Keynote Lecture: Prof. (Emeritus) William E. Rees - Climate change isn't the problem, so what is?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 ноя 2024
- הרצאה מרכזית: Prof. (Emeritus) William E. Rees Climate change isn't the problem, so what is?
University of British Columbia
ממציא המושג "טביעת רגל אקולוגית" ואנליסט מוביל של המעבר לציוויליזציה בת קיימא
פלייליסט של ההרצאות בכנס: • כנס "אקלים משתנה: הכנס...
אתר הכנס: www.changing-c...
How can it be that again and again this Brilliant man only gets heared by a few hundred people..
I ve seen several of his talks, and even when there comes a certain repetition in his argumentation, i never ever found anyone who was able to come down that crystal clear to the bottom of our global Problems.
Mr Rees.. we still need your entlightenment.. keep on with your great work
Yes and by the way, i wished my company of 500 Architects would invite you.. but the reaction of the partners to me was... how can you be that pessimistic. How can your shildren cope with this twisted dark thoughts...
they will not react untill its realy burning in their homes ..
@Tom - I fully agree with you. I am amazed by the clarity of the prof. Rees argumentation. I don't know anyone who can present our situation so clearly, distilling the most important facts.
@@tomschuelke7955 I wonder, you should maybe try something else? I mean if the professor scares you. Yes, the earth has gone thru a lot, but none of it was your fault. courses.lumenlearning.com/earthscience/chapter/geologic-time-scale/
www.universetoday.com/39012/milankovitch-cycle/
www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2021/4/5/how-near-saturation-of-co2-limits-future-global-warming-74
Nothing is under your control. (Cleaning you environment is, and do it!!)
Even worse is that rocks from space can hit us, www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-finds-possible-second-impact-crater-under-greenland-ice
The ice can tell us a lot: ruclips.net/video/pW16LGVPfIc/видео.html
If you still think you will burn, i am sorry for you. But of course the earth is spinning, and going around the sun at high speed: www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/
One small rock at that speed?
One day we might go extinct, but is it any reason to take the grief in advance? We live in a good cold time on earth!
look for yourself: www.timeanddate.com/weather/ and polarportal.dk/en/home/
@@tomschuelke7955 I'm with you Tom. We need to get this presentation to businesses. I'm going to do that
Let it be a cat video. 10 million views. We like to burry our heads in the sand. We re smart but not that smart. I decided long ago to not have children, cause I had a sense of where we were heading.
Brilliant and to the point! Thank you! This is exactly the message that needs to be delivered to everyone on this planet!
I always wonder how a person with this level of insight can still sleep at night. I probably don't even grasp half of the implications of these elaborations. And I feel deeply disturbed and afraid for the future of my two kids.
Please don't bring more kids into this world for you will damn them to a life of guaranteed suffering.
I don’t have kids and have major problems sleeping.
@@DutchDansing My thought as well. I see so many young people still bringing kids into this world, which I consider to be extremely selfish behavior on the part of the adults.
your kids do NOT have a future
If Prof. Rees he's anything like me, he spends much of his awake time thinking about how to correct the overshoot problem. The following may help you sleep better, but I hope it
gets you thinking about this plan to resolve the overshoot problem.
Our 'Global Economic Model' is the cause of Overshoot. Our definition of profit is backwards. The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us. Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment
and all life on earth. We need a new Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is
to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
BRILLIANT analysis. And truthful (FULL of truth). Thank you Prof. Rees
@@ariggle77 I enjoyed that one as well. Gail passed away a couple months ago.
Brilliant! Human beings clearly do not have the hereditary capacity to collectively undo the self-imposed complex existential predicament they have unwittingly unleashed.
Killer sentence! 😉
Yet we understand. Hate to say it but maybe… maybe we either require IQ tests to vote or we abandon democracy in favor of some sort of enlightened autocracy. The voice of the people has become the howling of insensate beasts beyond the pale. Follow them at the greatest peril.
I disagree. The reason people aren't correcting the Overshoot dilemma is that they are operating within the confines of an erroneous 'global economic model'.
The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us.
Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new
Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is
to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
Well done! This should be required watching for EVERYONE. When I try to explain this people just tune me out. They just don,t want to hear it. Now I know how Cassandra felt.
Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.
that's why we are seen all this chaos
👍 The accessibility of this information will increase the quality of the discussion of the subject.
👍 Can I offer this idea for discussion? The Overshoot dilemma is caused by our erroneous 'global economic model'. The problem with
"Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us. Businesses want to eliminate
expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new Global Economic Model GEM that
supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is
to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
Items that can't be recycled as is will be reprocessed for other purposes. Virtually nothing gets thrown away.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
Also, there is another factor which rarely anyone adds to the equation. The effect of personality in our ability to catch the big picture and to adapt. The MBTI theory explains that the minority of people have "intuition" as a dominant cognitive function, which allows them to place most their attention in the future, what awaits around the corner, and how that may affect us all. Contrary to the mayority of people, who have "sensing" as dominant cognitive function, who will place their attention to what is here and now.
What does MBTI theory mean?
@@tomschuelke7955 Hi. It means Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a personality theory developed from Jung's deep psychology studies.
Follow the money. The reason people aren't correcting the Overshoot dilemma is that they are operating within the confines of an erroneous 'global economic model'.
The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us.
Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new
Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is
to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
Items that can't be recycled as is will be reprocessed for other purposes. Virtually nothing gets thrown away.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
Rami,
How does one access Dr. Rees' superb slides?
If Israel cannot even solve the relatively simple problem of sharing land and resources with the Palestinians, then it is a waste of time to lecture them about cooperation over climate emergency
Buddy, the environment is a bigger problem than petty political land disputes and economical consideraions. Attitudes like yours are the precise reason why humanity can't focus on the bigger issues.
@@bryanstark1930 Does not mean it's not a good analogy.
The differences between people are a common problem; they need to learn more about how they are the same. However, when our species is faced with a bigger problem than their differences, we find ways to work together. The thing is, when will enough people realize it's a bigger problem?
@@alexmnicoletti Never. It is completely beyond me that I listen to very intelligent people say "if it is true". Yes these are people educated in disciplines that do not include atmospheric science or chemistry. But intelligent enough to do some basic research into feedback loops and the exponential function.
Excellent, thank you.
Thankyou. Your thoughts align with my brain paths and connections. One question, how come they don't align with my parents, friends, community etc. I know the data made me.
Excellent - if you can handle the truth
5 billion people needs to disappear or everyone on earth needs to live on third world country level. How is that going to happen voluntarily? What politician can impose that kind of hateful restriction on their constituency in name of "common good" and survive? Perhaps in 1960's or 1970's when restriction wouldn't have been so drastic. But now?
I don't believe it can be done voluntarily, it seems the nuclear option is in play at the moment.
As an Anarcho Communist, I am willing to take the hatred I frequently receive from the common man if it causes him/her to think more deeply about the common good for just one minute.
Well put. As an undefined person, I'm having a tougher time accepting any form of capitalism or free market economy. American capitalist agendas have likely ruined the environment.
@@evadd2
The Soviets were truly the best environmental stewards. 🤢 Ukraine is saturated with dioxins and PCBs and poisoned further by Chernobyl. That’s communism’s legacy.
@@Thorny_Misanthrope That is nothing compared to the destruction of a livable planet that capitalism is creating. We are less than decade away from unstoppable collapse.That's Capitalism's legacy.
@@Thorny_Misanthrope I think it's nuclear energy that did that but thank God that none of capitalist countries have gone down that route! 🤔I hope you got something out of Bill Rees' talk.
@Dusty Jones Nope. Capitalism relies on infinite growth which is impossible. Capitalism uses up the resources and attempts to minimize costs and this leads to environmental damage.
Look. This is a simple math problem. We have enough to feed, house, and maintain X amount of people but our current population is Y. The only variable we have any control over is Y. How do we solve this problem? Suddenly everything thats going on makes sense.
Population is the #1 problem I have listed how to correct, but we need a new 'global economic model' GEM first because any changes we initiate within the current GEM
will cause more damage than good, just as they always do.
Overshoot is causing climate change, and the present 'Global Economic Model' is the cause of Overshoot. Our definition of profit is backwards.
The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us.
Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new
Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Notice that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is to acquire
sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
Items that can't be recycled as is will be reprocessed for other purposes. Virtually nothing gets thrown away.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
I know nothing but enough to know recycling is a green washing scam problem. The fact is recyclers themselves say it is not as effective or possible to recycle many of our things, starting with plastic. We don't have the technology yet to recycle everything unfortunately. And recycling can also be polluting. Unfortunately we have to deal with wastes but I don't know how.
