William Rees is a national treasure. It is difficult for me at age 76 to understand why so few people get what he is talking about. Regarding education, we should start with the farm and the natural systems. Thanks for shedding light on reality.
why almost nobody seems to understand overshoot? because of the way the human brain works, people cannot stand the idea of death esp. when it refers to them, accepting the facts like overshoot means accepting billions of people suffering and dying in a short period of time.
@@thunderstorm6630 Also got to do with the well-known "problem of the human mind to understand the exponential function" as Albert Bartlett said. We're used to having a steady economic growth of a few percent, not realizing that the size doubles every so many years (70 divided by the growth rate gives you the doubling time) Nor do folks realize the Jevons paradox- even if society uses resources more economically (less resource per unit produced) it ends up using more, as prices for the product _and_ resource go down. All renewable energy we've added to the mix only resulted in using _more_ energy on the whole.
@@thunderstorm6630 even if the end of these two interviewers that are on about finding time in the schedule and money issues and other meaningless-ness in the face of disaster
I believe the key to our failure to address environmental degradation and collapse is our lack of respect for the non human life forms who share the planet with us, as Mr. Rees points out with his human-exceptionalism comment.
Yes they are very good too, but I believe because they are younger and only human, they need more hopeium to personally psychologically cope in this situation. They are still in the bargaining stage. 99% understanding and acceptance of real situations is very rare in human beings.
@@johngray1439 yes, and Hagens is more grounded than Planet Critical, which is still a good venue. Hagens last guest, the German scientist suffered from some hardcore hopeium. Which they need to sell us rationally, we want to not die, tell us how, not just “we must transition” but man, the faith in green transition is so ironclad. That Mark Jacobson Stanford delusional entity.
@@chadreillyMostly, yes, well put, but Hagens swings both ways depending on the interlocutor. And yeah, Bill is as good as they get. Even Chomsky sadly succumbed to green transition. But with him, I think he knew it wouldn’t work, but that that trying something in an ironclad capitalist paradigm was better than absolutely nothing.
I recently read Dirt which talks about how past civilizations engaged in highly localized forms of overshoot that ultimately triggered their downfall. Seems like our current global society is an amplified version of what’s discussed in Dirt.
The take away message is how Capitalism has been established as the new religion. Primitive societies developed religion based in environment and built controls into religious messaging. With adoption of Capitalism as our new religion, we've lost those controls but added no new ones and to add to that we bow down and praise the wealthy within this system as exceptional examples to emulate. Most of these people have profited by offsetting long term costs to future generations.
It's not a religion, nor is it the new religion. That's just a frivolous thing to say. But it is ruthlessly enforced as the socioeconomic paradigm everybody lives in, and it's work or starve. Enforced with violence, as in, if you ever steal anything.... so you better get a job. And while you're at it make it a good job so you got more cash to spend. Prettier wife, better life. So go to college and learn a trade. And now women can do so themselves, and they can cut out the middleman. And you might as well internalize the mindless conventional wisdom drivel that intellectually and psychologically facilitates it, as it will make your life easier and more bearable. And failing to do so sufficiently can definitely come with a cost, both at work and at home, as you will become out of step with the zeitgeist. And so everybody just does, women especially so. So it's definitely not a new religion at all. It's an overarching, all-encompassing semi-compulsory way of life, with social, financial, and outright coercive forces ready to punish you quite severely and largely without compunction if you ever start to slip. Notwithstanding all the do-gooders who like to pretend they make a difference. And the only thing that makes this society possible, as Bill Rees alludes to, is the hyper-profligate and improvident and unsustainable ravaging of the earth, which won't be able to provide for us much longer at this rate, with no signs whatsoever of slowing up, on account of all the relentless socioeconomic forces aforementioned. That and etiquette and 'civility', and pretty strictly respecting all the various ideological and intellectual taboos, and little dos and don'ts of daily behavior. A sagacious self censorship being the #1 survival skill in modern life. Those who make it their business to achieve a certain mastery of and fluency with respect to the reigning conventional wisdom become thought leaders. Or, you might say, the high priests of our modern free market cap society. Which is I suppose where the 'religion' metaphor might come in. But it's far vaster than that. If anything, actual organized religion very much plays its considerable role within this enormous monolith of modern industrial society. Which I would say is principally to numb the mind, and inculcate a deep habit of and respect for intellectual dishonesty. 2+2=5 and all that, which is essentially what religious dogma comes down to. And they throw in a few moralistic rules of thumb to follow if you're lucky. Don't steal anybody's stuff! And religious influence and instructions can soften the way and ready the mind for all the equally spurious secular dogma, shall we say, one will be inundated with throughout their little journey through life in the modern west. And which actually comes with serious consequences for being on the wrong side of. Not so much religion, godd is dead, as everyone knows if you're educated. But the repo man is alive and well, so keep a stiff upper lip and get back to the salt mines, we got more earth to plunder.....
william rees, a great enjoyment to listen to his clear mind expressing. tragic, that we dont have a chance against human kind. we are like the huge mice population in my field this year, which will be suddenly gone iby next spring, thanks be to God. just the mice mightnt enjoy that.
First came across Dr Rees about 5 years ago and his thesis impacted me immediately. His arguments ought to be taken more seriously by our policymakers but they are arguments that do not suit the politics of the day. Instead our system is managed according to the nostrums of neoliberal economists such as Nordhaus, whom Rees mentions here. Nordhaus and his ilk have been thoroughly debunked by ecological economists, but unfortunately they are awarded prizes and continue to have the ear of our political class.
I’ve been ‘struck’,or maybe ‘stuck’,with a term that popped into my head back in the late ‘70s when I could see how the environmental issues were ‘handled’ by gov’t(and unwitting society). In my world at the time it was the rivers in the SW U.S.,which ones ‘deserved’ protection,same as with forests,deserts,wilderness areas,etc..My term was/is ‘cumulative’,the accumulation of usage of resource and the ‘financing’ behind it. Its a capitalistic symptom. Not holistic,which is the problem . Anyway,there are many academics and systems analysts smarter than I,like Dr. Rees,who continue to sound the alarms as to why people just don’t get it,nonetheless the corporations who run society for the ‘capital’ without having their feet in the ground,aware of a finite planet. Cumulative,we’ve reached overshoot ..
