Forget the powerful people. 1st their plan brings the average down for all Americans and up for people is 3rd world countries. So most Americans are going to be against it. Then veganism is going to turn off most of what’s left. Pass this plan could only be enacted through the use of extreme force.
Living in heavily used prairies that currently feeds half our country, I see how worried the agriculture industry is around pollinators. But they rarely link it to land use issues and habitat loss. I loved the framing here. I’ll be grabbing a copy of this book. Appreciate y’all.
Huh? You're talking about bees? Losing species of pollinators to habitat loss sucks and shouldn't happen, but we won't starve without the local varieties.
@@gabrielsatter honeybees only account for about 30% of pollinators. Most are solitary insects or hummingbirds that cannot survive on agricultural land use age and rural landscape. We’re seeing crazy declines already.
The book is great, would recommend! It's a fun way to get in both some theory and some (utopian) fiction set in 2047. It's a dense read at times, though, as it goes through many different topics. Even though everything's so, so fascinating, it's difficult to remember everything. But hey, that's reread value! Loved the part where the book talks about how Cuba managed to overcome the loss of Soviet oil supplies following the collapse of the USSR by massively adopting urban and organic agriculture
Wow.. powerful.. this is hands-down the most thoughtful, concise, expository counter-rhetoric piece I've ever heard/read/seen.. The calm, unemotional, point-by-point, whole picture, analysis of each demonstrated tactic in the radical right playbook being used by the members of that church and countless congregations just like them, is precisely the type commentary needed today.. Thank u so much for ur voice.. u inspire a much needed resurgence of hope within my soul-so weary of all the hate, ignorant judgement, and intolerance so rampant out there swirling in the ether..
All major cities are photocopies of each other. That is why a movie about Chicago can be filmed in Philadelphia. I live in the Boston area, Somerville to be exact. It's pretty much the same layout with the occasional folksy enclave where a cool backstory can have life. There is no reason why I should be mystified by crossed paths with a turkey, but it always gets me. Maybe that is the problem. We sometimes speak about urban sprawl in a derisive way, but what if that is the goal. Perhaps we need more integration with peek nature. I've always rolled my eyes at people with cabin houses. I would issue warnings like, "You should leave them alone," them being animals. Yet how do the indigenous populations live among the elements and wild life? There is no way to reverse New York. There are certain metropolitan areas that have achieved such a presence as a city that they need to hold on to that arrangement. However, there should be no push to turn Helena, Montana into Levite Town. Maybe we should not be perturbed by Bison? You see it with Home owner's associations. If your grass is more than two inches long, the city will ticket your residence after God smites you. Whatever answer we come up with, there has to be an understanding that we can no longer have strictly human zones. I'm probably going to get massive hate for this, but there is no such thing as a rate problem if the rats are outside. Our squeamishness around select creation has to be readjusted. Who complains about a squirrel or butterfly infestation? Vines growing up a wall are not unkept. It's okay. It's actually fine. I'm all for national parks and protected wet lands as long as those federally protected allotments don't convince us a human version for ourselves. These conversation might hit like a cold shower, but that is also okay. These guys are taking big swings because there is no such thing as a 67th inning. Good segment.
I think it still makes sense to talk about urban sprawl in a derisive way for several reasons: 1. Sprawl is inherently resource intensive, with the infrastructure per capita (roads, sewer lines, power lines, etc.) being much higher then denser areas, and through its inherent demand for personal vehicle use. 2. While suburban lots can be made to be decent habitat (though they generally are not, as mowed lawns are pretty ecologically useless), they will forever be a far cry from actual wild land, and their low density nature means they provide very real pressure on these ecologically superior options. 3. Dense urban areas need not be ecological waste lands. Consider Singapore, the entire country (city-state) is denser than every major US city other than NYC. Despite this density, they have been able to retain a remarkable amount of habitat, biodiversity, and vegetative cover.
For carbon sequestration I think the easiest most effective solution would be created artificial peat bogs which absorb by far more carbon than any other habitat type.
Great idea! I wonder why there is no discussion on carbon sequestration?? Is it to efficient or too expensive after all it is cleaning the air? Makes you wonder?
I'm surprised they said nothing about the sustainable farm movement; but perhaps it's in their book. (An interview can't cover everything.). Sustainable farms improve biodiversity & produce more food than any other farming method. I'm also disappointed they didn't mention that good educations & job opportunities for women is the best medicine for overpopulation, but again, maybe it's in the book. Another item that may or may not deserve mention is that culturing meat may become a feasible food source. They want a vegan world, so maybe they haven't looked into this. It's nice to see possible solutions being put out. I live in a mountain valley w lots of alternative farmers, & have heard lots of creative solutions for this small region.