@@planetary-rendez-vous What sounds more likely? Save the planet or Save the planet for myself?
@@wakkosick6525 That's not the question. Recycling is not actively helping. Also the planet will not be saved with recycling either, nor will it be saved.
@@planetary-rendez-vous So you think the planets going to be saved by arguing with me online?
41:00 So important. Everyone who listens to Professor Rees and agrees with them are people who do not have their heads in the sand.
OK, I agree, I've been seeing this for decades ... *the* *question* *is* *what* *do* *we* *do,* *where* *do* *we* *go?*
I'm glad you asked! Overshoot is causing climate change, and the present 'Global Economic Model' is the cause of Overshoot. Our definition of profit is backwards.
The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us.
Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new
Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Notice that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is to acquire
sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
Items that can't be recycled as is will be reprocessed for other purposes. Virtually nothing gets thrown away.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
Brilliant insight.
39:30 William needs to update his slides and add "World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice", December 2017.
Also the doomsday clocks movement towards seconds (instead of minutes) 'til midnight
Hi William
Always a pleasure!
Bill D
I agree, overpopulation is real problem we are facing today ( not climate change to which human beings contribute little, in my opinion). But the population in the Western World is already shrinking. In other parts of the World the population increases, partly pushex by political and/ or religious movements. The UN is still at the 1992 level, e.g. at the level of the Cairo convention. The UN organizes lots of meetings on climate change but nothing happens with regard to overpopulation. The consequences are well descriped in the presentation: less space for nature and consumption records every year. On top mass migration because the parents are unable to present a future for their kids. But mass migration is also part of some policies which push the outnumbering strategy. The UN has to act!
No reason here for.optimism. individual.humans and small groups can act rationally. But not the majority of a large population. It will be massive death and mayhem. I am grateful I am old.
I'm old to. I think this can help. Overshoot is the cause of climate change, and the present 'Global Economic Model' is the cause of Overshoot. Our definition of profit is backwards.
The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us.
Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new
Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is
to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
Professor Rees should be on the MSM .
We had our own micro catastrophe last year in Fraser Valley. And yes It was remedied extremely quickly. Throwing over a Billion dollars at it. A energized atmosphere dumped an atmospheric river on us. washing out highways bridges, Rail lines , Hydro and gas pipelines. significantly Isolating us in the Fraser Valley And flooding many low lying farms and homes. Much not insured, or covered and the atmospheric river is still pounding us late into spring /summer (late June)8 months later and impedeing many crops, with significant potential for Mud slides and more as much hillside development becomes suspect.
Overshoot is the cause of climate change, and the present 'Global Economic Model' is the cause of Overshoot. Our definition of profit is backwards.
The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us.
Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new
Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is
to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
Other commenters have helped me to add a 'future EPA directive' for the new Global Economic Model GEM.
9.) Teach us all, especially young students, how to manage the new Global Economic Model. We must do away with neoliberalism.
That was brilliant and disturbing. He said the human race has the capacity to change our ways to save the planet if we all work together.
I love technology and enjoy all the benefits it provides .............but I wonder if technology will eventually bring about our extinction.
Prof Bill Rees, could I use this RUclips video for my Earthday event?
Birth control by all means possible would prevent much pain and suffering reguardless of race ,world wide .
Israel has a 3.4 planet lifestyle. Check the spreadsheets.
Whether it's 5 or 3.4 we are in overshoot and should be in emergency mode.
I'm Aussie, I don't want to look. By the mentality or number of TVs my neighbours throw out, it's going to be huge.
Doesn't matter much in the long run if it's 2x, 3x or 4x. The end result is the same.
Surely we can all do better. Overshoot is the cause of climate change, and the present 'Global Economic Model' is the cause of Overshoot. Our definition of profit is backwards.
The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us.
Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new
Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is
to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
I am clumsy at best for calculating ratios, but just to clarify it would be useful if Prof. Rees could mention the estimated size of sapiens population 300kya, if he wants to compare it with how fast our population grew in the last two centuries. Otherwise somebody might feel like she or he is invited to compare bananas to cherries
Great. BUT - thinking IS magical. The issue is however, to match thinking, behaviour, factual constructs, and pedagogies for all - disseminating the good factual constructs. And that is not easy!
