The Thermodynamics of Degrowth | Tim Garrett
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 май 2024
- What's the relationship between our energy consumption, our material footprint and our economies?
This is the "holy trinity" as Tim Garrett and I refer to these three components in our conversation. Tim is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Utah, and over two years ago, he joined me to discuss the thermodynamics of collapse, where he explained his research into the behaviour of snowflakes and how you could extrapolate the behaviour of economies and civilization using the laws of thermodynamics. He's back on the show to explain how we use our energy, the necessity of a surplus of energy and how all of this relates to a society's growth and health.
In this conversation we discuss questions like: Will renewables facilitate an increased consumption of fossil fuels? Can we reduce inequality by reducing energy consumption? How can we organise a wave-like civilisation, which grows and decays within safe boundaries? Can we decline in order to recover before crashing completely?
🔴 The Thermodynamics of Collapse: • The Thermodynamics of ...
🔴 Tim's work: nephologue.blogspot.com/
🌎 Support Planet: Critical: / planetcritical
🌎 Subscribe: www.planetcritical.com/
🌎 Twitter: / crisisreports
I could feel Tim’s frustration regarding the lack of discussion about collapse. I think people first have to go through intense emotional work to be able to have that discussion - so many still want to reform the system do not want to accept collapse as being a more than likely trajectory. Could we avoid worst scenarios? Maybe…but Tim brings up a great point about there being too much cultural inertia. Definitely interested to find out more about his work, thank you for this interesting interview.
Yeah. Also... As much as the engineering problems are challenging in their way, it's the sociological/political side of this thing that I think is going to do us in. (In short), not a lack of solutions but a lack of the ability to get X billion people march in the same direction. Getting 10 people to pick where to order for dinner is hard enough
Many fundamentalist Christians (who make up nearly 50% of the population in some areas of the U.S., such as Texas and Arkansas, and between 9% and 25% in other areas) believe that the end times are imminent, and thus that conservation doesn't matter. A friend who grew up in a fundamentalist Christian community told me that, while growing up, whenever the subject of conservation came up, people would just say, "Use it up," since the world was going to end soon anyway.
One bonus of being old is I probably won’t see the worst of what’s coming.
@@dbadagnayes I do believe there is what some have termed “accelerators” and there are others who have resisted - hippies, monks, etc.
Collapse is coming and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Overshoot and collapse is entirely normal.
Tim Garrett is an excellent choice for a guest on this topic.
300,000,000 barrels of oil consumed, worldwide, per day x 5 years of one person's work, per barrel of oil = 1,500,000,000 years of one person's, per day of our oil consumption / 8,000,000,000 persons on earth = 0.1875 years of work, per person, on earth x 365 days per year = 68.5 days of work per person, on earth, for every day of our oil consumption. It's almost impossible to comprehend! Thank you for that bit of information the two of you. Great teamwork!
nice calculations! That means Earth Overshoot "day" is negative 68.5. The ecological footprint analysis has been underestimating the problem because as Tim points out economics does not rely on all our past accumulated wealth creation (nature destruction). There has been regrowth of forests though - not sure Tim is taking that into account. Of course trees can't compete with oil that is from algae. Hence our need to grow algae at scale - mainly in the oceans but also on land.
those figures are wrong, we don't consume 300 million barrels of oil a day.
We consume the equivalent of 300M barrels of oil per day. We consume about 105M barrels of actual oil. Art Berman estimates 4.5 years, not 5 but we’re splitting hairs here. 105M bbl per day @5 years of human labour per barrel is why we won’t stop consuming fossil fuel. 300M bboe is why making a dent in fossil fuel consumption by substituting low density sources is impossible.
I heard about Tim Garrett from Guy McPherson 10 years ago. This is the first time I actually got to see what he looks like.
"Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them or perish."
--William Carlos Williams
Big fan of Tim’s work and perspective for many years.
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." Edward Abbey (Cactus Ed)
As more humans gather into one place.....the less humane that place becomes.
And every other living thing
@@user-hm8qx8di2e MPP, maximum power principle
Constant growth is a property of life.
@@borealphotocountless orders of magnitude more individuals and species have died than are currently alive. Growth is not the natural state of life; it is death, entropy, homogeneity that is life’s natural state.