You have asked for comments, and this may be more than you were looking for. I am going to quote a comment I made trying to get Nate Hagens' and/or Simon Michaux's attention. I managed to contact both of them. I'm sorry to see that your interview doesn't have more views! I am about the same age as William Rees, and have been doing my best to get ANYBODY's attention for more than 50 years. I'll put my quote as a reply to this comment.
Guys, it's always great to see interest in and awareness of these essential topics of interest, but, with respect, you could prepare a little more for an interview like this. It isn't helpful to pile questions on top of one another. Humming and hawing without clear direction when he finishes speaking and waffling about tenuously connected topics are distracting and break the flow of the conversation. I hope you will accept the criticism in the spirit it is offered, which is to say, constructively. Best of luck for the future, regardless of how ominous it looks.
I was questioning this system and practice when I was 10 , asking so called experts can we sustain this ? Believing in scholars and so called adults / guardians , we were laughed at and scorned !
I would like to hear William's thoughts on the overpopulation of domesticated animals please. It's astounding to hear that for every 1 human baby born, more than 570 other babies are born onto farms to use resources, excrete waste, be prematurely killed and replaced with even more. 😱
It's very clear from the research on the impacts of diets that meat consumption--especially beef, mutton, and seafood--must drop sharply to save ecosystems.
Just so we're clear -- we are aiming to have open-ended and longform conversations with our guests (in an attempt to move beyond the sleek and polished media sound-bites which are prevalent on the internet and throughout journalism). This generally involves being less scripted in order to be responsive to our guests and the present moment (as such, you can reasonably expect some awkward speech patterns and imperfect communication). Additionally, we are doing this for ourselves and our community and we don't get paid for this work. So, our apologies that our gear/production isn't up to your standards, but, with all due respect, we aren't doing this for you and there are many media platforms out there where you could find what you're looking for.
The inept questioning of these two youngsters is counterpointed by the very astute answers and explanations provided by a wise "elder". It is truly metaphorical.
The roots of disconnection from reality may be tied to monotheism (God as exclusively important) which leads us to dominion over earth and the Doctrine of Discovery indigenous wipe-out.
Cary, if you insist upon inserting the phrase "you know" into nearly every one of your sentences, after a while, communication with the listener is thwarted and all we hear is a repetitive droning youknowyouknowyouknow. You need to fix that so that you can communicate effectively.
This is a style of speech . Do you have more constructive feedback? Yes, perhaps he can adjust this. I thank these two for having a conversation. I mean, who else is supporting this important work?
@@xanynax it's not a style of speech, if you choose to pursue something that requires communication if you care enough to do it well and take pride in it, then you do so
Very wide ranging important themes here, and a lot to commend, but though I’m not a fan of urban centers I feel most humans will find life more enjoyable there, while allowing nature to rewild the majority of the land, such as using beavers to enhance watersheds and carbon sinks, taxing hugely on carbon intensive industries including livestock farming, embracing synthesis of the inefficient food industries with those such as precision fermentation of protein sources, using green hydrogen to replace oil based fertilizers, are all ways to switch to a global village of circular economies. Shifting completely to sustainable energy is fairly low hanging fruit in this mix, and because fossil fuels waste about 80% in energy production to heat, then solar PV and wind generation along with storage and a variety of baseload back ups can all be achieved with current technologies, and these will rapidly be enhanced with new technologies. It’s unlikely that people can suddenly be at peace with wilderness nature, so the majority would be better off in artificially created places that are safer for them and for the planet’s varied ecology.
One word: Thermodynamics. Living systems with their energy flows/cascades are the only batteries we need. Listen to BIG NATURE; it has all the answers. "But I am not willing to sacrifice MY wants and needs." (The new NIMBY.) We are a constantly expanding and conquering invasive species. It's easier to imagine human extinction than the end of The Great Game.
@@ronwalker4998 There can be no doubt about it. Nature will have its way. BIG NATURE is biological energy flows. Nimbys are just one invasive species that's clever enough to destroy its own habitat. BIG NATURE and BIG BIOM won't miss us at all. Enjoy the show while it lasts.
The question was allways if we would be able to reach equilibrium within the limits of the system.. What would be the highest standart we could have for loong time.. now, after 40 to 50 years ignoring limits du to made up myth of perpetual growth.. its to late i think.. so the only question is.. how can we get down from a living standart without killing each other ? without blaming each oather, and keeping our achevements as good as possible.. As nath haegens says.. there s no solution.. only answers.. but some of them are better as others..
@@kizzass3427 i am not sur i get your question right... i had to first ask gpt, what this means in german.. so.. there´s no magic nowhere anywhere, to be asured well have a soft landing.. is that what your questions asks abut, so if i say, there´s no solution, i mean, that i cant see any momentum in ecological movement to overcome the much much biger momentum of growthadicted behaviour, even if all evidence of sience points to the colision with the big ice mountain very near... i think the best we can do is making it a bit lesss ugly.. nothing more..
Didn’t Andrew Yang (US politician) talk, in the US 2020 election cycle, about how our economic measures are all wrong? Also, Nate Hagens “Frankly” series (youtube.com/@thegreatsimplification?si=0NvJgQHUlQ_aa9EQ) talks in similar ways about the real issues we need to confront and are largely ignoring.
51:25 here is where I diverge. I believe we need to redesign a low carbon way to preserve the benefits of civilization (science, mechanics, medicine, history, art, music), but design for real human beings, not for residents of some utopia. I also have a shoemaker in my town and he does half assed work because he knows hes the only one, and uses all the massive profits from his inflated prices to fuel his hobby: buying and driving collectible automobiles.
All is based on petroleum and a renewables switch is overwhelmed by growth. Cannot easily replace petroleum nor do it fast enough to make a difference, sadly.
Bad news, inger; you have a lot of reading and thinking ahead of you.. we blew past the sustainable population level well before the first billion enjoy your life 😢
Transition is probably the wrong word. It gives a false idea of simply changing the fossil fuels out and dropping in a replacement of batteries, and then continuing on as before. But there’s no way we can power a 19 Terra watt world without fossil fuels. And there’s no way we can feed 8 billion people without fossil fuels. Ain’t happening. We can have a great civilization built on renewables, but we can’t have this one. I think that’s what people need to understand.