I've been thinking the same thing! Here's a rough idea of what might work.
Overshoot is the cause of climate change, and the present 'Global Economic Model' is the cause of Overshoot. Our definition of profit is backwards.
The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us.
Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new
Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is
to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 I have been working with a colleague in America on something we call metaphenomenalism and it is not such a complex theory but it does take a short while to grasp its basic use of word phenomena in order to point out the difference between what we call hard iconography and soft iconography. What people call a difference between things and thought when they are trying to make metaphysics work, which of course it can never do. It is not word but flesh that links with sustainability and with life on Earth. The sustainability of flesh on earth links to the longevity not so much of individuals but of reproductive lines. At present we have two sorts of monarchic lineages. The old one of blood and soil. And the new leviathans of global infrastructure, the latter lasting much less in terms of longevity than the former. The game is to get these two working together.
@@billthompson7072 Ok, but did you read my comment and does it sound like a feasible way to bring us out of Overshoot?
As far as super-wealth and Leviathans (monsters?), aren't they one and the same thing, blood or no blood? The real alien to our environment is 'profit = income - expenses'.
When you wrote in your original comment "disseminating the good factual constructs" I assumed you meant teaching people a practical way to
take us out of Overshoot. I hope you will comment on the contents of my 1st comment to you, and if you do, could you please dumb it down a bit so that I and other's
might have a clear understanding of what you do and or don't like about my proposal for a new 'global economic model'? Thanks Bill! 👍
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 so tell me, how do we humans learn? If you assumed teaching.
@@billthompson7072 Well, if you don't want to discuss my idea, then so be it.
Not defending neoliberals. I contest this economy is under the control of monopoly capitalists, not Neoliberals.
Examples?
@@stevecam14 At the top, money is issued by a central bank, money is the top tier monopoly. Then we can work down into the agribusiness arena which wouldn't exist as it is without subsidy. Then the pharma-freak show that relies on government force to push its products into the market.
We already went through that "Informed Consent" thing with the Nuremberg Trials, I'm not interested in repeating those mistakes.
The problem with saying, "Neoliberalism isn't real capitalism," is that it's the same argument as used by socialists (or whatever passes for socialist these days), that "Soviet Russia and Maoism weren't real Communism." This is capitalism; this is the natural consequence of capitalism: neoliberalism. If socialism is impossible because it leads to communism, then capitalism is impossible because it leads to neoliberalism.
@@the81kid You are wrong. The end result is monopoly capitalism when Neoconservatives are the end result shortly before collapse.
Very good insights.
I'd love to send this to Elon musk. Wonder if it would wipe off that greedy grin
20:55 - right next to paper consumption is Mcdonald's restaurants lol
Not to worry….physics will solve all these problems. Math can’t be co-opted, ignored or bargained with.
Very brilliant until he begins discussing economics~ ‘we are spending billions of dollars’...uhhhh did you get that memo? We are imagining we are spending money (social construct #1) money is pure social belief in made up numbers, its Maya or illusion, it seems so very real, because as William suggests We make the Unreal, Real, and We make it Real Estate, and We make it Up together,
Yes printing money is easy. All government loves to do that by their nature. And eventually all fiat currency evaporates and nations and civilizations collapse. So... to save humanity from coming utter collapse, government will print more money? I would suggest printing more money is direct result of magical unlimited growth mindset of those in power.
I think you will like this idea. Overshoot is the cause of climate change, and the present 'Global Economic Model' is the cause of Overshoot. Our definition of profit is backwards.
The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us.
Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. We need a new
Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is
to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
The problem if you want to call what we're going threw is the sun,the sun, the sun.😊not us.humans that is.😊
By 2100...you..., well have you really ever been, one will wonder but not on earth...
Fantastic info 👌
Top 10% create 80% of the pollution.
Impoverished societies create far more pollution. They have no recycling programs, inferior sanitation, lack of clean water, the most polluted rivers and air. They destroy their forests, have no environmental oversight, there is litter everywhere. They have no pollution controls or laws, and can't enforce the one's they have. They have no nature reserves and no way to protect nature. They burn wood and dung in their homes.