I like a lot of what you said here. The cultured meat thing sticks in my craw though. Why don't they culture milk? That seems like it would be easier and cheaper.
@@anthonymorris9061 They are culturing dairy too. I have no idea how expensive any of it is, but technologies are always most expensive when they're being developed. I don't know of any news outlet that has covered the sustainable farm movement. Fresh Air, some years ago, did an interview w a sustainable farmer who also owned a posh restaurant in NYC where he sold meals of the food he made (he had veg & animals on his farm) but that was just one interview w just one person. I would like to see some news outlet which runs an in-depth investigation of sustainable farming. I know someone who has an aquaponics thing going in his garage. It saves water. He's got edible fish going, and fertilizes organic veg w fish poop. Once it's set up it's low cost & makes organic veg & fish. The friend doing it took a three week workshop to learn how. Permaculture is another example of the sustainable farm movement. In permaculture the goal is to set up something outside that sustains itself with the least labor possible. Permaculturists study a parcel of land for at least a year before they do anything, to get a handle on natural cycles. Sometimes they reshape parts of the land with bulldozers to get water flow to go the way they want it to. That way they can sometimes plant things that need no watering.
FWIW, I just put "cultured meat & dairy in the RUclips search engine & there are plenty of clips about it. There's a ton of stuff about permaculture, too.
The problem i have with all this is that people who want to do this are generally okay with millions of people starving so a few can feel better about themselves. They are the same people who decry GMO products that are a powerful tool to alleviate food scarcity.
@@gabrielsatter GMO foods CAN be an asset. The herbicide resistant varieties are poison and varieties that have built in pest resistance are environmental hazards. Most of the research into GMO foods has been to maximize profits through sales of chemicals. The majority of these crops do not have significant yields over time. There are a few good choices. Just a few so far.
What always floors me when dealing with narcissist (I equate the right wing, climate deniers to narcissist) is when a decision is made based on logic/reality, etc and the response is "well, you live your life the way you want to and I'll live my life the way I want to... ". Wtf?!? Who the hell WANTS to do the things we need to do? I certainly don't, but it's not like we have a choice. The difference is some of us weren't raised by selfish wolves and understand sacrifices are going to be necassary if we are to survive.
Really appreciate MR having these guys on. Veganism is one of our best tools for combating the sixth mass extinction + climate change. Animal agriculture gets almost no scrutiny from environmentalists and media. Great convo!
Insisting we cannot solve the climate crisis unless the whole world goes vegan is apocalyptically stupid and guaranteed to fail. stop being delusional. The fact is we can drastically reduce the amount of meat consumed, especially red meat, without insisting people indoctrinate themselves in the cult of veganism.
Gets no scrutiny.. Yes because if one is encouraged to look head on at what is happening re: 'giant living protein machine' it could make you scratch out your eyes. ..or eat only cabbages known to have died of natural causes.
I'm not 100% sure the two presenters were fallacious on every topic, but I can say definitively that I've never heard anyone ever say that "if we just go full-on nuclear, then climate crisis is solved". And obviously, any technology is not 100% foolproof, but changing out from coal power plants to nukes would certainly be an integral part of a multi-pronged plan on combating the incipient climate crisis.
@ivandafoe5451 we build smaller sized plants with higher output than the current models, thanks to modular construction and improvements/advancements in technology. Can be operational in about 1/2 the time as it took to bring the current models online.
@@ivandafoe5451 Between 2020 and 2021 global solar and wind energy consumption increased by 1159 TWh, at this rate of deployment it would take 150 years to supply global energy consumption with these sources. Now, obviously the rate of deployment will increase, so lets be optimistic and assume that the percentage increase remains constant (18% year over year increase in wind and solar consumption), then it would take 20 years to match current global energy consumption. There simply isn't enough time for any single solution, and honestly not enough time for even if we committed to an all of the above approach. Nonetheless, I believe pursuing all options available is our best hope of mitigating the damage.
exactly! not to mention, they might be concerned about nuclear disasters like Fukishima or Chernobyl, but you have to compare the magnitude of those disasters to those caused by oil, coal mining, etc. Way, way more people die each year from coal, oil extraction, versus any nuclear disaster.
I'm sorry, but uh, comparing the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters is ridiculous. Fukushima is up and running with 0 fatalities and minimal risk of cancer for anyone involved. Comparing those two outcomes is like comparing a firecracker and an artillery shell. 24:40
not to mention that both of them are far smaller in the scale of mortality, and even morbidity, when compared to oil extraction, coal mining, etc. Even when compared to carbon-neutral sources like rare metals, lithium, cobalt, etc. People freak out because of nuclear disasters but oil and coal ruin exponentially more lives.