Humans are steadily destroying Earth's ability to support life in multiple ways simultaneously, so we could solve the climate crisis tomorrow but we would still be heading toward ecological and societal collapse due to our high-meat diets, plastics, industrial and agricultural chemicals, addiction to economic growth, capitalism, etc. We actually can support a few billion people (500 mill would be better), but it would have to be a very simple agrarian economy using draft animals, much more manual labor, and making things out of natural materials.
Ok. While I fully agree on the problem. When I calculate my footprint, even when vegan with no car and electricity in a 5sqm hut made form Straw my overshoot is still in August. That can‘t be!
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ The calculators just don't work. They're designed to shame everyone into reducing consumption, but will probably have the opposite effect. Living standards/expectations are NOT the same in every part of the world. They are dependant on cultural and environmental factors which are not included in the simplistic algorithms.
I missed the part where you explained why solar won't work. I can at least see some value it building out solar to meet our energy needs. At least I can plausibly imagine that happening. We know it's theoretically possible to build enough solar cells to meet our energy needs and then some. There might be good reasons why this can't work (scarcity of materials for example) but I don't think you've mentioned them. However I can at least imagine progress being made on converting from fossil to wind, nuclear and solar. Some progress has already been made. Your solution seems to be "teach people not to want things, or buy things, or sell things... convince people to stop living in cities and grow their own food" and I don't see that happening. It's just not realistic. I have zero faith that you will ever put a plan in place to accomplish that goal. Your solution entails shrinking the population. A good idea perhaps, but it's bound to happen one way or another. We need technologies that will help us soften the landing and make that reduction of the human population less horrific than it might otherwise become. This may be just kicking the can down the road, but it could at least buy us time to think of a better and more permanent solution. I think it's a better bet than the massive re-education project you seem to advocate.
Man - you can't criticize your culture to the core - and expect to be reelected. Today we should talk about _'how to close the door behind us properly'_ or go on with complaining about our 'Inadequacies of the past' **WE are not able to change profoundly within 20 years* Anyone might have another opinion here. *We: the West in first place.
@@dalewolver8739 The rotten brothel of chri$tian$ on coke - you mean? :) (excuse the exaggeration) Looking backwards 'civilization' is a bit euphemistic...
The planet is funded to act and forgot how to be a social labour, not a sedentary luxury.😢 How about a carbon petro dollar weight, because the measure is always of convenience, not truth. Paid to pollute, who isn’t?
The talk at 1:02:00 makes me want to scream 'Carbon Fee and Dividend" as loud as I can. What is it? this will tell you -> ruclips.net/video/AcPgHDGc8_0/видео.html
Yes, indeed! Just watched your video. We are on the same page and exploring such policies in regards to mineral and energy resources. We believe those rents (at the very least) should be captured and redistributed. Here is another example of Carbon Fee and Dividend with Rahul Basu highlighting intergenerational equity ruclips.net/video/4AydS9eB9PY/видео.htmlsi=6mx0bEohnn1KLO5h Thanks for sharing : )
I get the thesis of “the problem” but I don’t follow how pursuing a transition to cleaner sources of energy is bad. I get how it further masks the underlying overshoot issue, but all of this leaves me wondering, well, what should we do? Just give up? Become luddites?
Large industrialized civilizations are inherently self-terminating systems because maintaining them destroys the conditions needed for life (stable climate, abundant resources, healthy ecosystems, clean water). Scientifically, the only thing that is sustainable are much smaller, less industrialized, and more localized agrarian economies with much more manual labor and a return to using natural materials. Julia is great, but she is just looking at energy, meaning she doesn't look at material throughput and the unsustainable harms caused by mining, man-made chemicals, plastics, etc. We have to look at the entirety of humanity's ecological impacts or we are just wasting our time. Even if we solved the climate crisis tomorrow, we would still be heading toward collapse until we change our diets, shrink the global economy over 50% and de-industrialize it, etc.
Capitalism doesn't require growth. Rising standards of living and quality of life require growth. Lifting people out of poverty requires growth. Creating societies that are safe from threats from climate requires growth. Capitalism facilitates this growth through wealth creation and I can assure you capitalism is always the solution. In a cat 5 hurricane would you prefer a solid house designed to withstand the storm or a mud hut?
Earth is already passing into a range of temperatures not suitable for human life and civilization. Sure, Earth regulates its energy system, and, because of humans massive addition of energy onto the system, Earth is on its way to settling into a state without humans
In the first minute & 36 seconds you have done what you are accusing "the solvers" of doing by obfuscating focus AWAY from actually SOLVING the issue of energy pollution. You talk about why it CAN`T work, but it CAN only not by denial, giving up, hands in the air, not by the status quo & not the way it is being currently addressed. Endless ribbons of highways covered in speeding autos, driving for every needless purpose or Amazon delivery, Every school district busing every child every day with schools, stores & jobs far away from ones residence, commercial farming, no yard or home or neighborhood garden, housing/construction/heating & cooling technology, limitless airplanes flying every fool around the globe, boatloads of junk shipped across the seas, melting down every piece of metal in foundries instead of repair & repurpose & the way things are built to be disposable in the first place wasting energy at every turn. There ARE ways, but some people would rather go to war with guns & argue it`s their god given right to destroy humanity & the universe for their selfish comforts. Realize gasoline & fossil fuels have only been in use for about 150 years & indoor plumbing & electricity about the same. Stupid, stupid people including this professor...he`s professing to be a DOLT! I really don`t believe he`s worth listening to for over an hour.
