A friend of mine mentioned in passing "I know you're worried about the future climate change..." and I just lost it. "Worried? I'm not worried. I'm angry. To be worried about something implies a degree of uncertainty. We are witnessing the devastation in real time, my friend."
Referencing Michael Dowd? He would have fit the bill. Lots of good material in his Post Doom conversations. Lots of bargaining too, it is a hard pill to swallow. Overshoot in a Nutshell and Collapse in a Nutshell are essential material for those new to the topic. All here on YT. Cheers!
"We" - the human species, separate and above all else in in the living world. Our hubris and arrogance is the fatal flaw that threatens EVERYTHING because we have been taught since birth that "Life" means human life.
I am enjoying your podcasts, hearing specifics and numbers to all that I have been aware of for decades. WHAT IM MISSING FROM ALL OF YOURS AND OTHER'S PODCASTS, is a detailed description of positive actions a person should take to mitigate the effects of human over reach. Don't travel. Know your back yard, the plants and animals ..love them, look after them and know what keeps them healthy. Grow your own food. Share it. Teach locally good living practices like Rainwater Harvesting. Invest time and resources in community. Stay home. Stay home. Stay home and look after your home. Expect others to do the same.
@@kriswellstein8308 I think that Nate has mentioned those things on numerous occasions. However, things like growing your own food and rainwater harvesting don't just clip seamlessly onto our city based system. There isn't the space, nor the equal share of land that would allow it. This the great simplification highlights the issues as they are as well as discussing high level system thinking that might bring about global change. Like you, I am skeptical about the ability of a governing system to manage global change for 8 billion humans, and I believe that the simple measures that you mention will indeed be the solution. However that won't be at the required scale and large catastrophe is on the horizon. I think Nate called his channel the great simplification for a reason though, and that's because he points toward a future that your solutions will sit firmly within.
@@ricos1497. Fair enough and I accept what you are saying about high density communities vs more rural opportunities. I still think we need to be more actively herded toward better behavior. A little guilt now will be better than the bigger guilt down the line. How about we hear that.. we as potential parents need to think more about the world's collective consequences for each child before we conceive.? Each decision we individuals make has the potential to drive us closer to the brink.
@@kriswellstein8308 I don't think there is collective consequences for each child, because we're not one homogeneous mass. Every locality will be different and that locality is the context in which each family makes their decisions. It's difficult to feel guilty about anything our system does, because our basic needs have been abstracted, layered through the system so that the complexities are impossible to fathom for most people. That's why I agree that your suggestions of growing your own food and rainwater harvesting are sound. Fundamentally, they remove complexity and place responsibility directly at the point of use. That is key to the future (as it was the past), and that is the basis on which we can feel guilt and make responsible decisions. I think that'll take system collapse to come to bear. Or certainly very big jolts to the system.
The question now is not how to get the planet "back to a safe operating space" but how do we adapt to a planet where this is no longer possible and lesson the impact now that we are past 1.5 degrees. Never the "official" 1.2 or 1.3 as the definition has been adjusted by creative accounting. We are not headed somewhere where we can swerve. We are here and its time we stop pretending what is not true.
I don't have any faith in "raising consciousness". We are primarily creatures of instincts. We are not masters of ourselves. We are slaves to ourselves. We are only informed of our motivations for our behaviour on a "need to know" by the deep state of the mind, manufacturing feel good narratives we can live with like the deep state of a nation. Nor do I have much faith in activists who use the buzz word "hope". That is so passée. A lot of people have had "hope" for over 30 years and much good it's done. Not a single run on the board. Only increasing levels of emissions and increasing CO2 levels. The promise of George H W Bush made in RIO in 1992 that the "American way of life is not negotiable" has been kept faithfully. The promise to do something about the planet was an optional extra and it has been dropped.
Grammar error "adjusted by creative accounting" S.B. "adjusted by not Cherry Picking natural fluctuations". Boy is Grammar ever poor these last few decades.
I often feel this same urgency and frustration but I also think the second half of this conversation explored your concerns effectively. A change in consciousness will not necessarily ‘save’ us, but if one can see beyond humans and beyond this ‘one beautiful life’ we’ve all been given, we can redefine growth and energy and self in radical new ways. Paradigm shift. There is so much we can still do as our species careens toward the cliff. It’s never too late to grow up; to love more. The gifts of the creation of this energy remain even if we do not. Think of your loved ones who have passed. Their love still opens hearts. Their lives mattered.
@@pauperdiamond8733 Learn a little bit about science and especially climatology. Because of increasing global dimming through air pollution in the 60s and 70s SOME experts proposed that this could trigger a new ice age. This was back than not more than a hypothesis, never widely accepted and never a scientific fact like anthropogenic global warming is now for decades. Actually this global dimming masked the forcing of CO2 on global temperature for a few years and it's not a coincidence that in the 80s after air pollution control became effective global warming gained momentum.
Thanks again for a beautiful episode! Extra credits for the production. Appreciate the effort by the whole team for the good you do in the world. Greetings from Finland
Imagine if all the brilliant people who were just involved in catching spacex’s heavy booster today turned their ingenuity toward finding overshoot solutions. We might even have a chance.
The word overpopulation was never mentioned. The idea that planetary boundaries can be restrained through information, epiphany, or awakening without limiting population is ludicrous. It is certain that population will decline dramatically, but if not intentional (through global education and opportunity for women), it will be maximal suffering by the poorest and youngest.
Capitalism is a choice, redistribution can be done in different economic systems. See what I mean? Where we look for solutions changes the perspectives. Population has gotten us in the situation we are in, but the use of wealth (resources) is what is damaging. If everyone lived within earth's boundaries, we would not have a problem. Whether or not this is possible and or probable, or wanted, is a whole other question which was not discussed here.
I thing humans made the proverbial wrong turn at Albuquerque when in Genesis they (men, obviously) wrote that God gave dominion over the earth and all its creatures to men. We should have chosen to be stewards, instead of Lords. When you talk about a "different worldview" , that passage in the Bible is what I'm always reminded of. (Disclosure- I'm and Atheist). Thanks for the conversation, it's always illuminating and hopeful.
If you are the high priest of the Aztec city - you are entitled to hubris up to the sun. Atheism is generally associated with 'natural science' - that is the same god-like arrogance. (Not you hopefully :) *_"The universe is fundamentally explainable"_* is their crazy creation statement.
Even from the evolutionary perspective everything else is still our natural resources, our property. And capitalism externalizes all of it, it only has value if it can be sold for profits.
Great ending to a great final question. Magic wands and Love. It's so important to continue to infuse positivity to engage those that feel overwhelmed (like me). I feel good knowing I'm participating in the Roots and Shoots in my own way.
Relative to the deleterious actions of the powerful few your benign good wishes are meaningless. Most of us WISH that things were otherwise, but doing so won't change a thing.
I loved this interview Nate🙏. Such I nice, well rounded message and inspiring us all to take on board the broad issues. Thank you, thank you Nate and Kari
Interesting. I'm a bit of a systems' geek too, but I came to the conclusion that trying to implement a system to control or organise a society as complex as our own would be impossible. I think collecting data is interesting and well intentioned, however I'm not convinced it can translate into change as radical as that which will be required. The system controls itself and tends towards further complexity. We just have to wait it out I think, until such times as the complexity begins to decrease to a level that we can start to look at social reorganising from that lower level of complexity. The answer will come in the form of community and visibility of the ins and outs of the local, with few externalities which are too unreliable to be trusted. The way to get humans to realise their boundaries is for them to be intimate and visible. That's always been the case. No temporary civilisation has managed otherwise.
@@ricos1497 how and why would it become less complex? Those running / creating it would no longer understand it? Or chose to not share its inner workings to successors anymore?
@@RubenKemp apologies, that wasn't very clear! It becomes less complex through various forms of collapse. Supply chains become less and less reliable and things return to the local. That would be across the board, of course. As the Limits to Growth and its update predict, it won't just be one single chain, or material, it will be multiple cascading shortfalls. Food will be affected by ammonia prices, dictated by hydrogen costs. Cement by dwindling sand supplies, electronics by copper. Thus global supply chain prices rocket and come to a halt as people can't afford them. On a local level, I might have to change farming practices because I can't access fertilizer, so beans provide my nitrogen. The local utilities begin to collapse as they can't afford maintenance, so we shift to turning our human waste to compost at source, providing another component in place of fertiliser. As I lose the ability to maintain my tractor, whose GPS field plotting system failed a while ago, I have to scale back my farming operations and move to polyculture and more labour. I can't get a replacement for my tablesaw blade because they're three times the price they used to be, so I recycle the old ones into bladed hand tools. Whilst those things are perhaps no less complex, that complexity is entirely visible, as it always has been to humans. My pencil becomes a stick of charcoal rather than an 83 step supply chain process traversing the planet. How does that translate to our cities? I have no idea. In the smaller ones, it might be possible to disaggregate them into smaller communities with some roads torn up for food growing, leaving just a few central routes for remaining transport. However, I think there will be a reckoning for cities. We'll have to really think about what cities are and what they're for. As far as I can see, they are simply large units of domesticated, disconnected humans, where everything is shipped in or shipped out, completely abstracted by the system from what really is. They'll suffer the most, but the question is whether they will pass that suffering onto others. A brief glance at history suggests so. It'll start by finding an other group, or groups. Then commandeering rural land in the locality. Probably a return to slavery as they put the other group into inefficient labour in the fields. All in order to save the grotesque, "civilised" model. We'll, that got dark quickly. I'm off for a lie down.
I tell people about this prdicament with an elevator pitch, specially in Uber syle rides about this predicament and many seem to not really get it or care much. I kind of get the feeling that if it doesn't really affect us withing our lifetime, we really don't worry about it. Those who have another 60 or so years to live I believe will see drastic changes and will have to change their lifestyles with no choice left.