Quick point: us anarchists are not utopianists or whatever, we don't believe in utopia. It's cool though, we're used to being misrepresented by nearly every other political position. After all, everyone knows aNaRcHy MeAnS cHaOs!!!1!1!!
@@anthonymorris9061 damn, my true nature shows through even now lol. The other comment is right, but fun fact: the circle around the A in the Anarchy symbol is actually an O, which stands for Order. The symbol is supposed to represent Anarchy bringing forth Order but also being contained within it. That's why traditionally the A doesn't overlap the O. Lol I'll get off my soap box now.
I think it's a little contradictory to advocate for everyone to go vegan at the same time as saying we shouldn't talk about nuclear because it will divide the coalition. I agree with what their general point is, but I don't think total veganism is the ultimate solution. Meat consumption reduction, yes. Especially in regards to beef. However, done properly, animal husbandry can cut down on food waste. For example, in the process of making soy sauce, a lot of waste plant matter is produced. It still has nutrients but it isn't fit for human consumption. It is perfect for animal feed though.
Exactly. The problem is feedlot animal husbandry in which food is grown specifically for animal consumption, but animals play an important role in a sustainable food system, converting agricultural waste and fallow fields into protein rich food and manure. Even ranching has a place, in that when done sustainably, it allows for food production on land while maintaining a nearly complete grassland ecosystem. Obviously we should decrease meat consumption dramatically, but a vegan food system is not necessarily optimal from an ecological perspective.
No, the greenhouse emissions from grass-fed beef and other “free-range” cattle are significantly higher than feedlot/CFO/factory farm due to endogenous methane production, water use, and land use. If humans stopped consuming those animals, those greenhouse gases (particularly methane which is orders of magnitude more potent than CO2) would not be produced and the land could be returned to wild
@@danceguardmusicgirl1 If that land is naturally a grass land, then in it's wild state it would have a population of grazing animals producing methane.
@@recurrenTopology natural does not equal harmless or benign. Volcanoes emit massive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases every year and are completely natural. The quantity of grazing animals in a given grasslands at a natural state would be so sparsely populated so as to be negligible, this would make it entirely unfeasible when thinking about economic/population demand viability.
@@danceguardmusicgirl1 One need but consider the historic bison herds of North America or the current wildebeest herds of the Serengeti to see that wild grasslands can support a fairly high density of grazers. Healthy grasslands have substantial grazer populations, be they wild or ranched.
Veganism is the quickest solution to a huge part of the climate crisis. Anyone who disagrees is a whiny little brat that would rather "talk" about helping, than actual get off their chair and fight.
Can we talk about the health effects of meat and diary eating to people first? Can we give people like some ration card for so much meat or diary products?
Please discuss the natural evolution to some of these fantastic climate ideas. For example, there should be a food recycling program. It’s simple. People all over the world will take their waste, purify it, add ingredients to make it palatable, and boom, food recycling. I haven’t seen this proposed yet by most climate activists/vegan activists, but it’s on the way.
F**k Malthus, but i'm tired of people dismissing the discussion of population as automatically being on racist or classist terms. (I mean if you think about it, the main demographic we could do with having less of is rich people, they have the most impact). There is huge relationship between number of people, and amount of damage people do. I would say it is the driving variable. If we split all resources/energy use/emissions evenly across everyone alive (factoring free medicine and contributions to ongoing scientific and technical development) as we should, then that means less for each person every growing generation. The only way we get to have a resource abundant, high tech society in the future, is to voluntarily have one or no kids, to get us back within what the planet can support. Overcome our biological and social conditioning, so countless future generations get the chance to even exist. And even if we all go vegan, half the planet won't be enough for us and our food as time goes on, unless we live in hideous megacities. Which would have their own impact on environment and mental health.
Can we get to the megacities with massive wild areas that one could visit first before we conclude that the megacities would be horrid. Look at Japan they have figured out living in large cities.
@@jojo-gy9pp I dunno. I've been to really densely populated places in india, china and japan and they all suck. Minimal personal space, even at home, noisy AF. Sure it would be great to have ones with wild areas but, i don't think that's how they usually work. Mumbai for example has developed most of it's natural reservations. Add to that at some point, we are going to lose most coastal cities to sea level rise. So we would need to build new ones, And with a lot of the world needing to be rewilded, or needed for food, where would they be? Do you think there will be room for massive wild areas? Just the idea of mass construction while it might be too hot to work outside most the year is a question mark.
The climate crisis can only be solved with a reduction of living standards. I don’t see many people giving that up. My fear is that we would fall into fighting each other (which requires more resources and energy) instead of solving the problem
We are already seeing a reduction in living standards because of climate change. If we don't lower our standards, we will be forced to, ending up with far worse outcomes for everyone.