This guy is exactly right EV & ‘renewables’ are another extractive linear economic growth Industrial revolution, so only do more harm than good. Meanwhile we chuck out and crush millions of electric motors in discarded appliances every year that should be used to make Micro DIY Wind/Hydro Generators. That would creat decentralised cyclic economies, it is utter madness to extract more ‘resources’ to build new ‘Wind etc power while chucking all these electric motors away!. But he is wrong re ‘’overshoot’’ we did that decades ago, the last time the Earth had the current 427ppm the Seas were approx 78 feet higher so we are only at the beginning of what 427ppm will do. Also there is an approx time lag of 20 years between increased atmospheric CO2 and it’s impacts on the climate so the apocalyptic climate events we are now witnessing are from atmosphere CO2 levels of approx 20 years ago. Another thing is focusing on Fossil Fuels/‘renewables’ is a massive distraction from the actual cause of the climate crisis- Verifiable mathematical proof( link below) that the unfolding biosphere collapse is the result of Mass Global Deforestation(MGD) of 1/3rd of the Earths(Ice free) Land Mass, for the 80 Billion animals bred for eating every year. Without which we could reforest 78% of agricultural land which would be enough of a Carbon Sink to sequester more CO2 than is currently emitted ( while also ending the biggest Methane emitter and biggest cause of Ocean Dead Zones). Non Industry funded study by Systems Analysist Dr Sailesh Rao explained in simple terms how animal ag is responsible for 87% of CO2 emissions!. -ruclips.net/video/rSc_51xR8sQ/видео.htmlsi=3JKvhDKbAFQ0T9J8
Hydro is not able to be decentralised. How many people even have sufficient flow or head on their property to get a decent output? Wind is not able to be decentralised either, without scaling to monster turbines, the output of little wind turbines sucks and they need specialised motors, you can't just stuff any old motor in it. But yes, throwing all this stuff away is madness.
@@Shrouded_reaper ‘’Hydro’’ is ‘’able to be decentralised’’ and I could give you plenty of examples but I agree obviously it depends on the location and have flowing or head of water, Wind power is easily decentralised and can even be fitted to individual houses etc, using VAWTS instead of the usual HAWTS. They don’t need ‘’specialised motors’’ a simple DC motor an trickle charge a bank of 2-3 12v batteries, I am currently building a Micro VAWT and will change to a 12v system for my needs in my 1 bed flat the VAWT would at least power my lights, TV, & charge phone, which is the electricity I need except for running the pump on my gas boiler, but even if that still requires 240AC mains I still would have cut back massively on mains electricity. Universal Motors that are commonly found in old discarded appliances can be easily used for Micro Wind/Hydro 240 AC. Even tiny motors from Microwave cookers, DVD/CD/VCR etc players can easily be adapters to hand wind ph/laptop chargers with a simple crank handle fitted
@@Shrouded_reaper Also we can power and fuel the world witj Decentralised Carbon Neg Algae using it to clean our waste water, landfill runoff and industrial gasses- ruclips.net/video/ExOXF1x3N1g/видео.htmlsi=X42bO_pUblMFtpv1
@@Shrouded_reaper Also we can power and fuel the world witj Decentralised Carbon Neg Algae using it to clean our waste water, landfill runoff and industrial gasses- ruclips.net/video/ExOXF1x3N1g/видео.htmlsi=X42bO_pUblMFtpv1
@@Shrouded_reaper People have been living in this Algae powered building for 14 years, self reliant for Electricity, BioGas & Heating, while being a Carbon Sink. This low tech,non toxic solution could easily be scaled to suit and fitted to any building ruclips.net/video/JLEWZkKn1GE/видео.htmlsi=kXNoCvqCCLdu1SJn
"Private property is an invention"? - but also a natural world phenomenon - the lion pride's private territory, the bird's private nest... if the air could be privatised then it would not be subject to the tragic ruination it suffers as a commons resource.
Nonsense. As the professor explained there have been and are many communities and civilisations where private property is not an integral part of society. Bushmen, aboriginal peoples, many tribal nations.
@@Humanity101-zp4sq Never heard of "territory" or "hunting grounds"? It may or may not be private property per se but try being an Apache caught on Comanche territory back in the day. Even chimps patrol their territory and attack intruders.
@@Humanity101-zp4sq They don't scale mate, see; all of socialist history and they STILL owned stuff. Also as the other poster pointed out, they still had private property as a group.
1:04 Redesigning society to be a true socialist democracy would be the only way, where the decisions "of the day" are analyzed and philosophized to determine if the actions to take are good for the short term and long term. The larger the group, however, the more difficult to manage. A conundrum for sure
He talks about social conditioning and what we teach, yet he repeats the fictional Einstein quote about insanity, that doesn't even get insanity right regardless of who said it. We need to expose the idioms that have little-to-no basis in reality that makes us look like fools, or else we're just saying words and phrases we heard before that sound nice. Convincing people of our position using the same type of false thinking and logic of the past that got us in this mess probably won't help solve anything.
William Rees is a national treasure. It is difficult for me at age 76 to understand why so few people get what he is talking about. Regarding education, we should start with the farm and the natural systems. Thanks for shedding light on reality.
why almost nobody seems to understand overshoot? because of the way the human brain works, people cannot stand the idea of death esp. when it refers to them, accepting the facts like overshoot means accepting billions of people suffering and dying in a short period of time.
I know, right? He is very clear about the big picture, but nobody wants to hear it.
All those self deceiving image driven narcs & enabling lazy mtfkrs needed us to serve them! Never forget that!!!!
@@thunderstorm6630
Also got to do with the well-known "problem of the human mind to understand the exponential function" as Albert Bartlett said.
We're used to having a steady economic growth of a few percent, not realizing that the size doubles every so many years (70 divided by the growth rate gives you the doubling time)
Nor do folks realize the Jevons paradox- even if society uses resources more economically (less resource per unit produced) it ends up using more, as prices for the product _and_ resource go down.
All renewable energy we've added to the mix only resulted in using _more_ energy on the whole.
@@thunderstorm6630 even if the end of these two interviewers that are on about finding time in the schedule and money issues and other meaningless-ness in the face of disaster
I believe the key to our failure to address environmental degradation and collapse is our lack of respect for the non human life forms who share the planet with us, as Mr. Rees points out with his human-exceptionalism comment.
Thank you all for this important conversation!
I search Rees every few days, like I used to with Chomsky. Great interview, this man has filled Chomskys void.
you could listen to nate hagens or planet critical with rachel
Yes they are very good too, but I believe because they are younger and only human, they need more hopeium to personally psychologically cope in this situation. They are still in the bargaining stage. 99% understanding and acceptance of real situations is very rare in human beings.