I thought the comment about voting was pretty naive--we have a system in place that guarantees anyone we can vote for will and can do nothing useful, because they must cater to their funders, Only changing that system will allow us to have any effect. On the other hand, in the early discussion of what a yearly checkup with graphs can do: first, maybe it's me but I love graphs because they show relationships instantly, convey a lot of information clearly. And secondly, doing a checkup annually will be very helpful because it WILL get worse every year, in most if not all sectors--and this may be what jars a lot of people out of apathy. In particular, it will interfere with greenwashing, when we don't have to wait seven years to see adverse results.
Expecting today's numbers, to live on this planet without long-term lasting impacts, is unrealistic. The current energy predicament is but only part of the problem, and there are some solutions and tools that we can adapt. However, our demand for resources/and our continued impact, is by far, considered by many to be unsolvable.
No one answers this fundamental question. People are dying NOW, near starving NOW, living in squalor, on or around trash heaps, in polluted areas. They are being told to suffer for the rest of humanity, but can not be paid, convencied, shown how having 1 or 2 children would be not only in their best intrest but their community, and country. How do we continue solve all the problems if we do not face the overshoot we have created?
Along with others you and I are just as much a part of the problem of over population and ecological overshoot, so don’t point the finger elsewhere in the belief we’re more deserving of larger ecological footprint than others far less fortunate. Contemplate this:- Prof. Tim Garrett: “I think one thing I find really quite amazing is just how fast the changes may come upon us, because our current GROWTH RATE, it may seem small, just 2.3% per year or thereabouts for our rate of energy consumption growth, but that translates to a DOUBLING in our consumption rate in just 30 years, now that's incredible because if you think that it took us 10,000 years to get to our current consumption rate and that we will DOUBLE this again in just 30 years, then we are thinking about a change in civilisation that in our very lifetimes will reproduce everything that has happened over centuries, Millennium, and that brings us to, I think, to a very basic question, how will this happen, can we sustain a DOUBLING of our daily energy consumption rate and all the raw materials that go along with it, do those raw materials exist, perhaps they do, perhaps we can figure out ways to extract sufficient resources from our environment to maintain a DOUBLING of our civilisation in the NEXT 30 YEARS, and then in the NEXT 30 YEARS BEYOND THAT, which would be FOUR TIMES AS LARGE…”🤔 Short transcript from 4 minute RUclips video “Something Has Got To Give - Prof. Tim Garrett in Ecosophia - Collapse and Regeneration”🤔
Best check the consumption and carbon footprint of a millionaire as compared to a poor person, even in the US. One example: Do you know why Somali pirates “terrorists” exist? Because trans-national corporations took all of their fish, left them with nothing but sand to eat.
It seems to me that we are asking people with higher levels of living to give up much of what they have to allow people of lower levels of living to have more. People with more power need to relinquish their power (and privilege) in order to allow a voice to people with less power. I just don't see it happening. People with more want to protect themselves and especially their families. They want a nice house, nice car, nice vacations for thier families and they want to hang around with other people just like them who do't make them feel guilty. They just don't see that by holding onto more stuff they are contributing to the future decline of their own families. How do we get people living now to sacrifice for the newly born and unborn of the future. It is a rare person who can think that way, but that is what I believe we need. A first step is to elect leaders who will lead us in that direction. It just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
Kari mentioned relating the story about planetary boundaries to local contexts. I don't see that being done. There should be some story about what a plus 2-degree world would mean for NW Europe, for the SE United States, for the Ganges valley, for the Middle East, etc., etc. Bringing it down to the regional level might help awaken people. Or just applying it to individual cities--New York, Paris, Shanghai, etc,--would stir people up more than citing the bursting of global boundaries.
@@janetdowell6005 Thanks for directing me to this. I would still like to hear some real climate scientists talk about various regions both in the States and around the world.
Nate, having just re-watched your fascinating discussion with Ed Conway, can you please find someone to discuss modern more in-depth approaches to input output tables that Ed brought up, and how to visualise them?For my MSC in Ecology a few years back, I used network analysis software to visualise connections between plants and fruit-eating birds to predict outcomes on their ecosystems. Surely (i hope) there are people out there who have been doing similar but for capturing economic complexity at a granular level.
we're still here now aren't we? we might not make it past a few decades but the last thing we should be doing is just accepting that. we should be doing everything we can to look after each other and protect the living earth. rage, rage against the dying of the light. sincerely, a younger person
I’m posting a grand reward for a AI benchmark prompt for our climate crisis. Needed to make AI useful on the problems. So far all I have gotten is crickets.
Interesting conversation between two very bright people who care deeply about changing our disastrous course towards planetary ecological collapse, yet no discussion of power, who wields it in our world and will resist with all their might those of us who build grassroots political and social movements for system change. When she talked about wanting partners of many types, she failed to mention activists and organizers.
Thank you for the content. Just wondering, by "shallowing the discount rate," is this used colloquially, or used more rigorously, such as in flattening the bond yield curve, QE, or inflation, as it applied to energy?
I feel ambivalent about this kind of initiative, which seems like a further offshoot of the auditing mentality that has come to monopolise human frameworks since the advent of numerically based accounting instruments aimed at "maximising efficiency" and so on, leading step by step to further advancements in mathematics and technology, including the development of logarithms and improved computational methods, which were critical to the Scientific Revolution. The rest, as they say, is history - and these kind of programmes merely add to the sense that until we see the numbers, everything is undecided and up in the air. But the situation we find ourselves in is perfectly visible to anyone who looks up from their grindstone and surveys their immediate surroundings. The core issue, as Nate suggests, is that most people must function under conditions of such precarity (even when ostensibly "rich" - most people are two paychecks from the street) that they cannot afford the bandwidth to think, let alone consider taking action on the back of thought. Ecocidal paralysis is where the happenstance of sociocultural development, urged by the logic of capitalism, has delivered us.
Hey Nate, thanks for pushing back on her the need for more data. I am not really sure based on your conversation with her what exactly it is. She hopes to accomplish with her new modeling. It seems like there’s enough modeling out there and I don’t think she was able to hear your point that more action is needed now. Thank you for bringing up the point that for the most part people are not able to do the work because they’re running on the hamster wheel providing individuals with more agency absolutely what’s needed right now.we need new models and it seems as the wealthy people have the capacity to create models on which our system can and eventually evolve, but that’s gonna involve incentivizing wealthy people with incentives of the monetary system. Anyway, keep up the good work.
Doughnut Economics seems directly related to this topic ie constraining growth to within planetary boundaries. It's already being implemented in some cities, where it's easier to make change happen I guess. Would be interesting to hear more about what solutions they've come up with.
This is a good program, but I suspect that it's too little too late. Even the IPCC has admitted in 2018 that we are experiencing abrupt climate change and a year later they admitted that because the oceans are overheated that climate change is not stoppable on any time scale relevant to humans. We have passed the 2 degree C limit a couple of years ago and mainstream media is still going with the 1.3 C rise by using a 1880-1920 baseline instead of the real one of 1750. How can we expect to change all the things that we need to transition when one of the political parties in the US is still backing a Presidential candidate that denies climate change. When will we be able to focus on climate change when the war between Russia and Ukraine, Israel and everybody in the Middle East, India and China fighting over Bhutan, and China going after Taiwan. We are also in the midst of a mass extermination of species all over the planet, land and ocean. The giant hurricanes/typhoons, forest fires all over the planet, even in Siberia. The permafrost is melting everywhere it exists, methane in the atmosphere is rising dramatically, most benthic and pelagic fisheries are depleted and the ocean is acidifying along with heating, which reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the water. The Amazon is now a CO2 source instead of a sink and it's burning faster now than ever before. The Russians have destroyed the ability of one of the world's biggest grain exporters, Ukraine, to grow wheat and ship it by sea since they are now bombing the civilian grain ships. The disastrous weather around the world has reduced harvests in most places, we are facing famine, China especially is in danger because of the heat waves and floods compounded by an insanely incompetent government. This is kind of a jumbled post since it's off the cuff, but if one looks carefully they can discover that there is much, much more going on that isn't being reported in the mainstream media. And if Trump gets back into the White House he will put Project 2025 in place and the whole country will have a DeSantis style climate change policy, i.e. denial, denial, denial.
