This article is ... very ... bad. The whole article is just so bad because it is all based on a static vision of technology (without consideration of humanity) that it absolutely limited in so many ways. It sees only fossil fuels as the energy source for human ecology. That's conceptually obsolete. It sees no potential for strategic and philosophical development or change in humans themselves. It is just about technology and only even sees technology as a problem, not the many real solutions it has provided and the ones it can provide. It does make a point... sort of, but doesn't examine it. If you solve one of humanity's problems, what problems are left? Perhaps better and what the author might want to explore would be the questions of: if you solved all of humanity's known technological problems, what would be left? It would be the humans themselves. Missing that point means that many of the problems of civilization can never be solved because the root problems and solutions will never be recognized. Only technological solutions will be examined. (How Steam Punk.) I know about that problem and I also looked at it in terms of ecology. I didn't ask about technology though. I asked how can humans genetically and strategically adapt to the new ecology that has been developing since we left our last relatively stable ecology (hunter-gatherer) for the farms and cities of civilization? The technology that you talk about so much is just a tool and a very useful one, but human survival will be based on our own genetic and strategic adaptation as we create a new ecology that does not naturally exist in nature. Our survival will be based on our adaptation even more than the machines we make. I've systematically worked on this problem for decades and I see solutions. (I also see a genetic problem that no one seems to notice but that will open doors in the future.) You claim some vision of the future of civilization's inevitable failure. That might be but I see how to create an ecology that could appropriately be called "civilization" where humans can survive and develop long term. I've published "Genetics For A New Human Ecology" to describe the solution to the genetic adaptation part which can also be found (an earlier version) on YouTube. I need to rewrite "Transition", but it also systematically lays out a strategic path to a new ecology. It is written with the understanding of its own limitations that will be filled in as we learn more. Your history of humanity is complete. Humanity is not.

You claim some vision of the future, but may I say you really seems to want to lay out an incredibly limited vision. I can see so much further.