It's not even a reduction of living conditions either. Our increase in "living standard" has coincided with a mental and physical health crisis. More and more, I'm beginning to realize we don't need much to be happy. In fact, there is a critical point where the more you have, the less happy you are. See any rich person and how miserable they are. Capitalism teaches us to buy things we don't want or need. Capitalism is the problem, and it's driving the health crisis, for both the Earth and humans.
You can't just make that statement without quantfying it. Well you can, but I think you could do better. Explain what the living conditions would be: the size of your shelter, the food you eat, the places you can live, or visit, how many "toys" are allowed, can we drive/fly/boat, or are we limited in mobility. What do we have access to essentially?
I’m two minutes into this some so-called socialist utopia and some I am more than skeptical. Usually when I hear people talk like this, they’re trying to get me to sign up for something. I’m either going to have to spend my time or my money and has a very short supply of both. I don’t know if I wanna sit through a half hour of this video. Over five minutes in and I hear that the plan is to extend nature preserves to cover half the planet! Right now they’re about 8 billion people on the planet every day hundreds of thousands of them die if not millions and every day hundreds of thousands of them are born. The birth rates in Africa are on the rise up and this seems to be the best land for a nature preserve‘s. So are we going to depopulate every other place in the planet? And who has the authority to make this utopian dream come true? Aren’t you forgetting about the conservative elephant in the room? The one with the initials Maga GOP. Has a political representatives for big tech, big Pharma, big oil, big finance, and ironically, small government there’s no way they’re gonna go along with your utopia
They are talking about solutions, not about forcing people to do anything. You claim to be skeptical, yet you are just another gullible nobody who will cluelessly buy any and all excuses to do nothing.
I think a politician should counter pop control arguments with just "Less children is fine. More children is fine. The problem is ... biodiversity, capitalism" change the discussion to the thing that really scares people which is not becoming a billionaire. People don't really care about their kids after adulthood much.
They explicitly said they support indigenous sovereignty. The industry most responsible for theft of indigenous land is animal agriculture. Something tells me that if you're commenting on a YT video, then you don't live in a remote part of the world that requires you to hunt. You don't get to pretend to be standing up for indigenous people and then turn around and support the industry that poses the biggest threat to indigenous sovereignty
@@ivandafoe5451 They didn't have any solutions besides telling people to stop doing stuff. They backpedelled on every "point" they made. They used fallacious, disingenuous logic and I was hoping Emma would have called them out. If we let guys like this take the reigns we'd all be dead from their failures due to the nirvana fallacy.
@@ivandafoe5451 It's a quote from these two nerds. I'm assuming that that book discusses the Dunning-Kruger problem the world is facing? That people think they know more than they do? All the info at our fingertips. My point was that these guys are very inflexible with their goofy plans. It's an extreme take that will never sell and it's funny that they said people need to learn things when they seem to have their own cognitive blindspots.
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eU-AkeOyiOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem with any solution is the powerful people who fight tooth and nail against it.
@@capyossarianYes.
@@capyossarian I hear about it a lot, but have why tried actually eating them
@@capyossarianwe know the solution. The French had the right idea.
I don’t care if the earth is uninhabitable. I will not cut into my profits!
Forget the powerful people. 1st their plan brings the average down for all Americans and up for people is 3rd world countries. So most Americans are going to be against it. Then veganism is going to turn off most of what’s left. Pass this plan could only be enacted through the use of extreme force.
Living in heavily used prairies that currently feeds half our country, I see how worried the agriculture industry is around pollinators. But they rarely link it to land use issues and habitat loss.
I loved the framing here. I’ll be grabbing a copy of this book. Appreciate y’all.
Huh? You're talking about bees? Losing species of pollinators to habitat loss sucks and shouldn't happen, but we won't starve without the local varieties.
@@gabrielsatter honeybees only account for about 30% of pollinators. Most are solitary insects or hummingbirds that cannot survive on agricultural land use age and rural landscape. We’re seeing crazy declines already.
@@IdrisFashan
I didn't deny that. I said it sucks. It would be better in every way to keep them all around, but we won't die without them.
Yep, quickly added to my Audible library while listening to this excellent discussion. Thanks, Emma and Sam.
Thank you Drew, Troy, Emma and TMR crew.
We need to go full throttle considering the scale of the crisis we face
We need to start yesterday. But the powers that be are trying to increase emissions. It’s terrifying
Questionable use of internal combustion engine analogy. 😉
@@richardallan2767
A fair point, but electric vehicles have throttles too.
@@kurisu7885 Yeah i know, i was just being sassy.
