Great talk, with a caveat. One of Jackson's solutions - 'vote' - shows that he doesn't understand national politics very well, but otherwise this talk is vital to understanding and addressing the global climate crisis. For those of you somewhat new to all this, getting your local community to switch to 100% clean energy and mass transit, and eat a lot less fish, is dramatically more important than voting, and much more likely to get immediate results. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation
Humanity and the environment as you know it is doomed. What needs is to be done to correct this is too inconvenient for selfish humans to do anything about it.
Its not selfinsh humans like we are bad or good by nature. We are shaped by our environment and need to switch to a system that doesn't consider nature depletion as an externality.
This should be mandatory listening for all Americans. What can we do? The fastest way to decrease our use of resources that pour CO2 into the oceans and atmosphere is to stop using our cars every time we need to go places. Since becoming unable to drive or even bicycle, I I have found it easy to everywhere I need to go by walking or by taking public transit. Yes, it takes longer, but, at least on public transit, you can get things done. But because people get in their cars rather than use public transit, the cost for transit keeps going up while service keeps getting reduced. What I really think needs to happen is gas rationing, because we've become too selfish to monitor our own use of resources. Another commitment people can make is to stop eating meat and fish and chicken, or at least radically reduce their consumption. Horrors, for some people. But vegetarianism is a LOT less fuel-intensive and water-intensive than meat-eating. For CO2 alone, the livestock industry is responsible for from 18 to up to 50% (!) of CO2 emissions. This includes from the livestock itself, as well as from processing and transportation. People may think they we can't make these changes and even if we could, it would ruin our economy, but the alternative is the end of life. Dr. Jackson laid that out clearly and succinctly, and it is already happening in many places across the globe, most notably in the ocean for those who care to see.
Ha I love France too! I just think for someone concerned about climate change and pollution maybe transatlantic flights every year are a bit inconsistent. Of course I realize we are all hypocrites but still that seems a bit excessively entitled, sort of like someone who campaigns against overpopulation and has 6 kids.
We have been denying reality for decades. We are animals, evolution is true & there are limits to how large a population of humans can be sustained without the temporary boost from fossil fuels. After all the damage we have done to this planet, after oil we will be lucky if 1 billion can be sustained. The way down could have happened gently if we had stopped population growth by 1920 but now we have 7+ billion humans who's life blood, oil is in decline. I hope the decline of oil/natural gas will speed up quickly to reduce further damage to our ecosystem. "Fracking" will be a short lived "bubble" as it bursts, the price of oil will have to go up as what's left is more expensive to extract. Now the way down will be brutal, the survivors will be back to a preindustrial way of life only this time without any hope for "progress".
So basically overpopulation of humans is the problem. Right? Does he say this anywhere in this lecture? I got to see only the first half of it. I'm stunned at how many lectures and documentaries I see about stuff like this that all point to human overpopulation being the problem but never specifically SAY the we need to reduce the number of humans. This getting very frustrating. If the truth is that there needs to be fewer of us then, god's sake, just say so - and then let's take it from there.
jesus, only a few minutes in (12:20) how is there any fish left? i know alot of the fish i see in supermarkets say they are farmed; i guess thats the answer
Very few of them are actually, Sea bass, salmon, trout, a few others, some shrimp. Most commercially important food fish are not farmed, several reasons, not profitable due to specific environmental requirements for example, in some cases we do not KNOW the requirements for the eggs to develop, a good example of that being the Atlantic Cod. We know it requires very specific temperature and water flows, but we do not know, as yet, what they are. Others may require specific nutritional intake, or specific terrain, some fish exclusively spawn in Mangrove Swamps for example. As for how are there still fish in the sea? The populations *are* very large, but, despite their size they are finite, and some populations are far more fragile than others. Commercial fishermen are starting to have to fish deeper, and for species they never used to fish for, many of those deep sea fish have long life spans and long generation times, thus are *extremely* vulnerable to overfishing. The Orange Roughie for example is a fairly new example, the average age of a fish that reaches the supermarkets is 50, they do not become sexually mature until 25, and they live to maybe 150. Unfortunately we have a very poor track record of protecting fisheries before they collapse, and often catestrophically. The Grand Bank Cod Fishery in Canada is not likely to recover in the next few centuries, assuming it recovers at all. It certainly has shown absolutely no sign of recovery thus far. And thats just the fish, I worked on assessing the damage of Bottom Trawling to the seabed ecosystems, 20 years I worked on that, and 20 years I have been ignored. The damage bottom trawling causes is catastrophic, not only are you taking the fish, you are destroying the habitat many of these fish require to feed..... Word of advice, do not go into Marine Biology, probably the most frustrating field of science to enter as conditions currently stand.
