a Solution. Boston, USA: Boston Consulting Group.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  LemieuxP. (2023). Which is better, a larger or smaller population? Regulation (spring 2023). Available online at: https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-2023/which-better-larger-or-smaller-population (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  LentonT. M.XuC.AbramsJ. F.GhadialiA.LorianiS.SakschewskiB.et al. (2023). Quantifying the human cost of global warming. Nat. Sustain.2023, 1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41893-023-01132-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  MeadowsD. H.MeadowsD. L.RandersJ.BehrensW. W.III (1972). Limits to Growth. New York, NY: Signet Books (now Penguin Random House).

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  MurphyT. W.MurphyD. J.LoveT. F.LeHewM. L. A.McCallB. J. (2021). Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: developing a PLAN for the future. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.81:102239. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102239

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  NebelA.KlingA.WillamowskiR.SchellT. (2023). Recalibration of limits to growth: an update of the World3 model. J. Ind. Ecol.28, 87–99. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13442

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  NihartA. J.GarciaM. A.El HayekE.LiuR.OlewineM.KingstonJ. D.et al. (2025). Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains. Nat. Med.31:39901044, 1114–1119. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-03453-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  NOAA. (2026). Trends in global carbon dioxide (CO2). Global monitoring laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA). Available online at: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  OdumE. P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  OECD (2019). Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060: Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  OECD (2025) Material resources Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/material-resources.html#:~:text=Despite%20a%20projected%20relative%20decoupling,largest%20material%20group%20across%20regions (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  OWD. (2024). Global GDP over the long run. Available online at: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-run (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  PIK. (2025). Planetary health check 2025 (exec summary) Available online at: https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/wp-content/uploads/PlanetaryHealthCheck2025_ExecutiveSummary.pdf (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  PontingC. (2007). A New Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations. New York, USA: Penguin Books.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  PrigogineI. (1997). The end of Certainty: time, chaos and the new laws of Nature. New York: The Free Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  ReadR. (2026). A suppressed warning finally appears: ecosystem collapse as a national security threat. East Anglia Bylines Available online at: https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/opinion/a-suppressed-warning-finally-appears-ecosystem-collapse-as-a-national-security-threat/ (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  ReesW. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ. Urban.4, 120–130.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  ReesW. E. (2020). The fractal biology of plague and the future of civilization. J. Popul. Sustain.5, 15–30. doi: 10.3197/jps.2020.5.1.15

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ReesW. E. (2023). The human ecology of overshoot: why a major ‘population correction’ is inevitable. WORLD4, 509–527. doi: 10.3390/world4030032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  ReesW. E.SzocikK. (2026). Overshoot and procreative ethics: at an ecological crossroads. Sustain. Sci. doi: 10.1007/s11625-026-01810-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  ReesW. E.WackernagelM. (2023). Ecological footprint accounting: thirty years and still gathering steam. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev.65, 5–18. doi: 10.1080/00139157.2023.2225405

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  RitchieH.RosadoP. (2024). Energy mix. Our World in Data. Available online at: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  SchernikauL. (2024). Are wind and solar up for the challenge? The Unpopular Truth (blog). Available online at: https://unpopular-truth.com/2024/11/09/are-wind-and-solar-up-for-the-challenge/ (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  SchneiderE. D.KayJ. J. (1994). Complexity and thermodynamics: toward a new ecology. Futures26, 626–647.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  SchneiderE.D.KayJ.J. (1995). Order from disorder: the thermodynamics of complexity in biology. In: MurphyM.P.O’NeillL.A.J. (eds) What is life: the next Fifty Years. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  ShiX.MatsuiT.MachimuraT.GanX.HuA. (2020). Toward sustainable development: decoupling the high ecological footprint from human society development: a case study of Hong Kong. Sustainability12:4177. doi: 10.3390/su12104177

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  SimonJ. (1981). The Ultimate Resource. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  TurnerG. (2014). Is global collapse imminent? (an updated comparison of limits to growth’ with historical data), MSSI research paper no. 4. Melbourne sustainable society institute, the University of Melbourne. Available online at: http://pinguet.free.fr/turner814.pdf (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  UK. (2026). Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security— a national security assessment. HM Government (UK). Available online at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/696e0eae719d837d69afc7de/National_security_assessment_-_global_biodiversity_loss__ecosystem_collapse_and_national_security.pdf (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  UN (2024). Circular Economy in Cities. United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations. New York, USA.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  UN (2025). World urbanization prospects 2025: summary of results. UN DESA/Pop/2025/TR/ NO. 12. United Nations, New York, USA. Available online at: https://desapublications.un.org/publications/world-urbanization-prospects-2025-summary-results (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  VigierM.Ouellet-PlamondonC. M.SpiliotopoulouM.MooreJ.ReesW. E. (2023). To what extent is sustainability addressed at urban scale and how aligned is it with earth's productive capacity?Sustain. Cities Soc.96:104655. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104655

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  WackernagelM.ReesW. E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Warren-RhodesK.KoenigA. (2001). Ecosystem appropriation by Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development. Ecol. Econ.39, 347–359. doi: 10.1016/s0921-8009(01)00194-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  WattsP. (2024). The Collapse Is Coming. Will Humanity Adapt?Cambridge, MS: MIT Press Reader. MTI Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  WebbC. (2025). The Arrogant Ape: The Myth of Human Exceptionalism and Why It Matters. New York, USA: Penguin Random House.

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  WexlerB. E. (2006). Brain and Culture. Cambridge, MS: MIT Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  WexlerB. E. (2011). “Neuroplasticity: biological evolution’s contribution to cultural evolution, chap one,” in Culture and Neural Frames of Cognition and Communication, eds. HanS.PöppelE. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Wiki. (2025). Estimates of Total World Population. Available online at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population#:~:text=Some%20estimates%20extend%20their%20timeline,to%20an%20order%20of%20magnitude) (Accessed May 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  WilkinsonB. H. (2005). Humans as geologic agents: a deep-time perspective. Geology33, 161–164. doi: 10.1130/G21108.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  ZhengJ.MeisterM. (2025). The unbearable slowness of being: why do we live at 10 bits/s?Neuron. 113, 192–204. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2024.11.008,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  ZimmermannE. (1951). World Resources and Industries. New York: Harper & Brothers.

  • Google Scholar