@@richardallan2767
Haha, fair enough.
The book is great, would recommend! It's a fun way to get in both some theory and some (utopian) fiction set in 2047. It's a dense read at times, though, as it goes through many different topics. Even though everything's so, so fascinating, it's difficult to remember everything. But hey, that's reread value! Loved the part where the book talks about how Cuba managed to overcome the loss of Soviet oil supplies following the collapse of the USSR by massively adopting urban and organic agriculture
Wow.. powerful..
this is hands-down the most thoughtful, concise, expository counter-rhetoric piece I've ever heard/read/seen..
The calm, unemotional, point-by-point, whole picture, analysis of each demonstrated tactic in the radical right playbook being used by the members of that church and countless congregations just like them, is precisely the type commentary needed today..
Thank u so much for ur voice.. u inspire a much needed resurgence of hope within my soul-so weary of all the hate, ignorant judgement, and intolerance so rampant out there swirling in the ether..
All major cities are photocopies of each other. That is why a movie about Chicago can be filmed in Philadelphia. I live in the Boston area, Somerville to be exact. It's pretty much the same layout with the occasional folksy enclave where a cool backstory can have life. There is no reason why I should be mystified by crossed paths with a turkey, but it always gets me. Maybe that is the problem. We sometimes speak about urban sprawl in a derisive way, but what if that is the goal. Perhaps we need more integration with peek nature. I've always rolled my eyes at people with cabin houses. I would issue warnings like, "You should leave them alone," them being animals. Yet how do the indigenous populations live among the elements and wild life? There is no way to reverse New York. There are certain metropolitan areas that have achieved such a presence as a city that they need to hold on to that arrangement. However, there should be no push to turn Helena, Montana into Levite Town. Maybe we should not be perturbed by Bison? You see it with Home owner's associations. If your grass is more than two inches long, the city will ticket your residence after God smites you. Whatever answer we come up with, there has to be an understanding that we can no longer have strictly human zones. I'm probably going to get massive hate for this, but there is no such thing as a rate problem if the rats are outside. Our squeamishness around select creation has to be readjusted. Who complains about a squirrel or butterfly infestation? Vines growing up a wall are not unkept. It's okay. It's actually fine. I'm all for national parks and protected wet lands as long as those federally protected allotments don't convince us a human version for ourselves. These conversation might hit like a cold shower, but that is also okay. These guys are taking big swings because there is no such thing as a 67th inning. Good segment.
I think it still makes sense to talk about urban sprawl in a derisive way for several reasons:
1. Sprawl is inherently resource intensive, with the infrastructure per capita (roads, sewer lines, power lines, etc.) being much higher then denser areas, and through its inherent demand for personal vehicle use.
2. While suburban lots can be made to be decent habitat (though they generally are not, as mowed lawns are pretty ecologically useless), they will forever be a far cry from actual wild land, and their low density nature means they provide very real pressure on these ecologically superior options.
3. Dense urban areas need not be ecological waste lands. Consider Singapore, the entire country (city-state) is denser than every major US city other than NYC. Despite this density, they have been able to retain a remarkable amount of habitat, biodiversity, and vegetative cover.
For carbon sequestration I think the easiest most effective solution would be created artificial peat bogs which absorb by far more carbon than any other habitat type.
Great idea! I wonder why there is no discussion on carbon sequestration?? Is it to efficient or too expensive after all it is cleaning the air? Makes you wonder?
I meant artificial peat bogs. How embarrassing oh well. I'll do some research sounds interesting. Thanks for the info.
I'm surprised they said nothing about the sustainable farm movement; but perhaps it's in their book. (An interview can't cover everything.). Sustainable farms improve biodiversity & produce more food than any other farming method.
I'm also disappointed they didn't mention that good educations & job opportunities for women is the best medicine for overpopulation, but again, maybe it's in the book.
Another item that may or may not deserve mention is that culturing meat may become a feasible food source. They want a vegan world, so maybe they haven't looked into this.
It's nice to see possible solutions being put out. I live in a mountain valley w lots of alternative farmers, & have heard lots of creative solutions for this small region.
I like a lot of what you said here. The cultured meat thing sticks in my craw though. Why don't they culture milk? That seems like it would be easier and cheaper.
@@anthonymorris9061 They are culturing dairy too. I have no idea how expensive any of it is, but technologies are always most expensive when they're being developed.
I don't know of any news outlet that has covered the sustainable farm movement. Fresh Air, some years ago, did an interview w a sustainable farmer who also owned a posh restaurant in NYC where he sold meals of the food he made (he had veg & animals on his farm) but that was just one interview w just one person. I would like to see some news outlet which runs an in-depth investigation of sustainable farming. I know someone who has an aquaponics thing going in his garage. It saves water. He's got edible fish going, and fertilizes organic veg w fish poop. Once it's set up it's low cost & makes organic veg & fish. The friend doing it took a three week workshop to learn how.