@@alganhar1 thanks for that answer. I have heard before about studying marine biology being a stressful subject. Also, time and time again experts are ignored; I've seen it in all fields. Even people who propose a far more efficient society (called 'the venus project') which looks at restoring the natural world and giving huge areas of the world back to nature.
@@brightpathvideo I've been punching myself in the face. How are you doing on your front? Regardless, don't give up. We got this. War has been declared. Our faces don't stand a chance against our fists.
Jeremy Baby, you might consider grasping the monumental power of compound interest & the continually expanding economy? How many people at the Naval WAR college understand compound interest? Science must consider all relevant variables; no es verdad, professor?
Living organisms, and non renewable natural resources do NOT act in the same way as money, I hate to break this to you. They are finite, and once they are gone, they are gone. Something perhaps the Economists might like to consider, is that perhaps they too might like to consider all the variables. Compound interest will not fix the situation when the last drops of oil become economically unviable to extract, and we are suddenly looking around for a new energy source. Compound interest will not fix the situation when the fish stocks that constitute the primary food source for over a billion people crash. Compound interest will not help when the oceans are so poisonous that we can not replace failing terrestrial farms with aquaculture or fish farming. I would generally not have replied, given the length of time since your post, but given its utter facetiousness, banality, and the obvious attempt to appear clever I could not help but do so.
And I also bring it up because he was not *talking* about money, he was not even talking about oil, or iron, or coal. He was talking about *living* resources, in other words, those economically important species living in the oceans. It is *them* he is referring to when quoting that 150% use of resources figure. I am a Marine Ecologist, specialising in North Western Europe (as I am a Brit), and am *very* familiar with the fisheries estimates both of catch landed, and of the estimated populations of those fish... and I can tell you this, Dr Jackson is *not* overestimating the problem. You cannot keep hammering a food resource that is a wild living resource that way and expect it to continue to, as he says, lay the golden egg. NOTE: Fish landed does not equate to fish caught, bycatch is discarded, and most of a a modern trawlers catch these days is bycatch, species that are not important, individuals that are too small etc. So the likely figures are probably higher....
Here is a policy, funding, and STEM recommendations: The Use of Direct Ocean Capture and Conversion of Carbon Technologies in Support of the United Nations’ List of Sustainable Development Goals. docs.google.com/document/d/1DtVIcsszxFbfeIep2FrBUnnJEyaNcKrDZBoMKK9keBM/edit?usp=drivesdk
![Yeat & Summrs - GO2WORK [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NEFEwfPcXRA/mqdefault.jpg)
Extremely well presented, detailed and depressing. Thank you for putting this online.
Great talk, with a caveat. One of Jackson's solutions - 'vote' - shows that he doesn't understand national politics very well, but otherwise this talk is vital to understanding and addressing the global climate crisis.
For those of you somewhat new to all this, getting your local community to switch to 100% clean energy and mass transit, and eat a lot less fish, is dramatically more important than voting, and much more likely to get immediate results.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation
The Navy sure doesn't seem to helping slow the "Ocean Apocalypse..." In fact the opposite seems to be quite true.
Humanity and the environment as you know it is doomed. What needs is to be done to correct this is too inconvenient for selfish humans to do anything about it.