@@thunderstorm6630 Bill is fantastic, Nate and Rachel are milquetoast, AT BEST
@@johngray1439 yes, and Hagens is more grounded than Planet Critical, which is still a good venue. Hagens last guest, the German scientist suffered from some hardcore hopeium. Which they need to sell us rationally, we want to not die, tell us how, not just “we must transition” but man, the faith in green transition is so ironclad. That Mark Jacobson Stanford delusional entity.
@@chadreillyMostly, yes, well put, but Hagens swings both ways depending on the interlocutor. And yeah, Bill is as good as they get. Even Chomsky sadly succumbed to green transition. But with him, I think he knew it wouldn’t work, but that that trying something in an ironclad capitalist paradigm was better than absolutely nothing.
I recently read Dirt which talks about how past civilizations engaged in highly localized forms of overshoot that ultimately triggered their downfall. Seems like our current global society is an amplified version of what’s discussed in Dirt.
Many thanks, the Prof is a must watch and listen for me, always..
The take away message is how Capitalism has been established as the new religion.
Primitive societies developed religion based in environment and built controls into religious messaging.
With adoption of Capitalism as our new religion, we've lost those controls but added no new ones and to add to that we bow down and praise the wealthy within this system as exceptional examples to emulate. Most of these people have profited by offsetting long term costs to future generations.
It's not just capitalism really. Plenty of socialist states are environmental disaster zones. Look at the Aral sea. no capitalism involved there.
It's not a religion, nor is it the new religion. That's just a frivolous thing to say. But it is ruthlessly enforced as the socioeconomic paradigm everybody lives in, and it's work or starve. Enforced with violence, as in, if you ever steal anything.... so you better get a job. And while you're at it make it a good job so you got more cash to spend. Prettier wife, better life. So go to college and learn a trade. And now women can do so themselves, and they can cut out the middleman. And you might as well internalize the mindless conventional wisdom drivel that intellectually and psychologically facilitates it, as it will make your life easier and more bearable. And failing to do so sufficiently can definitely come with a cost, both at work and at home, as you will become out of step with the zeitgeist. And so everybody just does, women especially so.
So it's definitely not a new religion at all. It's an overarching, all-encompassing semi-compulsory way of life, with social, financial, and outright coercive forces ready to punish you quite severely and largely without compunction if you ever start to slip. Notwithstanding all the do-gooders who like to pretend they make a difference. And the only thing that makes this society possible, as Bill Rees alludes to, is the hyper-profligate and improvident and unsustainable ravaging of the earth, which won't be able to provide for us much longer at this rate, with no signs whatsoever of slowing up, on account of all the relentless socioeconomic forces aforementioned. That and etiquette and 'civility', and pretty strictly respecting all the various ideological and intellectual taboos, and little dos and don'ts of daily behavior. A sagacious self censorship being the #1 survival skill in modern life. Those who make it their business to achieve a certain mastery of and fluency with respect to the reigning conventional wisdom become thought leaders. Or, you might say, the high priests of our modern free market cap society. Which is I suppose where the 'religion' metaphor might come in. But it's far vaster than that. If anything, actual organized religion very much plays its considerable role within this enormous monolith of modern industrial society. Which I would say is principally to numb the mind, and inculcate a deep habit of and respect for intellectual dishonesty. 2+2=5 and all that, which is essentially what religious dogma comes down to. And they throw in a few moralistic rules of thumb to follow if you're lucky. Don't steal anybody's stuff! And religious influence and instructions can soften the way and ready the mind for all the equally spurious secular dogma, shall we say, one will be inundated with throughout their little journey through life in the modern west. And which actually comes with serious consequences for being on the wrong side of. Not so much religion, godd is dead, as everyone knows if you're educated. But the repo man is alive and well, so keep a stiff upper lip and get back to the salt mines, we got more earth to plunder.....
This should be mainstream! In order to work out, any solutions to the actual situation must be constructed on this understanding of the world.
william rees, a great enjoyment to listen to his clear mind expressing. tragic, that we dont have a chance against human kind. we are like the huge mice population in my field this year, which will be suddenly gone iby next spring, thanks be to God. just the mice mightnt enjoy that.
So the problem is how to switch from profit mode to survival mode, don't worry nature will find a way to make us do it.
First came across Dr Rees about 5 years ago and his thesis impacted me immediately. His arguments ought to be taken more seriously by our policymakers but they are arguments that do not suit the politics of the day. Instead our system is managed according to the nostrums of neoliberal economists such as Nordhaus, whom Rees mentions here. Nordhaus and his ilk have been thoroughly debunked by ecological economists, but unfortunately they are awarded prizes and continue to have the ear of our political class.
I’ve been ‘struck’,or maybe ‘stuck’,with a term that popped into my head back in the late ‘70s when I could see how the environmental issues were ‘handled’ by gov’t(and unwitting society). In my world at the time it was the rivers in the SW U.S.,which ones ‘deserved’ protection,same as with forests,deserts,wilderness areas,etc..My term was/is ‘cumulative’,the accumulation of usage of resource and the ‘financing’ behind it. Its a capitalistic symptom. Not holistic,which is the problem . Anyway,there are many academics and systems analysts smarter than I,like Dr. Rees,who continue to sound the alarms as to why people just don’t get it,nonetheless the corporations who run society for the ‘capital’ without having their feet in the ground,aware of a finite planet. Cumulative,we’ve reached overshoot ..
You have asked for comments, and this may be more than you were looking for. I am going to quote a comment I made trying to get Nate Hagens' and/or Simon Michaux's attention. I managed to contact both of them. I'm sorry to see that your interview doesn't have more views! I am about the same age as William Rees, and have been doing my best to get ANYBODY's attention for more than 50 years. I'll put my quote as a reply to this comment.
@@kizzass3427 ?????? I don't understand what that means.
Are y stupid?
Will it serve their a hole?
Huh?
Guys, it's always great to see interest in and awareness of these essential topics of interest, but, with respect, you could prepare a little more for an interview like this. It isn't helpful to pile questions on top of one another. Humming and hawing without clear direction when he finishes speaking and waffling about tenuously connected topics are distracting and break the flow of the conversation. I hope you will accept the criticism in the spirit it is offered, which is to say, constructively. Best of luck for the future, regardless of how ominous it looks.
I fully agree!