Permaculture is another example of the sustainable farm movement. In permaculture the goal is to set up something outside that sustains itself with the least labor possible. Permaculturists study a parcel of land for at least a year before they do anything, to get a handle on natural cycles. Sometimes they reshape parts of the land with bulldozers to get water flow to go the way they want it to. That way they can sometimes plant things that need no watering.
FWIW, I just put "cultured meat & dairy in the RUclips search engine & there are plenty of clips about it. There's a ton of stuff about permaculture, too.
The problem i have with all this is that people who want to do this are generally okay with millions of people starving so a few can feel better about themselves. They are the same people who decry GMO products that are a powerful tool to alleviate food scarcity.
@@gabrielsatter GMO foods CAN be an asset. The herbicide resistant varieties are poison and varieties that have built in pest resistance are environmental hazards. Most of the research into GMO foods has been to maximize profits through sales of chemicals. The majority of these crops do not have significant yields over time.
There are a few good choices. Just a few so far.
What always floors me when dealing with narcissist (I equate the right wing, climate deniers to narcissist) is when a decision is made based on logic/reality, etc and the response is "well, you live your life the way you want to and I'll live my life the way I want to... ". Wtf?!? Who the hell WANTS to do the things we need to do? I certainly don't, but it's not like we have a choice. The difference is some of us weren't raised by selfish wolves and understand sacrifices are going to be necassary if we are to survive.
Really appreciate MR having these guys on. Veganism is one of our best tools for combating the sixth mass extinction + climate change. Animal agriculture gets almost no scrutiny from environmentalists and media. Great convo!
Insisting we cannot solve the climate crisis unless the whole world goes vegan is apocalyptically stupid and guaranteed to fail. stop being delusional. The fact is we can drastically reduce the amount of meat consumed, especially red meat, without insisting people indoctrinate themselves in the cult of veganism.
Gets no scrutiny.. Yes because if one is encouraged to look head on at what is happening re: 'giant living protein machine' it could make you scratch out your eyes. ..or eat only cabbages known to have died of natural causes.
I'm not 100% sure the two presenters were fallacious on every topic, but I can say definitively that I've never heard anyone ever say that "if we just go full-on nuclear, then climate crisis is solved". And obviously, any technology is not 100% foolproof, but changing out from coal power plants to nukes would certainly be an integral part of a multi-pronged plan on combating the incipient climate crisis.
It takes ten years to get these monsters operational...that's too long to wait.
@ivandafoe5451 we build smaller sized plants with higher output than the current models, thanks to modular construction and improvements/advancements in technology. Can be operational in about 1/2 the time as it took to bring the current models online.
@@ivandafoe5451 Between 2020 and 2021 global solar and wind energy consumption increased by 1159 TWh, at this rate of deployment it would take 150 years to supply global energy consumption with these sources. Now, obviously the rate of deployment will increase, so lets be optimistic and assume that the percentage increase remains constant (18% year over year increase in wind and solar consumption), then it would take 20 years to match current global energy consumption. There simply isn't enough time for any single solution, and honestly not enough time for even if we committed to an all of the above approach. Nonetheless, I believe pursuing all options available is our best hope of mitigating the damage.
scanners
exactly! not to mention, they might be concerned about nuclear disasters like Fukishima or Chernobyl, but you have to compare the magnitude of those disasters to those caused by oil, coal mining, etc. Way, way more people die each year from coal, oil extraction, versus any nuclear disaster.
Ladies and gentlemen…welcome to Fantasy Island
I'm sorry, but uh, comparing the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters is ridiculous.
Fukushima is up and running with 0 fatalities and minimal risk of cancer for anyone involved.
Comparing those two outcomes is like comparing a firecracker and an artillery shell. 24:40
not to mention that both of them are far smaller in the scale of mortality, and even morbidity, when compared to oil extraction, coal mining, etc. Even when compared to carbon-neutral sources like rare metals, lithium, cobalt, etc. People freak out because of nuclear disasters but oil and coal ruin exponentially more lives.
Someone said..
"what we need to solve the climate crisis is for politicians to carry out the things they promised they'd do.
A pretty radical political vision, but one that may be necessary to preserve what we have
Check out the half earth socialism video game, it's super fun!
The main problem is "Overshoot". Overpopulation is a huge part of it. So is capitalism. To say population is not a problem is ridiculous.
Quick point: us anarchists are not utopianists or whatever, we don't believe in utopia. It's cool though, we're used to being misrepresented by nearly every other political position. After all, everyone knows aNaRcHy MeAnS cHaOs!!!1!1!!