Its not selfinsh humans like we are bad or good by nature. We are shaped by our environment and need to switch to a system that doesn't consider nature depletion as an externality.
2028END d o t com. Don't miss it!!!
7 years left
@@hitentopia5611 yup, 7.5 !!!
This should be mandatory listening for all Americans. What can we do? The fastest way to decrease our use of resources that pour CO2 into the oceans and atmosphere is to stop using our cars every time we need to go places. Since becoming unable to drive or even bicycle, I I have found it easy to everywhere I need to go by walking or by taking public transit. Yes, it takes longer, but, at least on public transit, you can get things done. But because people get in their cars rather than use public transit, the cost for transit keeps going up while service keeps getting reduced. What I really think needs to happen is gas rationing, because we've become too selfish to monitor our own use of resources. Another commitment people can make is to stop eating meat and fish and chicken, or at least radically reduce their consumption. Horrors, for some people. But vegetarianism is a LOT less fuel-intensive and water-intensive than meat-eating. For CO2 alone, the livestock industry is responsible for from 18 to up to 50% (!) of CO2 emissions. This includes from the livestock itself, as well as from processing and transportation. People may think they we can't make these changes and even if we could, it would ruin our economy, but the alternative is the end of life. Dr. Jackson laid that out clearly and succinctly, and it is already happening in many places across the globe, most notably in the ocean for those who care to see.
Ha I love France too! I just think for someone concerned about climate change and pollution maybe transatlantic flights every year are a bit inconsistent. Of course I realize we are all hypocrites but still that seems a bit excessively entitled, sort of like someone who campaigns against overpopulation and has 6 kids.
"My wife and I bought a hybrid, but the answer is the bus."
Why isn't the answer mixed use communities that don't require long, automated travel?
hey! that's too much sanity
Sharing this.
Telling it like it is.
Guy's really good in describing the problem. Bangladesh population, however, is about 157 million not 350 m.
+Dave Warren I don't know but he may be including West Bengal in India which of course shares the Ganges delta.
We have been denying reality for decades. We are animals, evolution is true & there are limits to how large a population of humans can be sustained without the temporary boost from fossil fuels.
After all the damage we have done to this planet, after oil we will be lucky if 1 billion can be sustained.
The way down could have happened gently if we had stopped population growth by 1920 but now we have 7+ billion humans who's life blood, oil is in decline.
I hope the decline of oil/natural gas will speed up quickly to reduce further damage to our ecosystem.
"Fracking" will be a short lived "bubble" as it bursts, the price of oil will have to go up as what's left is more expensive to extract.
Now the way down will be brutal, the survivors will be back to a preindustrial way of life only this time without any hope for "progress".
Neodarwinism to the rescue!
I want the Scalia as well.
Only 1390 people have seen this. Ignorance is bliss...
So basically overpopulation of humans is the problem. Right? Does he say this anywhere in this lecture? I got to see only the first half of it. I'm stunned at how many lectures and documentaries I see about stuff like this that all point to human overpopulation being the problem but never specifically SAY the we need to reduce the number of humans. This getting very frustrating. If the truth is that there needs to be fewer of us then, god's sake, just say so - and then let's take it from there.
yes he says "because there is more of us (humans)" in a few places
There are several ongoing projects which generates fuel from atmospheric CO2. They are trying to expand them to industrial size.
jesus, only a few minutes in (12:20) how is there any fish left? i know alot of the fish i see in supermarkets say they are farmed; i guess thats the answer
Very few of them are actually, Sea bass, salmon, trout, a few others, some shrimp. Most commercially important food fish are not farmed, several reasons, not profitable due to specific environmental requirements for example, in some cases we do not KNOW the requirements for the eggs to develop, a good example of that being the Atlantic Cod. We know it requires very specific temperature and water flows, but we do not know, as yet, what they are. Others may require specific nutritional intake, or specific terrain, some fish exclusively spawn in Mangrove Swamps for example.