I was questioning this system and practice when I was 10 , asking so called experts can we sustain this ? Believing in scholars and so called adults / guardians , we were laughed at and scorned !
I would like to hear William's thoughts on the overpopulation of domesticated animals please. It's astounding to hear that for every 1 human baby born, more than 570 other babies are born onto farms to use resources, excrete waste, be prematurely killed and replaced with even more. 😱
It's very clear from the research on the impacts of diets that meat consumption--especially beef, mutton, and seafood--must drop sharply to save ecosystems.
The interviewer needs to stop with the “you know“ repetition
Preparation, concision, etc. Make the interview flow better. Give your guest that respect.
To say nothing of the video lighting and framing.
Just so we're clear -- we are aiming to have open-ended and longform conversations with our guests (in an attempt to move beyond the sleek and polished media sound-bites which are prevalent on the internet and throughout journalism). This generally involves being less scripted in order to be responsive to our guests and the present moment (as such, you can reasonably expect some awkward speech patterns and imperfect communication). Additionally, we are doing this for ourselves and our community and we don't get paid for this work. So, our apologies that our gear/production isn't up to your standards, but, with all due respect, we aren't doing this for you and there are many media platforms out there where you could find what you're looking for.
@@newcurriculumgrouphey, not a cool response. I think you guys are delightful. But if people give feedback just thank them and think about it.
The inept questioning of these two youngsters is counterpointed by the very astute answers and explanations provided by a wise "elder". It is truly metaphorical.
It's not inept, they're asking questions that might seem obvious to some of us but for the average "unenlightened" person are not.
@@philipm3173 Unenlightened = Ineptitude Some might say...
Excellent interviewee
Questionable interviewers
The roots of disconnection from reality may be tied to monotheism (God as exclusively important) which leads us to dominion over earth and the Doctrine of Discovery indigenous wipe-out.
1:07:14 Great simplification
Highest and best use of land ignores the externalitoes, usually the environmental costs/damage of that use.
Thank you
Seems this is how many civilians collapsed only we narrate ours including the possible human extinction.
Progressive taxation of profligate behaviour and activity is the only way forward, along with rewarding sustainable behaviours and activities.
Cary, if you insist upon inserting the phrase "you know" into nearly every one of your sentences, after a while, communication with the listener is thwarted and all we hear is a repetitive droning youknowyouknowyouknow.
You need to fix that so that you can communicate effectively.
This is a style of speech . Do you have more constructive feedback? Yes, perhaps he can adjust this. I thank these two for having a conversation. I mean, who else is supporting this important work?
@@xanynax it's not a style of speech, if you choose to pursue something that requires communication if you care enough to do it well and take pride in it, then you do so
Excellent
Very wide ranging important themes here, and a lot to commend, but though I’m not a fan of urban centers I feel most humans will find life more enjoyable there, while allowing nature to rewild the majority of the land, such as using beavers to enhance watersheds and carbon sinks, taxing hugely on carbon intensive industries including livestock farming, embracing synthesis of the inefficient food industries with those such as precision fermentation of protein sources, using green hydrogen to replace oil based fertilizers, are all ways to switch to a global village of circular economies. Shifting completely to sustainable energy is fairly low hanging fruit in this mix, and because fossil fuels waste about 80% in energy production to heat, then solar PV and wind generation along with storage and a variety of baseload back ups can all be achieved with current technologies, and these will rapidly be enhanced with new technologies. It’s unlikely that people can suddenly be at peace with wilderness nature, so the majority would be better off in artificially created places that are safer for them and for the planet’s varied ecology.
One word: Thermodynamics. Living systems with their energy flows/cascades are the only batteries we need. Listen to BIG NATURE; it has all the answers. "But I am not willing to sacrifice MY wants and needs." (The new NIMBY.) We are a constantly expanding and conquering invasive species. It's easier to imagine human extinction than the end of The Great Game.
Nature and its laws will destroy the Nimbys
@@ronwalker4998 There can be no doubt about it. Nature will have its way. BIG NATURE is biological energy flows. Nimbys are just one invasive species that's clever enough to destroy its own habitat. BIG NATURE and BIG BIOM won't miss us at all. Enjoy the show while it lasts.
There ARE countries which have attempted to 'step back'. European example - Finland. South Asian example - Bhutan.... and several others.
How to respond as a Doctor? Its collaps then?
Whats the point if Malthus was right after all?
non, that is just live
The question was allways if we would be able to reach equilibrium within the limits of the system.. What would be the highest standart we could have for loong time.. now, after 40 to 50 years ignoring limits du to made up myth of perpetual growth..
its to late i think.. so the only question is.. how can we get down from a living standart without killing each other ? without blaming each oather, and keeping our achevements as good as possible..
As nath haegens says.. there s no solution.. only answers.. but some of them are better as others..
@@kizzass3427 Yes
@@kizzass3427 i am not sur i get your question right... i had to first ask gpt, what this means in german.. so.. there´s no magic nowhere anywhere, to be asured well have a soft landing.. is that what your questions asks abut, so if i say, there´s no solution, i mean, that i cant see any momentum in ecological movement to overcome the much much biger momentum of growthadicted behaviour, even if all evidence of sience points to the colision with the big ice mountain very near...
i think the best we can do is making it a bit lesss ugly.. nothing more..
I wouldn't hesitate f a sec.
Didn’t Andrew Yang (US politician) talk, in the US 2020 election cycle, about how our economic measures are all wrong? Also, Nate Hagens “Frankly” series (youtube.com/@thegreatsimplification?si=0NvJgQHUlQ_aa9EQ) talks in similar ways about the real issues we need to confront and are largely ignoring.
where all renters
51:25 here is where I diverge. I believe we need to redesign a low carbon way to preserve the benefits of civilization (science, mechanics, medicine, history, art, music), but design for real human beings, not for residents of some utopia.
I also have a shoemaker in my town and he does half assed work because he knows hes the only one, and uses all the massive profits from his inflated prices to fuel his hobby: buying and driving collectible automobiles.
Why will renewables coupled with batteries not work to transition to a fossilfuelless tuture? With data and actual numbers please.
All is based on petroleum and a renewables switch is overwhelmed by growth. Cannot easily replace petroleum nor do it fast enough to make a difference, sadly.