Are you sure you're chaotic? Capitalizing every other letter seems orderly.
@@anthonymorris9061 It’s a meme when you’re repeating something stupid said by people.
@@anthonymorris9061 damn, my true nature shows through even now lol. The other comment is right, but fun fact: the circle around the A in the Anarchy symbol is actually an O, which stands for Order. The symbol is supposed to represent Anarchy bringing forth Order but also being contained within it. That's why traditionally the A doesn't overlap the O. Lol I'll get off my soap box now.
@@anthonymorris9061it's how you show sarcasm when writing.
Majority report finally wakes up that there's a climate crisis.
Read Ministry of the Future. Interesting "fictional" near future novel. Mentions half earth concept.
Probably 13 or 14 mass extinctions actually. Consumption is more significant than population.
I think it's a little contradictory to advocate for everyone to go vegan at the same time as saying we shouldn't talk about nuclear because it will divide the coalition. I agree with what their general point is, but I don't think total veganism is the ultimate solution. Meat consumption reduction, yes. Especially in regards to beef. However, done properly, animal husbandry can cut down on food waste. For example, in the process of making soy sauce, a lot of waste plant matter is produced. It still has nutrients but it isn't fit for human consumption. It is perfect for animal feed though.
Exactly. The problem is feedlot animal husbandry in which food is grown specifically for animal consumption, but animals play an important role in a sustainable food system, converting agricultural waste and fallow fields into protein rich food and manure. Even ranching has a place, in that when done sustainably, it allows for food production on land while maintaining a nearly complete grassland ecosystem. Obviously we should decrease meat consumption dramatically, but a vegan food system is not necessarily optimal from an ecological perspective.
No, the greenhouse emissions from grass-fed beef and other “free-range” cattle are significantly higher than feedlot/CFO/factory farm due to endogenous methane production, water use, and land use. If humans stopped consuming those animals, those greenhouse gases (particularly methane which is orders of magnitude more potent than CO2) would not be produced and the land could be returned to wild
@@danceguardmusicgirl1 If that land is naturally a grass land, then in it's wild state it would have a population of grazing animals producing methane.
@@recurrenTopology natural does not equal harmless or benign. Volcanoes emit massive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases every year and are completely natural. The quantity of grazing animals in a given grasslands at a natural state would be so sparsely populated so as to be negligible, this would make it entirely unfeasible when thinking about economic/population demand viability.
@@danceguardmusicgirl1 One need but consider the historic bison herds of North America or the current wildebeest herds of the Serengeti to see that wild grasslands can support a fairly high density of grazers. Healthy grasslands have substantial grazer populations, be they wild or ranched.
Veganism is the quickest solution to a huge part of the climate crisis. Anyone who disagrees is a whiny little brat that would rather "talk" about helping, than actual get off their chair and fight.
Can we talk about the health effects of meat and diary eating to people first? Can we give people like some ration card for so much meat or diary products?
Eating 90% less meat/dairy is 90% as good for the environment and 100% less sanctimonious.
@@recurrenTopology so ration cards then good idea we could trade them as an alternative currency.
@@jojo-gy9pp I suppose that would be a more equitable way of decreasing animal product consumption than price based rationing.
Please discuss the natural evolution to some of these fantastic climate ideas.
For example, there should be a food recycling program.
It’s simple.
People all over the world will take their waste, purify it, add ingredients to make it palatable, and boom, food recycling.
I haven’t seen this proposed yet by most climate activists/vegan activists, but it’s on the way.
F**k Malthus, but i'm tired of people dismissing the discussion of population as automatically being on racist or classist terms. (I mean if you think about it, the main demographic we could do with having less of is rich people, they have the most impact).
There is huge relationship between number of people, and amount of damage people do.
I would say it is the driving variable.
If we split all resources/energy use/emissions evenly across everyone alive (factoring free medicine and contributions to ongoing scientific and technical development) as we should, then that means less for each person every growing generation.
The only way we get to have a resource abundant, high tech society in the future, is to voluntarily have one or no kids, to get us back within what the planet can support.
Overcome our biological and social conditioning, so countless future generations get the chance to even exist.
And even if we all go vegan, half the planet won't be enough for us and our food as time goes on, unless we live in hideous megacities. Which would have their own impact on environment and mental health.
Can we get to the megacities with massive wild areas that one could visit first before we conclude that the megacities would be horrid. Look at Japan they have figured out living in large cities.