As for how are there still fish in the sea? The populations *are* very large, but, despite their size they are finite, and some populations are far more fragile than others. Commercial fishermen are starting to have to fish deeper, and for species they never used to fish for, many of those deep sea fish have long life spans and long generation times, thus are *extremely* vulnerable to overfishing. The Orange Roughie for example is a fairly new example, the average age of a fish that reaches the supermarkets is 50, they do not become sexually mature until 25, and they live to maybe 150.
Unfortunately we have a very poor track record of protecting fisheries before they collapse, and often catestrophically. The Grand Bank Cod Fishery in Canada is not likely to recover in the next few centuries, assuming it recovers at all. It certainly has shown absolutely no sign of recovery thus far. And thats just the fish, I worked on assessing the damage of Bottom Trawling to the seabed ecosystems, 20 years I worked on that, and 20 years I have been ignored. The damage bottom trawling causes is catastrophic, not only are you taking the fish, you are destroying the habitat many of these fish require to feed..... Word of advice, do not go into Marine Biology, probably the most frustrating field of science to enter as conditions currently stand.
@@alganhar1 thanks for that answer. I have heard before about studying marine biology being a stressful subject.
Also, time and time again experts are ignored; I've seen it in all fields. Even people who propose a far more efficient society (called 'the venus project') which looks at restoring the natural world and giving huge areas of the world back to nature.
I'm not a college graduate but, it's apparent to me that the solution is simple. We need to find out who's to blame and go to war with those people.
Then we should fight ourselves because we're the worse.
@@brightpathvideo I've been punching myself in the face. How are you doing on your front? Regardless, don't give up. We got this. War has been declared. Our faces don't stand a chance against our fists.
90 million 1000 lbs green turtles in the Caribbean when Columbus arrived. Now less than 300 thousand. UGH....
Jeremy Baby, you might consider grasping the monumental power of compound interest & the continually expanding economy?
How many people at the Naval WAR college understand compound interest?
Science must consider all relevant variables; no es verdad, professor?
Living organisms, and non renewable natural resources do NOT act in the same way as money, I hate to break this to you. They are finite, and once they are gone, they are gone.
Something perhaps the Economists might like to consider, is that perhaps they too might like to consider all the variables. Compound interest will not fix the situation when the last drops of oil become economically unviable to extract, and we are suddenly looking around for a new energy source. Compound interest will not fix the situation when the fish stocks that constitute the primary food source for over a billion people crash. Compound interest will not help when the oceans are so poisonous that we can not replace failing terrestrial farms with aquaculture or fish farming.
I would generally not have replied, given the length of time since your post, but given its utter facetiousness, banality, and the obvious attempt to appear clever I could not help but do so.
And I also bring it up because he was not *talking* about money, he was not even talking about oil, or iron, or coal. He was talking about *living* resources, in other words, those economically important species living in the oceans. It is *them* he is referring to when quoting that 150% use of resources figure.
I am a Marine Ecologist, specialising in North Western Europe (as I am a Brit), and am *very* familiar with the fisheries estimates both of catch landed, and of the estimated populations of those fish... and I can tell you this, Dr Jackson is *not* overestimating the problem.
You cannot keep hammering a food resource that is a wild living resource that way and expect it to continue to, as he says, lay the golden egg.
NOTE: Fish landed does not equate to fish caught, bycatch is discarded, and most of a a modern trawlers catch these days is bycatch, species that are not important, individuals that are too small etc. So the likely figures are probably higher....
Here is a policy, funding, and STEM recommendations:
The Use of Direct Ocean Capture and Conversion of Carbon Technologies in Support of the United Nations’ List of Sustainable Development Goals.
docs.google.com/document/d/1DtVIcsszxFbfeIep2FrBUnnJEyaNcKrDZBoMKK9keBM/edit?usp=drivesdk
FukuSHHHHHima! We're ALL screwed! 😰😵😱😡😠