Bad news, inger; you have a lot of reading and thinking ahead of you.. we blew past the sustainable population level well before the first billion enjoy your life 😢
Transition is probably the wrong word. It gives a false idea of simply changing the fossil fuels out and dropping in a replacement of batteries, and then continuing on as before. But there’s no way we can power a 19 Terra watt world without fossil fuels. And there’s no way we can feed 8 billion people without fossil fuels. Ain’t happening.
We can have a great civilization built on renewables, but we can’t have this one. I think that’s what people need to understand.
The thinking on that usually says that would simply accelerate ecological overshoot while using a new energy source.
Humans are steadily destroying Earth's ability to support life in multiple ways simultaneously, so we could solve the climate crisis tomorrow but we would still be heading toward ecological and societal collapse due to our high-meat diets, plastics, industrial and agricultural chemicals, addiction to economic growth, capitalism, etc.
We actually can support a few billion people (500 mill would be better), but it would have to be a very simple agrarian economy using draft animals, much more manual labor, and making things out of natural materials.
Ok. While I fully agree on the problem. When I calculate my footprint, even when vegan with no car and electricity in a 5sqm hut made form
Straw my overshoot is still in August. That can‘t be!
Where is your hut?
@@Humanity101-zp4sq it‘s not asking for a location.
@@TheMultiHeadphone You must be using an awful lot of WiFi connectivity then..
Does it multiply the result by 8+ billion?
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ The calculators just don't work. They're designed to shame everyone into reducing consumption, but will probably have the opposite effect. Living standards/expectations are NOT the same in every part of the world. They are dependant on cultural and environmental factors which are not included in the simplistic algorithms.
I missed the part where you explained why solar won't work. I can at least see some value it building out solar to meet our energy needs. At least I can plausibly imagine that happening. We know it's theoretically possible to build enough solar cells to meet our energy needs and then some. There might be good reasons why this can't work (scarcity of materials for example) but I don't think you've mentioned them. However I can at least imagine progress being made on converting from fossil to wind, nuclear and solar. Some progress has already been made. Your solution seems to be "teach people not to want things, or buy things, or sell things... convince people to stop living in cities and grow their own food" and I don't see that happening. It's just not realistic. I have zero faith that you will ever put a plan in place to accomplish that goal. Your solution entails shrinking the population. A good idea perhaps, but it's bound to happen one way or another. We need technologies that will help us soften the landing and make that reduction of the human population less horrific than it might otherwise become. This may be just kicking the can down the road, but it could at least buy us time to think of a better and more permanent solution. I think it's a better bet than the massive re-education project you seem to advocate.
Man - you can't criticize your culture to the core - and expect to be reelected.
Today we should talk about _'how to close the door behind us properly'_ or go on with complaining about our 'Inadequacies of the past'
**WE are not able to change profoundly within 20 years* Anyone might have another opinion here.
*We: the West in first place.
Ya, as Rupert Reed says, "This civilization is finished"
@@dalewolver8739
The rotten brothel of chri$tian$ on coke - you mean? :) (excuse the exaggeration)
Looking backwards 'civilization' is a bit euphemistic...
The planet is funded to act and forgot how to be a social labour, not a sedentary luxury.😢
How about a carbon petro dollar weight, because the measure is always of convenience, not truth.
Paid to pollute, who isn’t?
The talk at 1:02:00 makes me want to scream 'Carbon Fee and Dividend" as loud as I can. What is it? this will tell you -> ruclips.net/video/AcPgHDGc8_0/видео.html
Yes, indeed! Just watched your video. We are on the same page and exploring such policies in regards to mineral and energy resources. We believe those rents (at the very least) should be captured and redistributed. Here is another example of Carbon Fee and Dividend with Rahul Basu highlighting intergenerational equity ruclips.net/video/4AydS9eB9PY/видео.htmlsi=6mx0bEohnn1KLO5h
Thanks for sharing : )
I get the thesis of “the problem” but I don’t follow how pursuing a transition to cleaner sources of energy is bad. I get how it further masks the underlying overshoot issue, but all of this leaves me wondering, well, what should we do? Just give up? Become luddites?
Redesign how to "do" civilization on half the total energy used
See Living Well Within Limits, lili project , Julia Steinberger
Large industrialized civilizations are inherently self-terminating systems because maintaining them destroys the conditions needed for life (stable climate, abundant resources, healthy ecosystems, clean water). Scientifically, the only thing that is sustainable are much smaller, less industrialized, and more localized agrarian economies with much more manual labor and a return to using natural materials. Julia is great, but she is just looking at energy, meaning she doesn't look at material throughput and the unsustainable harms caused by mining, man-made chemicals, plastics, etc.
We have to look at the entirety of humanity's ecological impacts or we are just wasting our time. Even if we solved the climate crisis tomorrow, we would still be heading toward collapse until we change our diets, shrink the global economy over 50% and de-industrialize it, etc.
59:00 "growth oriented capitalism is the cause not the solution to climate change."
Capitalism doesn't require growth. Rising standards of living and quality of life require growth. Lifting people out of poverty requires growth. Creating societies that are safe from threats from climate requires growth. Capitalism facilitates this growth through wealth creation and I can assure you capitalism is always the solution.
In a cat 5 hurricane would you prefer a solid house designed to withstand the storm or a mud hut?
Overshoot is self correcting (collapse
Earth is already passing into a range of temperatures not suitable for human life and civilization. Sure, Earth regulates its energy system, and, because of humans massive addition of energy onto the system, Earth is on its way to settling into a state without humans
😂food is ONLY 4-5% of GNP😂😂😮😮😢😢
Without food therre is no GNP
@@ronwalker4998Everyone except economist knows this.
Economists are completely ignorant about the physical and ecological systems that sustain life on Earth.
In the first minute & 36 seconds you have done what you are accusing "the solvers" of doing by obfuscating focus AWAY from actually SOLVING the issue of energy pollution.
You talk about why it CAN`T work, but it CAN only not by denial, giving up, hands in the air, not by the status quo & not the way it is being currently addressed.