@@wvhaugen I would like to draw your attention to the October 2024 issue of Scientific American magazine, on page 68 is an article by Naomi Oreskes in which she discusses the Svalbard Seed Storage Facility. This storage vault is an attempt at adapting and, as she points out, it's not working and may be totally ineffective in the end. Good read, thoughtful. I think the "adapt" concept is hopium and I see it being troweled out all over the media. Yes, humans may be able to adapt to the higher wet-bulb temps by using technology to keep us cool, but our existence is dependent on the planetary biosphere and we cannot cool that adequately except by preventing the heating to begin with. The proposal has actually been made that we should put the Seed Vault on the South Pole of the Moon where the temperature is always hundreds of degrees below zero without any refrigeration equipment like that required at the Svalbard facility. Hello? Sometimes it's like there is no intelligent life on Earth. Dr. Guy McPherson has a website that gives a lot of good information directly from peer review scientific journals and he has done a short video on Naomi Oreskes' article. arctic-news.blogspot.com/ It's unfortunate but the more I study the more I think that humanity is toast. With all the wars heating up, the insane politicians getting into office, and the fact that no one is even talking about the issue of 450 nuclear power plants melting down when the electrical grid goes down, it all makes me think that there are no where near enough thinking people to change the course of humanity in time to save us. Dr. McPherson has pointed out that if there is a grid failure we will see Fukushima style meltdowns in all or most of the nuclear power plants and when this happens the ionizing radiation will, among other things, destroy the ozone layer in the stratosphere that protects the surface of the Earth from the hard UV-C radiation from the Sun. This by itself may very well sterilize the surface of the whole Earth. Now add to that good news the fact that there are about 1000 nuclear fuel pools in which spent nuclear fuel is stored. These pools are kept cool by circulating doped water through them that absorbs neutrons. When the grid goes down the pumps will stop, the pools will boil until the water is gone and the fuel rods exposed to the air will begin to burn releasing vast quantities or radiation into the atmosphere. This will exacerbate the nuclear plant melt downs and the destruction of the ozone. This scenario leaves out all the damage that the release of all this ionizing radiation will do to the lifeforms trying to live on Earth. This is really scary to me because I watch a lot of programs about climate change and no one ever mentions the danger of nuke plants and the fuel pools. China is in desperate trouble because just like the Russians and the Americans who dumped nuke waste higgledy-piggledy all over with little thought to tomorrow (THIS IS WAR, we can't be thinking about future generations!) The Chinese in their rush to catch up with the rest of the world have dumped pollutants so widely that it now appears that half of all the ground water in China is contaminated to the point that it isn't safe for consumption--human, animal, or plant. The real tragedy of life is that you're here today and you're here tomorrow. Read up on the salt cycle and how we have screwed it up. The good thing about being depressed is that you can't get depressed.
@@wvhaugenat some point, we cannot adapt if we have offshored all our economic growth opportunities (also known as cheap labour), of which the working bodies can no longer live, let alone comfortably, in the places they inhabit, and growth is the goal at all cost? How is that 'adapt'? Adapt to what? Our economic overlords? Who is adapting? Adaptation vs mitigation, which one is smarter?
We blew up Nordstream, releasing gigatons of methane into the atmosphere, causing the largest ecological catastrophe in human history! We’re also shipping a nonstop flow of 2000lb bunker buster bombs that are being used to commit a genocide, flatten and “reconfigure” the ME! Is it Trump in office right now doing these horrifying things? Please, and I mean this as compassionately as I can say it; Get a grip, it doesn’t matter who’s in office and in case you hadn’t noticed democrats are the war party.
I think “doing” IS the problem. Doing less is the solution. But we don’t want that, do we. We want to continue doing what we are doing but remove the collateral damage to the ecosystem. Impossible.
Unfortunately the more I learn about the tranche of threats to our Earth System, and the behavior of global ruling classes (dictated by their donors), then the more I feel myself in a state of "informed helplessness". Such state is not adversely impacting my own mental state, nor my outlook on life, but for many it must engender varying degrees of apathy, none of which will get us out of the mire.
Kari Syoever has unrealistic hopes. There are not enough minerals, metals, commoddities for more than a small fraction of current global population to move to low emissions energy. The consequence is the only energy supply available to keep the current population from famine is fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be used to economic depletion within a few decades, when the cost of supply of commodities is more than the ability to pay. The only solution is to rapidly reduce global population in a managed humane way or face famine and migrations of millions across the globe.
It's not possible to RAPIDLY reduce population in a HUMANE (i.e. no premature deaths) way, unless by rapid you mean in a century. But I question the idea that we'd starve without fossil fuels. We will certain lead simpler lives, with more physical work--but raising food does not require fossil fuels. Only "conventional" (industrial) agriculture does.
@@Mary-n1q Global demography is aging rapidly already, by 2050 global population will be in collapse. Feeding any city that has more than a couple hundred thousand people is impossible with out fossil fuels. If population is not reduced by management it will be by natural forces.
@@Mary-n1q- You are correct. Dieoff will not be humane. But it will happen no matter what we do. My program is sustainable ag and landrace development so the survivors can survive and thrive in a torched world.
@@wvhaugen have you seen--or read--Chris Smaje's Small Farm Future? That's his program too, with the hope that the dieoff and torching can be minimal. Right now the maniacs running the US seem determined to set up a nuclear war and kill us all...
@dan2304 I don't disagree with you and I'm not a naive optimist. In fact I lose a lot of sleep over the issues you point out. I will remain hopeful, but hope is not a strategy and should never replace action.
Right? This lady lives in La La Land. More AI modeling!.... for what? More models aren't changing minds, they're just hoovering energy that we (humamity) can't spare.
I've a little difference in opinion, that's : now, at least in 2024 a majority of human are witnessing a large scale anomalies in daily weather & past climatic trend everywher in Developed as well as in developing countries, even well aware about the 1 vanising island country Tovalu, wich is sure to be unmanned by 2025. Shifting of people to Australia has been started. As the salinity of drinking water increases, the speed of migration will spikingly increase, may be Dec'24. They mostly are educated, literate & facing a large-scale migration forever. The 1st large country is India, to be surely. Till we're not finding any slowdown of Individual level transformation to live entangaled with nature. Even if you try to be a communicator, everyone refuses to listen even without any financial charges. Everyone including you it's a common narrative to be "Informed with conciousness", & always raise ❓mark on certainly, as these are till now considered as externalities and giving room to Economics to win hands-down. How your narratives fits with individual behaviour & food habit changes with increasing perception of eqality & rights for getting ecological services eqally equally❓. Any right process of free service even to be distributed eqally if delivered to a huge population densitometric community how it is possible without a benevolent dictetorship & pressing rules globally❗
Fine, think global, act local, and small is beautiful, but oil companies are multinationals. One way we could solve the climate crisis, and provide techniques to solve all the other problems, is by dismantling a refinery that is on the coast for export.
I think people feel completely unable to have any impact on what is happening. What can one one person or small group really impact in a world where big countries just want to move toward industrialization and more consumption? Small initiatives may make a person feel a bit better but don’t have any impact.
I really love the idea of an interactive tool that the layman can play with to see up to date data on the state of the planet with comprehensive variables not just climate. This is awesome! However. I must say something frustrated me about this guest. Its not that I don't value her incredible work and the importance of it, I suppose it's just the sense that she is one of the rare people who have a holistic focus but then at the same time will put emphasis on voting in the upcoming election as an action you can do to help the planet. I'm always sceptical of people who talk politically in terms of solutions to a meta crisis, as if it's a linear system or a binary. I know I could be strawmanning her but the absence of careful language around this point is reason enough to at least raise the point. I also feel slightly frustrated at the talk of having an awakening of consciousness, sacrifice for the for the planet, and realising we are all connected when there are millions of people in this world (in WIERD countries too) who cant afford food. I think it would be far more productive for her to talk about incentive systems that set up the means by which people can live dignified lives first, before they start caring about the planet. Because there will be no great awakening to planetary sustainability without healthy and happy humans. It's frustrating that these pioneering people seem to be thinking within the bounds of the system nonetheless. I hear a lot of talk about having an awakening of consciousness and realising we are all connected, but no discussion of radical ways to get there e.g. psychedelic research and models of how it could be used by people for deeper connection. I don't hear them talking about bitcoin as a sustainable tech that can move us from inflationary growth-based economics to a more stable situation for people and the planet. They don't seem to talk about some of the most powerful tools at our disposal for changing culture and consciousness but instead talk about voting..? It just strikes me as lacking of the outside-of-convention thinking that we need to truly solve these problems.
The 2022 eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano in the South Pacific was estimated to have injected about **146 to 150 teragrams (or million metric tons)** of water vapor into the stratosphere. This event significantly increased the water vapor content in this layer of the atmosphere by approximately **10%** of the water already present there. This estimate reflects a substantial injection of water vapor, equating to roughly **40 trillion gallons** of water, which is an extraordinary amount, enough to temporarily influence global climate by potentially causing a warming effect due to water vapor being a potent greenhouse gas.
@@rosskirkwood8411it’s possible. I know alot of climate scientists and none of them are confident in the reasons for abrupt recent warming. Certainly the dimming from reduced aerosol played a role. But….dunno
I see people expressing awareness of externalities as a problem, and of the need for system change. No mention of the one policy (Fee-and-Dividend) that would account for externalities in an efficient and fair way. The policy would also promote sustainability and end poverty. Why not mention the one policy that would address environmental and social justice challengess?
Laws are the biggest issue for us. You get to the point of organized informed mind with the goal to make change & then years spent in laws & the system. Seems like life” is waiting for the collapse of our current system so the recovery can begin. Because as our political leaders have demonstrated that with the current system these no freaking chance
A couple of invalid assumptions here. 1) Overpopulation can continue into the foreseeable future. 2) State-level society is a good thing. 3) More science-based technology will be a net gain.
Been watching the slow decline of planetary systems, processes, services & goods for decades, despite global efforts to counter these (eg UN protocols & treaties, 2030 Agenda, global efforts to counter corruption & international crime etc). As I watch various events & discussions and see some of the successful projects implemented around the world, I swing like a pendulum between hope & despair. But we shoulf also talk cities. The UN estimates that between 75 - 80 % of people will live in cities by 2050. Cities general has a parasitic relationship with its hinterland(s) sucking material & resources and spewing out pollution & waste far & wide. The opposite should be true. Cities should be in a symbiotic relationship with its surrounding communities, providing solutions & prosperity to residents & suppliers (whoever they are). Much tech allows this, eg clean air, food & water security, clean & affordable energy, housing & urban services, quality healthcare & education, awa climate ready blue green & grey infrastructure whilst eliminating or minimising waste & pollution. A few cities are making a big effort to do this, but many are not... or can't (for a myriad of reasons). Think global, act local. One of my favourite quotes (attributed to Einstein): Not all things that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted...
Two wealthy people sitting in a perfectly arranged perfectly interior designed perfectly fresh room expressing concern and facilitating decisions for governments and corporations who will provide money for their continued high life. Flying, filming and factualizing. Gathering data. Drilling down.