Wealth and resources are what is required to protect the environment and wealthy nations are becoming better stewards of the environment each decade.
@@anthonymorris5084 "Impoverished societies create far more pollution." Simply false: There is overwhelming evidence that wealthier nations cause many times more ecological destruction than do developing nations, and much of the ecological destruction in developing nations is from corporations serving wealthy nations extracting raw materials or running factories. The ecological harms caused by the average American are roughly 5X worse than those caused by the average citizen of Vietnam.
"They have no nature reserves and no way to protect nature." News flash: The nations with the highest biocapacity to footprint ratios are almost all developing nations. Many have nature preserves, but more to the point, they live simpler lives, have smaller economies per capita and eat more plant-rich diets--all of which reduce their per capita footprint. Meanwhile, Europe and America have already wiped out most of the biodiversity that used to exist here, or did your foregt about the 60 million slaughtered bison?
"wealthy nations are becoming better stewards of the environment each decade." Empirically false. The richer they get, the larger their ecological footprint grows. America's ecological footprint recently grew from 20 acres/person/year to 21 acres/person/year and is still climbing (sustainable is ~3.5 acres/person/year).
We may have a problem..., you rotted the fruits, right there..., if you don
What are you saying? Keep in mind that when you start a sentence with 'you' then the other three fingers of your pointing hand are pointing back at yourself. What do you
mean by " now you're watching them drown in a cup of water... ". Why are you using ..., instead of a period to end a sentence?
Why are you using a < less then symbol instead of an apostrophe ' symbol in words like you're and don't? Were you high when you wrote this comment?
You seem upset about something. Can you elaborate?
An accomplished speaker who probably read the doctrines of Malthus in his radical university days. The concept of overshoot and anthropogenic CO2 are crucial and central to a Malthusian, who needs CO2 to be a dangerous pollutant destroying the planet so the idea of population control and the dismantling capitalism has some basis and he is seen just not just a "religious" environmental zealot (which he clearly is). Note in particular the narrow adherence to the "narrative" of anthropogenic climate change. No effort to introduce any balance into his presentation such as the positive effects of CO2 on crops and plant life in general. The fact that human societies do better in warmer climate...zilch! Yet how can one criticize such a man committed to saving the planet? What a noble cause. But don't be fooled there is a lot lot more to the climate debate than Rees wants us know about. I particularly liked the "psychologising" about the human psyche. Lovely cherry picking of quotes that suit his cause!
Your scientific perspective of what is going on with our climate is warped. We are not seeing any different temperatures than within the last 200 years. Urban heat island stations and misunderstood role of the sun has resulted in over estimation of a global temperature supposedly caused by CO2. Several lines of proxy data has been averaged to produce what people think is a fairly constant temperature over the last 10000 years.
What are you talking about? We’ve risen over 2c since the industrial revolution started.
He offers a naive overview. He lumps multiple phenomena into simplistic notions. Like the false equivalency of income gaps widening and ecological issues. He mentions his reason that climate change is happening, yet doesn’t look at the indicator that the climate is better in many redirect. Like less drought in the US corn belt.
@mallenbaker one for you
Where are the slides?
Try stimulating blood flow to your brains.
How the hell does he know that the carbon level was different in the pre 100 year world. We have had as much as 7000 ppm in the past. It caused plants to evolve. The role of carbon in temperature change is pure guesswork. We do know that plants thrive on it and without plants we can't survive.
We have had ecological catastrophes before; The origin of settled life was one about 12 thousand years ago. Numerous crop failures were others. This is just scaremongering.
"The role of carbon in temperature change is pure guesswork." NO, there's a mountain of research proving THAT and WHY more CO2 is THE main atmospheric control knob of global temps. Just because you haven't read the research doesn't make it legitimate to pretend there is no proof. In serious scientific circles, this debate was over long ago.
Then why do scientists such as Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels , Willie Soon and a score of others reject their conclusions? Oh wait, I guess they are not within "serious scientific circles." We are back to the bullshit consensus argument. It doesn't matter how many researchers get on the bandwagon if they can't replicate their results.
They never will replicate their results because pure empirical research has to be testable which it will never be in complex systems such as climate. Sorry but no there is no proof and a good deal of countervailing research falsifying it.
@@HealingLifeKwikly