@@jojo-gy9pp I dunno. I've been to really densely populated places in india, china and japan and they all suck. Minimal personal space, even at home, noisy AF. Sure it would be great to have ones with wild areas but, i don't think that's how they usually work. Mumbai for example has developed most of it's natural reservations. Add to that at some point, we are going to lose most coastal cities to sea level rise. So we would need to build new ones, And with a lot of the world needing to be rewilded, or needed for food, where would they be? Do you think there will be room for massive wild areas? Just the idea of mass construction while it might be too hot to work outside most the year is a question mark.
You can tell emma isnt interested in this outside of the socialism
The climate crisis can only be solved with a reduction of living standards.
I don’t see many people giving that up. My fear is that we would fall into fighting each other (which requires more resources and energy) instead of solving the problem
The rich and powerful will resist the most. Most people would actually live better lives rather than inferior lives.
We are already seeing a reduction in living standards because of climate change. If we don't lower our standards, we will be forced to, ending up with far worse outcomes for everyone.
It's not even a reduction of living conditions either. Our increase in "living standard" has coincided with a mental and physical health crisis.
More and more, I'm beginning to realize we don't need much to be happy. In fact, there is a critical point where the more you have, the less happy you are. See any rich person and how miserable they are.
Capitalism teaches us to buy things we don't want or need. Capitalism is the problem, and it's driving the health crisis, for both the Earth and humans.
@@anthonymorris9061Great point
You can't just make that statement without quantfying it. Well you can, but I think you could do better.
Explain what the living conditions would be: the size of your shelter, the food you eat, the places you can live, or visit, how many "toys" are allowed, can we
drive/fly/boat, or are we limited in mobility. What do we have access to essentially?
Environmental group: Nature Needs Half
WOW THIS SOUNDS LIKE IT CAME STRAIGHT FROM THE WEF. WE ALWAYS KNEW YOU WERE WITH THEM EMMA.😏
@@recycledbeansalad DAS RITE
I’m two minutes into this some so-called socialist utopia and some I am more than skeptical. Usually when I hear people talk like this, they’re trying to get me to sign up for something. I’m either going to have to spend my time or my money and has a very short supply of both. I don’t know if I wanna sit through a half hour of this video. Over five minutes in and I hear that the plan is to extend nature preserves to cover half the planet! Right now they’re about 8 billion people on the planet every day hundreds of thousands of them die if not millions and every day hundreds of thousands of them are born. The birth rates in Africa are on the rise up and this seems to be the best land for a nature preserve‘s. So are we going to depopulate every other place in the planet? And who has the authority to make this utopian dream come true? Aren’t you forgetting about the conservative elephant in the room? The one with the initials Maga GOP. Has a political representatives for big tech, big Pharma, big oil, big finance, and ironically, small government there’s no way they’re gonna go along with your utopia
They are talking about solutions, not about forcing people to do anything.
You claim to be skeptical, yet you are just another gullible nobody who will cluelessly buy any and all excuses to do nothing.
I think a politician should counter pop control arguments with just "Less children is fine. More children is fine. The problem is ... biodiversity, capitalism" change the discussion to the thing that really scares people which is not becoming a billionaire. People don't really care about their kids after adulthood much.
Are they going to force indigenous communities to become vegan?
Nah. Vegetarian is fine.
I like how it is "force" Like not being allowed to kill whales forces me to move from my remote rocky island with no resources but oil.
They explicitly said they support indigenous sovereignty. The industry most responsible for theft of indigenous land is animal agriculture. Something tells me that if you're commenting on a YT video, then you don't live in a remote part of the world that requires you to hunt. You don't get to pretend to be standing up for indigenous people and then turn around and support the industry that poses the biggest threat to indigenous sovereignty
What's the point? We're screwed anyway.
Find another planet..😂
They're trying that too.
These guys are unbalanced. They don't want solutions, they want everyone to live like it's 7,000 bc, or some shit.
They are NOT unbalanced, they are trying to think of solutions...while you are trying to think of excuses for stalling them.
@@ivandafoe5451
They didn't have any solutions besides telling people to stop doing stuff. They backpedelled on every "point" they made.
They used fallacious, disingenuous logic and I was hoping Emma would have called them out.
If we let guys like this take the reigns we'd all be dead from their failures due to the nirvana fallacy.
Learn a bit of math, learn a bit of science. Learn a bit about making fallacious arguments like these two, lol...
That could be your problem...you don't seem to know that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." from Alexander Pope's "An Essay On Criticism".
@@ivandafoe5451
It's a quote from these two nerds. I'm assuming that that book discusses the Dunning-Kruger problem the world is facing? That people think they know more than they do? All the info at our fingertips. My point was that these guys are very inflexible with their goofy plans. It's an extreme take that will never sell and it's funny that they said people need to learn things when they seem to have their own cognitive blindspots.