I am noticing a trend on this show that I detest. Cronyism is a real downer. The host frequently boasts that the interviewees are his buddies. An underlying inference is cast. The viewer, by connecting into this group, will become part of a favored, even privileged member of an informed in-group. Through this connection the viewer may feel connected on what is really important regarding the latest scientific research information on global warming ---on the cusp of scientific knowledge on survival in a warming planet. This show reminds me of the green movement, where careers were made. We learned in time that so called "environmentalists" were mostly playing a game. They were attracted to the money and prestige gained from their rising popularity. Corporations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo became wise to the vulnerabilities of the greens. They learned that the "green" could be bought. It eventually became well known that the green movement was compromised. All this has worked in favor of the capitalist by succeeding in delaying action on climate change. Trends on this show remind me of the green movement. I don't want to be identified with a bunch of affluent groupies bestowing accolades to the host in the comments section. Global warming is not theater.
@@uptoit100 you could have a valid point. However, Nate also frequently says to his guests "we haven't met before". I think it's inevitable that anyone creating a podcast on a particular subject will go to those who they know first. It's not like an international media organisation with far reaching connections, and people approaching him to be interviewed. Also, Nate will have made connections and friends through his work, so it's not akin to cronyism in that regard. How would you suggest he goes about obtaining guests for his show to get round the issue? What is it, specifically, that conversations are missing? I think, in the end, that being part of an online group will be largely meaningless unless that online presence and message can be translated to the local platform.
Friend fwiw I have very little money Way below average US citizen. But I am blessed to have a vast wealth of friends most of whom are scientists. I’m trying to- w my skills and my network to change the conversation. All I can do is all I can do.
@@thegreatsimplification No need to be apologetic for anything you do. Anyone who possesses a modicum of heart and intelligence recognizes your benign intentions.
We have all been serially disappointed. Your second paragraph is an excellent condemnation of Democratic politicians who exploit the deep concerns many of us have for the health of our planet only to gain more power for themselves. I do not see Nate Hagens as a greenwasher. He is far from it. Your comment reminds me of the film Lincoln. Thaddeus Stevens, an anti-slavery zealot, despises Lincoln for his compromises so much that he struggles to support the 13th amendment that will abolish slavery.
@@thegreatsimplification It might help me if I could understand what it is that you're doing to change the conversation. I have watched quite a few of your videos. I can follow a technical discussion in the natural sciences. You seem to have earned quite a lot of admiration but what good is that? There are personal nuances that vary from one guest to the other, but the bulk of research on global warming is long term and incremental. Nobody is making big breakthroughs here and there is a lot of repetition. Keep doing what you're doing if that is what you want to do. You remind of the farmer who was asked what he'd do if won a million dollars in a lottery. He replied that he'd keep on farming until all the money was gone. You'd probably accomplish more if you created a group life Extinction Rebellion and work with activists in non violent resistance. I'm 80 years old. I've done a few things the hard way. It's not that easy to pull the wool over my eyes.
The 'precautionary principle' is long dead! Why do we need a graphic to spur us to action? Why can't we get past Conformity, Religiosity, and Tribalism? (Whitehouse)
Humans still have a period of time fo a level of mitigation. But have you considered legitimately how money gated actually acting is? It would be great if there was a way for people who want to more directly get involved. Like an expedited degree program thats bill was footed by those already involved who have the resources. Imagine if the exact person you needed to get the ball rolling was one of those trapped in regular mundane life. Wouldn't it be ironic?
The three hats Nate talks about - I just can’t see how it would be possible for a vast number of people not to be wearing the first hat, which includes jobs, bills, and profits.
I'm with Chris Smaje--a small farm future is both desirable and inevitable. Having a job is only one to have money, and having money is only one way to get what you really need. we need to guarantee a small acreage to everyone who wants to grow their own food and maybe some more for trade. Homesteaders can also have a number of skills within the household to get multiple small income streams to meet needs, rather than one high-paid but precarious (and probably destructive) job.
@@Mary-n1q Yeah but, all of the land today is private property, largely held in the hands of a few. This whole desire to fundamentally change the system butts-up against such established interests, who of which happen to write the rules, so how is such a distribution to ever come about?
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ They don't just happen to make the rules; because sociopaths make the rules, we have all these crises. This is the lacuna in Nate's coverage--the political reality that we can change nothing in a positive direction, in directions absolutely necessary for he survival of civilization if not of humanity, without a revolution. Or a collapse. I cling to a thing I heard Dmitri Orlov say once: no government will uphold the rights of absentee landowners over local people in the event of a collapse. If you're squatting on a piece of land, building housing, taking care of the land, growing food--it's gonna be yours.
There is no boiling frog. First. But there definitely is a problem of complicit complacency. Yes, to her digital twining with data and experience...looking out the window.
365 X 100 - 36,500 days 52 X 100 - 5,200 weeks Off the top of my head Diapers 4 X 365 X 3 - 4,000 Food packaging 6 X 365 X 100 - 220,000 Clothing 40 X 100 - 4,000 Personal Hygiene - a lot Transportation - too many Dwelling - everywhere Medical waste - mind boggling Decorating/Entertainment from a pacifier to an eyebrow pencil to a couch to a book to a toy to a phone - everything 5,200 X 5 26,000 Diapers - Got to go Food packaging - Got to go Cooking food - Got to go Clothing - Got to go Personal Hygiene - Got to go Transportation- Got to go Dwellings - Got to go Decorating - Got to go Entertainment - Got to go Everything medical - Got to go Cave people lived a luxurious life because they had a dwelling, they decorated themselves, they had clothing and they cooked So what do we do. All I can think of off the top of my head is stop rearranging the crust of the planet except for planting fruit and nut trees everywhere keeping in mind that they will have to survive on their own.
Yea, nature has its ways, but if you’re into Al Bartlett you should see it in the following transcript, and if you go as far as to view the 4 minute video he even gets a screen mention there, now I’ll leave it to Prof. Tim Garrett:- Prof. Tim Garrett: “I think one thing I find really quite amazing is just how fast the changes may come upon us, because our current GROWTH RATE, it may seem small, just 2.3% per year or thereabouts for our rate of energy consumption growth, but that translates to a DOUBLING in our consumption rate in just 30 years, now that's incredible because if you think that it took us 10,000 years to get to our current consumption rate and that we will DOUBLE this again in just 30 years, then we are thinking about a change in civilisation that in our very lifetimes will reproduce everything that has happened over centuries, Millennium, and that brings us to, I think, to a very basic question, how will this happen, can we sustain a DOUBLING of our daily energy consumption rate and all the raw materials that go along with it, do those raw materials exist, perhaps they do, perhaps we can figure out ways to extract sufficient resources from our environment to maintain a DOUBLING of our civilisation in the NEXT 30 YEARS, and then in the NEXT 30 YEARS BEYOND THAT, which would be FOUR TIMES AS LARGE…”🤔 Short transcript from 4 minute RUclips video “Something Has Got To Give - Prof. Tim Garrett in Ecosophia - Collapse and Regeneration”🤔
Idea that we are able to understand the astonishingly complex interrelated systems that are at work on earth, to the point where we can make certain pronouncements is plain bonkers. You’re off into the realms of fantasy.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
A friend of mine mentioned in passing "I know you're worried about the future climate change..." and I just lost it.
"Worried? I'm not worried. I'm angry. To be worried about something implies a degree of uncertainty. We are witnessing the devastation in real time, my friend."
damn bro you really showed him
Nate, please consider having a guest to speak about the hospice perspective in the context of gracefully processing an inescapable terminal diagnosis.
Scheduling several (but did have Vanessa Andreotti on previously)
@@thegreatsimplification Yes to Vanessa Andreotti. "Hospicing Modernity"
Referencing Michael Dowd? He would have fit the bill. Lots of good material in his Post Doom conversations. Lots of bargaining too, it is a hard pill to swallow.
Overshoot in a Nutshell and
Collapse in a Nutshell are essential material for those new to the topic. All here on YT.
Cheers!
@@mischeviousThank you for introducing me to the work of the late Michael Dowd (d. 10-07-2023). I will check it his writings and youtube talks.🙏
What we do to the planet, we also do to ourself. That is how interconnected we all are.
There is no we.
"We" - the human species, separate and above all else in in the living world. Our hubris and arrogance is the fatal flaw that threatens EVERYTHING because we have been taught since birth that "Life" means human life.
Well said 🙏🌞
Kids
@@treefrog3349thanks! i love you
I am enjoying your podcasts, hearing specifics and numbers to all that I have been aware of for decades.
WHAT IM MISSING FROM ALL OF YOURS AND OTHER'S PODCASTS, is a detailed description of positive actions a person should take to mitigate the effects of human over reach.
Don't travel. Know your back yard, the plants and animals ..love them, look after them and know what keeps them healthy. Grow your own food. Share it. Teach locally good living practices like Rainwater Harvesting.
Invest time and resources in community. Stay home. Stay home. Stay home and look after your home. Expect others to do the same.
@@kriswellstein8308 I think that Nate has mentioned those things on numerous occasions. However, things like growing your own food and rainwater harvesting don't just clip seamlessly onto our city based system. There isn't the space, nor the equal share of land that would allow it. This the great simplification highlights the issues as they are as well as discussing high level system thinking that might bring about global change. Like you, I am skeptical about the ability of a governing system to manage global change for 8 billion humans, and I believe that the simple measures that you mention will indeed be the solution. However that won't be at the required scale and large catastrophe is on the horizon. I think Nate called his channel the great simplification for a reason though, and that's because he points toward a future that your solutions will sit firmly within.