Endless ribbons of highways covered in speeding autos, driving for every needless purpose or Amazon delivery, Every school district busing every child every day with schools, stores & jobs far away from ones residence, commercial farming, no yard or home or neighborhood garden, housing/construction/heating & cooling technology, limitless airplanes flying every fool around the globe, boatloads of junk shipped across the seas, melting down every piece of metal in foundries instead of repair & repurpose & the way things are built to be disposable in the first place wasting energy at every turn.
There ARE ways, but some people would rather go to war with guns & argue it`s their god given right to destroy humanity & the universe for their selfish comforts.
Realize gasoline & fossil fuels have only been in use for about 150 years & indoor plumbing & electricity about the same.
Stupid, stupid people including this professor...he`s professing to be a DOLT!
I really don`t believe he`s worth listening to for over an hour.
God-ordained.
Not electric cars, but no car. Obvious really.
This guy is exactly right EV & ‘renewables’ are another extractive linear economic growth Industrial revolution, so only do more harm than good. Meanwhile we chuck out and crush millions of electric motors in discarded appliances every year that should be used to make Micro DIY Wind/Hydro Generators. That would creat decentralised cyclic economies, it is utter madness to extract more ‘resources’ to build new ‘Wind etc power while chucking all these electric motors away!. But he is wrong re ‘’overshoot’’ we did that decades ago, the last time the Earth had the current 427ppm the Seas were approx 78 feet higher so we are only at the beginning of what 427ppm will do. Also there is an approx time lag of 20 years between increased atmospheric CO2 and it’s impacts on the climate so the apocalyptic climate events we are now witnessing are from atmosphere CO2 levels of approx 20 years ago. Another thing is focusing on Fossil Fuels/‘renewables’ is a massive distraction from the actual cause of the climate crisis- Verifiable mathematical proof( link below) that the unfolding biosphere collapse is the result of Mass Global Deforestation(MGD) of 1/3rd of the Earths(Ice free) Land Mass, for the 80 Billion animals bred for eating every year. Without which we could reforest 78% of agricultural land which would be enough of a Carbon Sink to sequester more CO2 than is currently emitted ( while also ending the biggest Methane emitter and biggest cause of Ocean Dead Zones). Non Industry funded study by Systems Analysist Dr Sailesh Rao explained in simple terms how animal ag is responsible for 87% of CO2 emissions!. -ruclips.net/video/rSc_51xR8sQ/видео.htmlsi=3JKvhDKbAFQ0T9J8
Hydro is not able to be decentralised. How many people even have sufficient flow or head on their property to get a decent output? Wind is not able to be decentralised either, without scaling to monster turbines, the output of little wind turbines sucks and they need specialised motors, you can't just stuff any old motor in it. But yes, throwing all this stuff away is madness.
@@Shrouded_reaper ‘’Hydro’’ is ‘’able to be decentralised’’ and I could give you plenty of examples but I agree obviously it depends on the location and have flowing or head of water, Wind power is easily decentralised and can even be fitted to individual houses etc, using VAWTS instead of the usual HAWTS. They don’t need ‘’specialised motors’’ a simple DC motor an trickle charge a bank of 2-3 12v batteries, I am currently building a Micro VAWT and will change to a 12v system for my needs in my 1 bed flat the VAWT would at least power my lights, TV, & charge phone, which is the electricity I need except for running the pump on my gas boiler, but even if that still requires 240AC mains I still would have cut back massively on mains electricity. Universal Motors that are commonly found in old discarded appliances can be easily used for Micro Wind/Hydro 240 AC. Even tiny motors from Microwave cookers, DVD/CD/VCR etc players can easily be adapters to hand wind ph/laptop chargers with a simple crank handle fitted
@@Shrouded_reaper Also we can power and fuel the world witj Decentralised Carbon Neg Algae using it to clean our waste water, landfill runoff and industrial gasses- ruclips.net/video/ExOXF1x3N1g/видео.htmlsi=X42bO_pUblMFtpv1
@@Shrouded_reaper Also we can power and fuel the world witj Decentralised Carbon Neg Algae using it to clean our waste water, landfill runoff and industrial gasses- ruclips.net/video/ExOXF1x3N1g/видео.htmlsi=X42bO_pUblMFtpv1
@@Shrouded_reaper People have been living in this Algae powered building for 14 years, self reliant for Electricity, BioGas & Heating, while being a Carbon Sink. This low tech,non toxic solution could easily be scaled to suit and fitted to any building ruclips.net/video/JLEWZkKn1GE/видео.htmlsi=kXNoCvqCCLdu1SJn
Doomalists unite, or not.
"Private property is an invention"? - but also a natural world phenomenon - the lion pride's private
territory, the bird's private nest... if the air could be privatised then it would not be subject to
the tragic ruination it suffers as a commons resource.
Nonsense. As the professor explained there have been and are many communities and civilisations where private property is not an integral part of society. Bushmen, aboriginal peoples, many tribal nations.
@@Humanity101-zp4sq Never heard of "territory" or "hunting grounds"? It may or may not be private property per se but try being an Apache caught on Comanche territory back in the day. Even chimps patrol their territory and attack intruders.
'Territory' is not private property. Get yourself a dictionary. You might be a chimpanzee but most humans are supposedly more highly evolved.
Claim to ownership of anything is backed-up only by the threat and use of force.
@@Humanity101-zp4sq They don't scale mate, see; all of socialist history and they STILL owned stuff. Also as the other poster pointed out, they still had private property as a group.
48:00 for a great book on this topic see Julia Watson's Lo-TEK (traditional ecological knowledge). She'd be a great guest!
Also, Bill Mollison. inventer/founder of Permaculture design and practise.
1:04 Redesigning society to be a true socialist democracy would be the only way, where the decisions "of the day" are analyzed and philosophized to determine if the actions to take are good for the short term and long term. The larger the group, however, the more difficult to manage. A conundrum for sure
Anarcho-syndicalism, not socialist democracy. You describe anarchism or direct democracy.
He talks about social conditioning and what we teach, yet he repeats the fictional Einstein quote about insanity, that doesn't even get insanity right regardless of who said it. We need to expose the idioms that have little-to-no basis in reality that makes us look like fools, or else we're just saying words and phrases we heard before that sound nice. Convincing people of our position using the same type of false thinking and logic of the past that got us in this mess probably won't help solve anything.
Isn't that the gist of the original Einstein quote?...