The most important personal lifestyle choice anyone can make now is to join a movement to flatten and decentralize the structure of power.
@@ricos1497. Fair enough and I accept what you are saying about high density communities vs more rural opportunities. I still think we need to be more actively herded toward better behavior. A little guilt now will be better than the bigger guilt down the line.
How about we hear that.. we as potential parents need to think more about the world's collective consequences for each child before we conceive.?
Each decision we individuals make has the potential to drive us closer to the brink.
@@kriswellstein8308 I don't think there is collective consequences for each child, because we're not one homogeneous mass. Every locality will be different and that locality is the context in which each family makes their decisions. It's difficult to feel guilty about anything our system does, because our basic needs have been abstracted, layered through the system so that the complexities are impossible to fathom for most people. That's why I agree that your suggestions of growing your own food and rainwater harvesting are sound. Fundamentally, they remove complexity and place responsibility directly at the point of use. That is key to the future (as it was the past), and that is the basis on which we can feel guilt and make responsible decisions. I think that'll take system collapse to come to bear. Or certainly very big jolts to the system.
The question now is not how to get the planet "back to a safe operating space" but how do we adapt to a planet where this is no longer possible and lesson the impact now that we are past 1.5 degrees. Never the "official" 1.2 or 1.3 as the definition has been adjusted by creative accounting. We are not headed somewhere where we can swerve. We are here and its time we stop pretending what is not true.
I don't have any faith in "raising consciousness". We are primarily creatures of instincts. We are not masters of ourselves. We are slaves to ourselves. We are only informed of our motivations for our behaviour on a "need to know" by the deep state of the mind, manufacturing feel good narratives we can live with like the deep state of a nation. Nor do I have much faith in activists who use the buzz word "hope". That is so passée. A lot of people have had "hope" for over 30 years and much good it's done. Not a single run on the board. Only increasing levels of emissions and increasing CO2 levels. The promise of George H W Bush made in RIO in 1992 that the "American way of life is not negotiable" has been kept faithfully. The promise to do something about the planet was an optional extra and it has been dropped.
Grammar error "adjusted by creative accounting" S.B. "adjusted by not Cherry Picking natural fluctuations". Boy is Grammar ever poor these last few decades.
Yeah. This ice age that we're living in, that climate scientists were predicting in the 70's, sure is warm.
I often feel this same urgency and frustration but I also think the second half of this conversation explored your concerns effectively. A change in consciousness will not necessarily ‘save’ us, but if one can see beyond humans and beyond this ‘one beautiful life’ we’ve all been given, we can redefine growth and energy and self in radical new ways. Paradigm shift. There is so much we can still do as our species careens toward the cliff. It’s never too late to grow up; to love more. The gifts of the creation of this energy remain even if we do not. Think of your loved ones who have passed. Their love still opens hearts. Their lives mattered.
@@pauperdiamond8733 Learn a little bit about science and especially climatology. Because of increasing global dimming through air pollution in the 60s and 70s SOME experts proposed that this could trigger a new ice age. This was back than not more than a hypothesis, never widely accepted and never a scientific fact like anthropogenic global warming is now for decades. Actually this global dimming masked the forcing of CO2 on global temperature for a few years and it's not a coincidence that in the 80s after air pollution control became effective global warming gained momentum.
What a pleasant surprise, a Sunday morning post! Thanks for your work, Nate. I look forward to listening.
Thanks again for a beautiful episode! Extra credits for the production.
Appreciate the effort by the whole team for the good you do in the world.
Greetings from Finland
Imagine if all the brilliant people who were just involved in catching spacex’s heavy booster today turned their ingenuity toward finding overshoot solutions. We might even have a chance.
This would be a great Sunday format if possible Nate. I know you already have so much going on but it’s such a great vibe.
Oh I so agree! Thank you for suggesting this.
Oh I so agree! Thank you for suggesting this.
The word overpopulation was never mentioned. The idea that planetary boundaries can be restrained through information, epiphany, or awakening without limiting population is ludicrous. It is certain that population will decline dramatically, but if not intentional (through global education and opportunity for women), it will be maximal suffering by the poorest and youngest.
Capitalism is a choice, redistribution can be done in different economic systems.
See what I mean? Where we look for solutions changes the perspectives. Population has gotten us in the situation we are in, but the use of wealth (resources) is what is damaging. If everyone lived within earth's boundaries, we would not have a problem.
Whether or not this is possible and or probable, or wanted, is a whole other question which was not discussed here.
I thing humans made the proverbial wrong turn at Albuquerque when in Genesis they (men, obviously) wrote that God gave dominion over the earth and all its creatures to men. We should have chosen to be stewards, instead of Lords. When you talk about a "different worldview" , that passage in the Bible is what I'm always reminded of. (Disclosure- I'm and Atheist). Thanks for the conversation, it's always illuminating and hopeful.
If you are the high priest of the Aztec city - you are entitled to hubris up to the sun.
Atheism is generally associated with 'natural science' - that is the same god-like arrogance. (Not you hopefully :)
*_"The universe is fundamentally explainable"_* is their crazy creation statement.
Even from the evolutionary perspective everything else is still our natural resources, our property.
And capitalism externalizes all of it, it only has value if it can be sold for profits.
Typically inferred misinterpretation to back personal biases.
If you would please refer to Levitical land laws.
Whoa an in-person! Let’s go
Only savages wear boots indoors. Throw away that carpet and buy new from China.
Great connection with previous podcasts, thank you. And nice to see Nate in a diffeeent setting!
The Three Hat Conundrum is so spot on Brother.
Kari is one smart woman…
Great interview
Great ending to a great final question. Magic wands and Love. It's so important to continue to infuse positivity to engage those that feel overwhelmed (like me). I feel good knowing I'm participating in the Roots and Shoots in my own way.
Relative to the deleterious actions of the powerful few your benign good wishes are meaningless. Most of us WISH that things were otherwise, but doing so won't change a thing.
this was a good one Nate ! the last 3 min were very special. thanks !
Damn! I have trouble getting out of bed in the morning. Kari just told me the reason to get up. Thank you.
We are one species interconnected to all the other species we share the planet with.
I loved this interview Nate🙏. Such I nice, well rounded message and inspiring us all to take on board the broad issues. Thank you, thank you Nate and Kari
Interesting. I'm a bit of a systems' geek too, but I came to the conclusion that trying to implement a system to control or organise a society as complex as our own would be impossible. I think collecting data is interesting and well intentioned, however I'm not convinced it can translate into change as radical as that which will be required. The system controls itself and tends towards further complexity. We just have to wait it out I think, until such times as the complexity begins to decrease to a level that we can start to look at social reorganising from that lower level of complexity. The answer will come in the form of community and visibility of the ins and outs of the local, with few externalities which are too unreliable to be trusted. The way to get humans to realise their boundaries is for them to be intimate and visible. That's always been the case. No temporary civilisation has managed otherwise.
@@ricos1497 how and why would it become less complex? Those running / creating it would no longer understand it? Or chose to not share its inner workings to successors anymore?
@@RubenKemp apologies, that wasn't very clear! It becomes less complex through various forms of collapse. Supply chains become less and less reliable and things return to the local. That would be across the board, of course. As the Limits to Growth and its update predict, it won't just be one single chain, or material, it will be multiple cascading shortfalls. Food will be affected by ammonia prices, dictated by hydrogen costs. Cement by dwindling sand supplies, electronics by copper. Thus global supply chain prices rocket and come to a halt as people can't afford them. On a local level, I might have to change farming practices because I can't access fertilizer, so beans provide my nitrogen. The local utilities begin to collapse as they can't afford maintenance, so we shift to turning our human waste to compost at source, providing another component in place of fertiliser. As I lose the ability to maintain my tractor, whose GPS field plotting system failed a while ago, I have to scale back my farming operations and move to polyculture and more labour. I can't get a replacement for my tablesaw blade because they're three times the price they used to be, so I recycle the old ones into bladed hand tools. Whilst those things are perhaps no less complex, that complexity is entirely visible, as it always has been to humans. My pencil becomes a stick of charcoal rather than an 83 step supply chain process traversing the planet.
How does that translate to our cities? I have no idea. In the smaller ones, it might be possible to disaggregate them into smaller communities with some roads torn up for food growing, leaving just a few central routes for remaining transport. However, I think there will be a reckoning for cities. We'll have to really think about what cities are and what they're for. As far as I can see, they are simply large units of domesticated, disconnected humans, where everything is shipped in or shipped out, completely abstracted by the system from what really is. They'll suffer the most, but the question is whether they will pass that suffering onto others. A brief glance at history suggests so. It'll start by finding an other group, or groups. Then commandeering rural land in the locality. Probably a return to slavery as they put the other group into inefficient labour in the fields. All in order to save the grotesque, "civilised" model.
We'll, that got dark quickly. I'm off for a lie down.
A great cull would facilitate a rewiring of the status quo - but the 2020 pandemic was a pinprick in reducing global population
I was catching up on older vids and this popped. Nice interview style. Excellent concept. Thanks for all you do. 😍
I tell people about this prdicament with an elevator pitch, specially in Uber syle rides about this predicament and many seem to not really get it or care much. I kind of get the feeling that if it doesn't really affect us withing our lifetime, we really don't worry about it. Those who have another 60 or so years to live I believe will see drastic changes and will have to change their lifestyles with no choice left.
Sacrificial love. I love that. I think I'm trying to give up things in a way that helps the planet, but I also know that I'm not doing enough.
I thought the comment about voting was pretty naive--we have a system in place that guarantees anyone we can vote for will and can do nothing useful, because they must cater to their funders, Only changing that system will allow us to have any effect. On the other hand, in the early discussion of what a yearly checkup with graphs can do: first, maybe it's me but I love graphs because they show relationships instantly, convey a lot of information clearly. And secondly, doing a checkup annually will be very helpful because it WILL get worse every year, in most if not all sectors--and this may be what jars a lot of people out of apathy. In particular, it will interfere with greenwashing, when we don't have to wait seven years to see adverse results.
LOVE: Listen, Observe, Value, Evolve
Expecting today's numbers, to live on this planet without long-term lasting impacts, is unrealistic.
The current energy predicament is but only part of the problem, and there are some solutions and tools that we can adapt.
However, our demand for resources/and our continued impact, is by far, considered by many to be unsolvable.
When guests like this one suggest augmented reality as a solution, I nearly puke up.
No one answers this fundamental question.
People are dying NOW, near starving NOW, living in squalor, on or around trash heaps, in polluted areas. They are being told to suffer for the rest of humanity, but can not be paid, convencied, shown how having 1 or 2 children would be not only in their best intrest but their community, and country.
How do we continue solve all the problems if we do not face the overshoot we have created?
Along with others you and I are just as much a part of the problem of over population and ecological overshoot, so don’t point the finger elsewhere in the belief we’re more deserving of larger ecological footprint than others far less fortunate. Contemplate this:-
Prof. Tim Garrett: “I think one thing I find really quite amazing is just how fast the changes may come upon us, because our current GROWTH RATE, it may seem small, just 2.3% per year or thereabouts for our rate of energy consumption growth, but that translates to a DOUBLING in our consumption rate in just 30 years, now that's incredible because if you think that it took us 10,000 years to get to our current consumption rate and that we will DOUBLE this again in just 30 years, then we are thinking about a change in civilisation that in our very lifetimes will reproduce everything that has happened over centuries, Millennium, and that brings us to, I think, to a very basic question, how will this happen, can we sustain a DOUBLING of our daily energy consumption rate and all the raw materials that go along with it, do those raw materials exist, perhaps they do, perhaps we can figure out ways to extract sufficient resources from our environment to maintain a DOUBLING of our civilisation in the NEXT 30 YEARS, and then in the NEXT 30 YEARS BEYOND THAT, which would be FOUR TIMES AS LARGE…”🤔
Short transcript from 4 minute RUclips video “Something Has Got To Give - Prof. Tim Garrett in Ecosophia - Collapse and Regeneration”🤔
Best check the consumption and carbon footprint of a millionaire as compared to a poor person, even in the US.
One example:
Do you know why Somali pirates “terrorists” exist?
Because trans-national corporations took all of their fish, left them with nothing but sand to eat.
Love this idea! Brilliant
It seems to me that we are asking people with higher levels of living to give up much of what they have to allow people of lower levels of living to have more. People with more power need to relinquish their power (and privilege) in order to allow a voice to people with less power. I just don't see it happening. People with more want to protect themselves and especially their families. They want a nice house, nice car, nice vacations for thier families and they want to hang around with other people just like them who do't make them feel guilty. They just don't see that by holding onto more stuff they are contributing to the future decline of their own families. How do we get people living now to sacrifice for the newly born and unborn of the future. It is a rare person who can think that way, but that is what I believe we need. A first step is to elect leaders who will lead us in that direction. It just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
I certainly agree… Except maybe for the so called “first step” (they simply wouldn’t make it to the chair behind the desk).
Kari mentioned relating the story about planetary boundaries to local contexts. I don't see that being done. There should be some story about what a plus 2-degree world would mean for NW Europe, for the SE United States, for the Ganges valley, for the Middle East, etc., etc. Bringing it down to the regional level might help awaken people. Or just applying it to individual cities--New York, Paris, Shanghai, etc,--would stir people up more than citing the bursting of global boundaries.
There's one for the U.S.: www.youtube.com/@AmericanResiliency
@@janetdowell6005 Thanks for directing me to this. I would still like to hear some real climate scientists talk about various regions both in the States and around the world.
Nate, having just re-watched your fascinating discussion with Ed Conway, can you please find someone to discuss modern more in-depth approaches to input output tables that Ed brought up, and how to visualise them?For my MSC in Ecology a few years back, I used network analysis software to visualise connections between plants and fruit-eating birds to predict outcomes on their ecosystems. Surely (i hope) there are people out there who have been doing similar but for capturing economic complexity at a granular level.
Why can't we accept we're not going to make it past a few more decades?
Glad to be an older person.
we're still here now aren't we? we might not make it past a few decades but the last thing we should be doing is just accepting that. we should be doing everything we can to look after each other and protect the living earth. rage, rage against the dying of the light.
sincerely,
a younger person
Sunday morning interview!? I like the "in-person style". This is the first time I've seen you sitting near another person. You're fucking huge, Nate!
Ya. Working on that. But thanks for noticing 😂
@@thegreatsimplification 😁❤
Yeah, Nate Hagens is a BIG Guy, but I believe that at least half of him is HEART!
I’m posting a grand reward for a AI benchmark prompt for our climate crisis. Needed to make AI useful on the problems. So far all I have gotten is crickets.
Hollow sexy buzz words are worse than crickets. More distracting. Unfortunate.
@@ChimpJacobman Let me know if you want to see where we stand on this.
Interesting conversation between two very bright people who care deeply about changing our disastrous course towards planetary ecological collapse, yet no discussion of power, who wields it in our world and will resist with all their might those of us who build grassroots political and social movements for system change. When she talked about wanting partners of many types, she failed to mention activists and organizers.
Thank you for the content. Just wondering, by "shallowing the discount rate," is this used colloquially, or used more rigorously, such as in flattening the bond yield curve, QE, or inflation, as it applied to energy?
I feel ambivalent about this kind of initiative, which seems like a further offshoot of the auditing mentality that has come to monopolise human frameworks since the advent of numerically based accounting instruments aimed at "maximising efficiency" and so on, leading step by step to further advancements in mathematics and technology, including the development of logarithms and improved computational methods, which were critical to the Scientific Revolution.
The rest, as they say, is history - and these kind of programmes merely add to the sense that until we see the numbers, everything is undecided and up in the air. But the situation we find ourselves in is perfectly visible to anyone who looks up from their grindstone and surveys their immediate surroundings. The core issue, as Nate suggests, is that most people must function under conditions of such precarity (even when ostensibly "rich" - most people are two paychecks from the street) that they cannot afford the bandwidth to think, let alone consider taking action on the back of thought. Ecocidal paralysis is where the happenstance of sociocultural development, urged by the logic of capitalism, has delivered us.
“… further offshoot of auditing mentality” - LOVE it. I simply LOVE it.
I’d say we need to work it from the ground up.
Tipping points have been double crossed as it were. 🌎
Looks like you are on the Ma Earth production site. Hope you have Matthew Monahan on your podcast.
Hey Nate, thanks for pushing back on her the need for more data. I am not really sure based on your conversation with her what exactly it is. She hopes to accomplish with her new modeling. It seems like there’s enough modeling out there and I don’t think she was able to hear your point that more action is needed now. Thank you for bringing up the point that for the most part people are not able to do the work because they’re running on the hamster wheel providing individuals with more agency absolutely what’s needed right now.we need new models and it seems as the wealthy people have the capacity to create models on which our system can and eventually evolve, but that’s gonna involve incentivizing wealthy people with incentives of the monetary system. Anyway, keep up the good work.
Doughnut Economics seems directly related to this topic ie constraining growth to within planetary boundaries. It's already being implemented in some cities, where it's easier to make change happen I guess. Would be interesting to hear more about what solutions they've come up with.
I’d love to see you interview Tim Winton. His new book is meant to be great.
I wonder if Steve Keen's Minsky software could be used to model the planet's environmental systems?
This is a good program, but I suspect that it's too little too late. Even the IPCC has admitted in 2018 that we are experiencing abrupt climate change and a year later they admitted that because the oceans are overheated that climate change is not stoppable on any time scale relevant to humans. We have passed the 2 degree C limit a couple of years ago and mainstream media is still going with the 1.3 C rise by using a 1880-1920 baseline instead of the real one of 1750. How can we expect to change all the things that we need to transition when one of the political parties in the US is still backing a Presidential candidate that denies climate change. When will we be able to focus on climate change when the war between Russia and Ukraine, Israel and everybody in the Middle East, India and China fighting over Bhutan, and China going after Taiwan. We are also in the midst of a mass extermination of species all over the planet, land and ocean. The giant hurricanes/typhoons, forest fires all over the planet, even in Siberia. The permafrost is melting everywhere it exists, methane in the atmosphere is rising dramatically, most benthic and pelagic fisheries are depleted and the ocean is acidifying along with heating, which reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the water. The Amazon is now a CO2 source instead of a sink and it's burning faster now than ever before. The Russians have destroyed the ability of one of the world's biggest grain exporters, Ukraine, to grow wheat and ship it by sea since they are now bombing the civilian grain ships. The disastrous weather around the world has reduced harvests in most places, we are facing famine, China especially is in danger because of the heat waves and floods compounded by an insanely incompetent government. This is kind of a jumbled post since it's off the cuff, but if one looks carefully they can discover that there is much, much more going on that isn't being reported in the mainstream media. And if Trump gets back into the White House he will put Project 2025 in place and the whole country will have a DeSantis style climate change policy, i.e. denial, denial, denial.
Adapt or die.
@@wvhaugen
I would like to draw your attention to the October 2024 issue of Scientific American magazine, on page 68 is an article by Naomi Oreskes in which she discusses the Svalbard Seed Storage Facility. This storage vault is an attempt at adapting and, as she points out, it's not working and may be totally ineffective in the end. Good read, thoughtful. I think the "adapt" concept is hopium and I see it being troweled out all over the media. Yes, humans may be able to adapt to the higher wet-bulb temps by using technology to keep us cool, but our existence is dependent on the planetary biosphere and we cannot cool that adequately except by preventing the heating to begin with. The proposal has actually been made that we should put the Seed Vault on the South Pole of the Moon where the temperature is always hundreds of degrees below zero without any refrigeration equipment like that required at the Svalbard facility. Hello? Sometimes it's like there is no intelligent life on Earth. Dr. Guy McPherson has a website that gives a lot of good information directly from peer review scientific journals and he has done a short video on Naomi Oreskes' article. arctic-news.blogspot.com/
It's unfortunate but the more I study the more I think that humanity is toast. With all the wars heating up, the insane politicians getting into office, and the fact that no one is even talking about the issue of 450 nuclear power plants melting down when the electrical grid goes down, it all makes me think that there are no where near enough thinking people to change the course of humanity in time to save us. Dr. McPherson has pointed out that if there is a grid failure we will see Fukushima style meltdowns in all or most of the nuclear power plants and when this happens the ionizing radiation will, among other things, destroy the ozone layer in the stratosphere that protects the surface of the Earth from the hard UV-C radiation from the Sun. This by itself may very well sterilize the surface of the whole Earth. Now add to that good news the fact that there are about 1000 nuclear fuel pools in which spent nuclear fuel is stored. These pools are kept cool by circulating doped water through them that absorbs neutrons. When the grid goes down the pumps will stop, the pools will boil until the water is gone and the fuel rods exposed to the air will begin to burn releasing vast quantities or radiation into the atmosphere. This will exacerbate the nuclear plant melt downs and the destruction of the ozone. This scenario leaves out all the damage that the release of all this ionizing radiation will do to the lifeforms trying to live on Earth. This is really scary to me because I watch a lot of programs about climate change and no one ever mentions the danger of nuke plants and the fuel pools.
China is in desperate trouble because just like the Russians and the Americans who dumped nuke waste higgledy-piggledy all over with little thought to tomorrow (THIS IS WAR, we can't be thinking about future generations!) The Chinese in their rush to catch up with the rest of the world have dumped pollutants so widely that it now appears that half of all the ground water in China is contaminated to the point that it isn't safe for consumption--human, animal, or plant. The real tragedy of life is that you're here today and you're here tomorrow. Read up on the salt cycle and how we have screwed it up. The good thing about being depressed is that you can't get depressed.
@@wvhaugenat some point, we cannot adapt if we have offshored all our economic growth opportunities (also known as cheap labour), of which the working bodies can no longer live, let alone comfortably, in the places they inhabit, and growth is the goal at all cost? How is that 'adapt'? Adapt to what? Our economic overlords? Who is adapting? Adaptation vs mitigation, which one is smarter?
@@wvhaugenHow do you plan to adapt to a lack of food and oxygen?
We blew up Nordstream, releasing gigatons of methane into the atmosphere, causing the largest ecological catastrophe in human history!
We’re also shipping a nonstop flow of 2000lb bunker buster bombs that are being used to commit a genocide, flatten and “reconfigure” the ME!
Is it Trump in office right now doing these horrifying things?
Please, and I mean this as compassionately as I can say it;
Get a grip, it doesn’t matter who’s in office and in case you hadn’t noticed democrats are the war party.
I think “doing” IS the problem. Doing less is the solution. But we don’t want that, do we. We want to continue doing what we are doing but remove the collateral damage to the ecosystem. Impossible.
Unfortunately the more I learn about the tranche of threats to our Earth System, and the behavior of global ruling classes (dictated by their donors), then the more I feel myself in a state of "informed helplessness". Such state is not adversely impacting my own mental state, nor my outlook on life, but for many it must engender varying degrees of apathy, none of which will get us out of the mire.
Is this health check for the planet like for children?
Making sure it has had all of it's unnatural chemicals and daily structured inactivity?
Kari Syoever has unrealistic hopes. There are not enough minerals, metals, commoddities for more than a small fraction of current global population to move to low emissions energy. The consequence is the only energy supply available to keep the current population from famine is fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be used to economic depletion within a few decades, when the cost of supply of commodities is more than the ability to pay. The only solution is to rapidly reduce global population in a managed humane way or face famine and migrations of millions across the globe.
It's not possible to RAPIDLY reduce population in a HUMANE (i.e. no premature deaths) way, unless by rapid you mean in a century. But I question the idea that we'd starve without fossil fuels. We will certain lead simpler lives, with more physical work--but raising food does not require fossil fuels. Only "conventional" (industrial) agriculture does.
@@Mary-n1q Global demography is aging rapidly already, by 2050 global population will be in collapse. Feeding any city that has more than a couple hundred thousand people is impossible with out fossil fuels. If population is not reduced by management it will be by natural forces.
@@Mary-n1q- You are correct. Dieoff will not be humane. But it will happen no matter what we do. My program is sustainable ag and landrace development so the survivors can survive and thrive in a torched world.
@@wvhaugen have you seen--or read--Chris Smaje's Small Farm Future? That's his program too, with the hope that the dieoff and torching can be minimal. Right now the maniacs running the US seem determined to set up a nuclear war and kill us all...
@dan2304 I don't disagree with you and I'm not a naive optimist. In fact I lose a lot of sleep over the issues you point out. I will remain hopeful, but hope is not a strategy and should never replace action.
Voting is the answer? Nonsense
Right? This lady lives in La La Land. More AI modeling!.... for what? More models aren't changing minds, they're just hoovering energy that we (humamity) can't spare.
I've a little difference in opinion, that's : now, at least in 2024 a majority of human are witnessing a large scale anomalies in daily weather & past climatic trend everywher in Developed as well as in developing countries, even well aware about the 1 vanising island country Tovalu, wich is sure to be unmanned by 2025. Shifting of people to Australia has been started. As the salinity of drinking water increases, the speed of migration will spikingly increase, may be Dec'24. They mostly are educated, literate & facing a large-scale migration forever. The 1st large country is India, to be surely. Till we're not finding any slowdown of Individual level transformation to live entangaled with nature. Even if you try to be a communicator, everyone refuses to listen even without any financial charges. Everyone including you it's a common narrative to be "Informed with conciousness", & always raise ❓mark on certainly, as these are till now considered as externalities and giving room to Economics to win hands-down. How your narratives fits with individual behaviour & food habit changes with increasing perception of eqality & rights for getting ecological services eqally equally❓. Any right process of free service even to be distributed eqally if delivered to a huge population densitometric community how it is possible without a benevolent dictetorship & pressing rules globally❗
Fine, think global, act local, and small is beautiful, but oil companies are multinationals. One way we could solve the climate crisis, and provide techniques to solve all the other problems, is by dismantling a refinery that is on the coast for export.
I think people feel completely unable to have any impact on what is happening. What can one one person or small group really impact in a world where big countries just want to move toward industrialization and more consumption? Small initiatives may make a person feel a bit better but don’t have any impact.
I really love the idea of an interactive tool that the layman can play with to see up to date data on the state of the planet with comprehensive variables not just climate. This is awesome!
However. I must say something frustrated me about this guest. Its not that I don't value her incredible work and the importance of it, I suppose it's just the sense that she is one of the rare people who have a holistic focus but then at the same time will put emphasis on voting in the upcoming election as an action you can do to help the planet. I'm always sceptical of people who talk politically in terms of solutions to a meta crisis, as if it's a linear system or a binary. I know I could be strawmanning her but the absence of careful language around this point is reason enough to at least raise the point.
I also feel slightly frustrated at the talk of having an awakening of consciousness, sacrifice for the for the planet, and realising we are all connected when there are millions of people in this world (in WIERD countries too) who cant afford food. I think it would be far more productive for her to talk about incentive systems that set up the means by which people can live dignified lives first, before they start caring about the planet. Because there will be no great awakening to planetary sustainability without healthy and happy humans.
It's frustrating that these pioneering people seem to be thinking within the bounds of the system nonetheless. I hear a lot of talk about having an awakening of consciousness and realising we are all connected, but no discussion of radical ways to get there e.g. psychedelic research and models of how it could be used by people for deeper connection.
I don't hear them talking about bitcoin as a sustainable tech that can move us from inflationary growth-based economics to a more stable situation for people and the planet.
They don't seem to talk about some of the most powerful tools at our disposal for changing culture and consciousness but instead talk about voting..? It just strikes me as lacking of the outside-of-convention thinking that we need to truly solve these problems.
As Sam Mitchell says, the problem is Humans. So with that said AGH - Ain’t gonna Happen
The 2022 eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano in the South Pacific was estimated to have injected about **146 to 150 teragrams (or million metric tons)** of water vapor into the stratosphere. This event significantly increased the water vapor content in this layer of the atmosphere by approximately **10%** of the water already present there.
This estimate reflects a substantial injection of water vapor, equating to roughly **40 trillion gallons** of water, which is an extraordinary amount, enough to temporarily influence global climate by potentially causing a warming effect due to water vapor being a potent greenhouse gas.
Still waiting for the news to reflect this.
@@rosskirkwood8411it’s possible. I know alot of climate scientists and none of them are confident in the reasons for abrupt recent warming. Certainly the dimming from reduced aerosol played a role. But….dunno
PSA: The "Overview Effect" is accessible without leaving the ground. 😉🤫
I see people expressing awareness of externalities as a problem, and of the need for system change. No mention of the one policy (Fee-and-Dividend) that would account for externalities in an efficient and fair way. The policy would also promote sustainability and end poverty. Why not mention the one policy that would address environmental and social justice challengess?
Laws are the biggest issue for us. You get to the point of organized informed mind with the goal to make change & then years spent in laws & the system. Seems like life” is waiting for the collapse of our current system so the recovery can begin. Because as our political leaders have demonstrated that with the current system these no freaking chance
A couple of invalid assumptions here. 1) Overpopulation can continue into the foreseeable future. 2) State-level society is a good thing. 3) More science-based technology will be a net gain.
12:00 see also 2010 movie „Age of stupid“
Been watching the slow decline of planetary systems, processes, services & goods for decades, despite global efforts to counter these (eg UN protocols & treaties, 2030 Agenda, global efforts to counter corruption & international crime etc). As I watch various events & discussions and see some of the successful projects implemented around the world, I swing like a pendulum between hope & despair.
But we shoulf also talk cities. The UN estimates that between 75 - 80 % of people will live in cities by 2050. Cities general has a parasitic relationship with its hinterland(s) sucking material & resources and spewing out pollution & waste far & wide. The opposite should be true. Cities should be in a symbiotic relationship with its surrounding communities, providing solutions & prosperity to residents & suppliers (whoever they are). Much tech allows this, eg clean air, food & water security, clean & affordable energy, housing & urban services, quality healthcare & education, awa climate ready blue green & grey infrastructure whilst eliminating or minimising waste & pollution. A few cities are making a big effort to do this, but many are not... or can't (for a myriad of reasons).
Think global, act local.
One of my favourite quotes (attributed to Einstein):
Not all things that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted...
Hope vs hopium
Two wealthy people sitting in a perfectly arranged perfectly interior designed perfectly fresh room expressing concern and facilitating decisions for governments and corporations who will provide money for their continued high life. Flying, filming and factualizing. Gathering data. Drilling down.
A frustrating conversation to sit thru, indeed
State of the climate 2024, search for it. We have 50 years of ecological overshoot.
I am noticing a trend on this show that I detest. Cronyism is a real downer. The host frequently boasts that the interviewees are his buddies. An underlying inference is cast. The viewer, by connecting into this group, will become part of a favored, even privileged member of an informed in-group. Through this connection the viewer may feel connected on what is really important regarding the latest scientific research information on global warming ---on the cusp of scientific knowledge on survival in a warming planet.
This show reminds me of the green movement, where careers were made. We learned in time that so called "environmentalists" were mostly playing a game. They were attracted to the money and prestige gained from their rising popularity. Corporations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo became wise to the vulnerabilities of the greens. They learned that the "green" could be bought. It eventually became well known that the green movement was compromised. All this has worked in favor of the capitalist by succeeding in delaying action on climate change.
Trends on this show remind me of the green movement. I don't want to be identified with a bunch of affluent groupies bestowing accolades to the host in the comments section. Global warming is not theater.
@@uptoit100 you could have a valid point. However, Nate also frequently says to his guests "we haven't met before". I think it's inevitable that anyone creating a podcast on a particular subject will go to those who they know first. It's not like an international media organisation with far reaching connections, and people approaching him to be interviewed. Also, Nate will have made connections and friends through his work, so it's not akin to cronyism in that regard.
How would you suggest he goes about obtaining guests for his show to get round the issue? What is it, specifically, that conversations are missing? I think, in the end, that being part of an online group will be largely meaningless unless that online presence and message can be translated to the local platform.
Friend fwiw I have very little money Way below average US citizen. But I am blessed to have a vast wealth of friends most of whom are scientists. I’m trying to- w my skills and my network to change the conversation. All I can do is all I can do.
@@thegreatsimplification No need to be apologetic for anything you do. Anyone who possesses a modicum of heart and intelligence recognizes your benign intentions.
We have all been serially disappointed. Your second paragraph is an excellent condemnation of Democratic politicians who exploit the deep concerns many of us have for the health of our planet only to gain more power for themselves. I do not see Nate Hagens as a greenwasher. He is far from it.
Your comment reminds me of the film Lincoln. Thaddeus Stevens, an anti-slavery zealot, despises Lincoln for his compromises so much that he struggles to support the 13th amendment that will abolish slavery.
@@thegreatsimplification It might help me if I could understand what it is that you're doing to change the conversation. I have watched quite a few of your videos. I can follow a technical discussion in the natural sciences. You seem to have earned quite a lot of admiration but what good is that?
There are personal nuances that vary from one guest to the other, but the bulk of research on global warming is long term and incremental. Nobody is making big breakthroughs here and there is a lot of repetition.
Keep doing what you're doing if that is what you want to do. You remind of the farmer who was asked what he'd do if won a million dollars in a lottery. He replied that he'd keep on farming until all the money was gone. You'd probably accomplish more if you created a group life Extinction Rebellion and work with activists in non violent resistance.
I'm 80 years old. I've done a few things the hard way. It's not that easy to pull the wool over my eyes.
The 'precautionary principle' is long dead! Why do we need a graphic to spur us to action? Why can't we get past Conformity, Religiosity, and Tribalism? (Whitehouse)
Humans still have a period of time fo a level of mitigation. But have you considered legitimately how money gated actually acting is?
It would be great if there was a way for people who want to more directly get involved. Like an expedited degree program thats bill was footed by those already involved who have the resources.
Imagine if the exact person you needed to get the ball rolling was one of those trapped in regular mundane life. Wouldn't it be ironic?
The three hats Nate talks about - I just can’t see how it would be possible for a vast number of people not to be wearing the first hat, which includes jobs, bills, and profits.
I'm with Chris Smaje--a small farm future is both desirable and inevitable. Having a job is only one to have money, and having money is only one way to get what you really need. we need to guarantee a small acreage to everyone who wants to grow their own food and maybe some more for trade. Homesteaders can also have a number of skills within the household to get multiple small income streams to meet needs, rather than one high-paid but precarious (and probably destructive) job.
@@Mary-n1q Yeah but, all of the land today is private property, largely held in the hands of a few. This whole desire to fundamentally change the system butts-up against such established interests, who of which happen to write the rules, so how is such a distribution to ever come about?
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ They don't just happen to make the rules; because sociopaths make the rules, we have all these crises. This is the lacuna in Nate's coverage--the political reality that we can change nothing in a positive direction, in directions absolutely necessary for he survival of civilization if not of humanity, without a revolution. Or a collapse. I cling to a thing I heard Dmitri Orlov say once: no government will uphold the rights of absentee landowners over local people in the event of a collapse. If you're squatting on a piece of land, building housing, taking care of the land, growing food--it's gonna be yours.
This is too hyperbole. Sorry Nate, you're losing a 2XXX sub.
No need to apologize. Time is perhaps our most limiting asset (but you will miss some great ones) 🙏excelsior
Still confused about your starry-eyed love for Russian dictators & their apologists.. but i appreciate the rest of your work.
👍
What’s the planetary boundary re the number of murder monkeys?
Asking for a friend…..
There is no boiling frog. First. But there definitely is a problem of complicit complacency. Yes, to her digital twining with data and experience...looking out the window.
365 X 100 - 36,500 days
52 X 100 - 5,200 weeks
Off the top of my head
Diapers 4 X 365 X 3 - 4,000
Food packaging 6 X 365 X 100 - 220,000
Clothing 40 X 100 - 4,000
Personal Hygiene - a lot
Transportation - too many
Dwelling - everywhere
Medical waste - mind boggling
Decorating/Entertainment
from a pacifier to an eyebrow pencil to a couch to a book to a toy to a phone - everything
5,200 X 5 26,000
Diapers - Got to go
Food packaging - Got to go
Cooking food - Got to go
Clothing - Got to go
Personal Hygiene - Got to go
Transportation- Got to go
Dwellings - Got to go
Decorating - Got to go
Entertainment - Got to go
Everything medical - Got to go
Cave people lived a luxurious life because they had a dwelling, they decorated themselves, they had clothing and they cooked
So what do we do. All I can think of off the top of my head is stop rearranging the crust of the planet except for planting fruit and nut trees everywhere keeping in mind that they will have to survive on their own.
MATH!
Our population is going to be reduced.-----Al Bartlett
Yea, nature has its ways, but if you’re into Al Bartlett you should see it in the following transcript, and if you go as far as to view the 4 minute video he even gets a screen mention there, now I’ll leave it to Prof. Tim Garrett:-
Prof. Tim Garrett: “I think one thing I find really quite amazing is just how fast the changes may come upon us, because our current GROWTH RATE, it may seem small, just 2.3% per year or thereabouts for our rate of energy consumption growth, but that translates to a DOUBLING in our consumption rate in just 30 years, now that's incredible because if you think that it took us 10,000 years to get to our current consumption rate and that we will DOUBLE this again in just 30 years, then we are thinking about a change in civilisation that in our very lifetimes will reproduce everything that has happened over centuries, Millennium, and that brings us to, I think, to a very basic question, how will this happen, can we sustain a DOUBLING of our daily energy consumption rate and all the raw materials that go along with it, do those raw materials exist, perhaps they do, perhaps we can figure out ways to extract sufficient resources from our environment to maintain a DOUBLING of our civilisation in the NEXT 30 YEARS, and then in the NEXT 30 YEARS BEYOND THAT, which would be FOUR TIMES AS LARGE…”🤔
Short transcript from 4 minute RUclips video “Something Has Got To Give - Prof. Tim Garrett in Ecosophia - Collapse and Regeneration”🤔
Idea that we are able to understand the astonishingly complex interrelated systems that are at work on earth, to the point where we can make certain pronouncements is plain bonkers. You’re off into the realms of fantasy.
Optimism.... Hopium BS.
J.C. is coming soon, and Earth gets 1000 years rest.
Another apocalypoptomist
This lady is the data vacuum!
Hi 'Andrew' - this lady's name is Kari. Thanks for your comment.
Social Egalitarian Ecocapitalism ((SEE) is the model ❤
That is cute