That is not to say I believe we should all die. It is simply untrue that growth is the only way, it’s just that we have been brought up in societies which say it is, and the progress we have achieved, the lives of everyone we know, everything we were and are which reinforces this fallacy. It is unstructured growth which is destroying our ability to live happy, fruitful lives in conjunction with the planet we call home.
Why aren't more people discussing these things? Don't look up?
A link between our life cycle and that of civilizations is becoming increasingly evident. One guest said that we grow using energy, but as we age, we enter a fragile stage where the knocks of life become more dangerous, and this also applies to civilizations. Now, Tim's theory on surplus, our obese bodies, and our bloated, greedy civilization.
Eric Cline would also be a good guest. He’s written about the bronze age collapse, and has some interesting observations about which societies did the worst and which did the best after collapse.
While parts of the wave crash perhaps parts also decline. At the back of the wave.. does the wave experience the crash, perhaps my idea of wave is actually a flow.
I am constantly saying, why arent more people thinking/talking about this?....
I am thinking and talking about these things. I am beginning to get the impression that people don't know how to think about all of this without thier emotions shutting down the process.
I'm so appreciative of your program, Rachel.
Per capita for americans is around 1200 tonne of carbon over their lifetime, the IEA plan is around an average person born in the 1950's is they emit 350 tonne and the plan is for a baby born in 2020 to emit 34 tonne over their lifetime.
This is more than emotions, this is a complete change with very few ideas how to keep what we have going without dramatic change that very few can achieve in the current system. People can imagine living on Mars more than they can see a system change.
the wave metaphor is visual but entropy is really based on time as having inherent force to it. So negative frequency is from the future as negentropy and this part of the "wave" is the flow that is nonlocal (the future and past overlapping faster than the speed of light). Life does rely on negentropy as Schroedinger realized in his 1945 book, "What is Life?" but Schroedinger wrongly described life as based on an asymmetric crystal (hence the wrong genetics DNA model promulgated by Richard Dawkins). Professor Denis Noble (who was Dawkins advisor) has been going around to correct the error of his student! Noble points out life relies on water for the cell - and also biophoton signals that are coherent. So the quantum biology analysis of Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff and others has now emphasized the microtubules of the cells - just as Denis Noble also emphasizes the microtubules. The tubulin inside the microtubules have what is called "superradiance" or what Penrose calls "negative resonance" - meaning the deep structure of life is the negentropy from negative frequency as nonlocality. We can not visualize this "flow" of the wave but we can LISTEN to it through meditation. Our original human culture - the hunter-gather San Bushmen (whom the Pygmies split from in 225,000 BCE) - the core of our original culture is this listening meditation spiritual biophoton healing energy training - what they call N/om.
Hey Rachel, there's this guy named Ruben Nelson who's a leader at the club of rome I think, who would be a great interview for you. He agrees with Bill Rees on everything but appoaches his conclusions from a more civilizational perspective rather than a biology based one. Joseph Tainter would be good too though. I listened to his audiobook and it was very to the point and detailed. I would prefer having Ruben Nelson on here though personally. He's on the cacor RUclips channel.
The Thermodynamic understanding of "Surplus" reminds one of Marx's analysis of 'surplus value,' but with a new Physics twist based on caloric intake and potential energy 'residue.' Always a pleasure to hear TG's view of, well, the Wheel of Life, may one say?
Looks like even Rachel's internet connection has a crush on Tim 😅
When we actually place more emphasis on more so emmulating natural biological principles, processes & systematizations, while efficaciously applying our physics & factitious technologies we will be greatly attenuating our current predicaments. A huge one being wholism. Our values must radically change.
You are both fantastic ... thank you for putting out this message!
Tim's in the documentary, Ecosophia
Love this interview, have already listened several times to parts of it. These explanations help me to understand what's happening at more fundamental and systemic levels, so important, thanks very much to both of you :)
Dear Rachel, this time you are asking all the critical questions,, well done!
I admire your guest, to be able to answer!!
Now looking at this podcast after work, ie. A hard work day, hearing about the Locka (?) wheel in minute 37, you cannot but think of the rat cage and it's wheel.
A bit depressing. But it cannot be denied, great content!
This is great...it really makes ne think. I love yhst he is obviously deeply psychologically disturbed by the reality, that actually, PARADOXICALLY, gives me hope. We all have to get more serious. ...really chsnge not just "redraw (the same) map!!" Thanks you prople!!!
Stunning and mind-expanding take on the flow of energy between human civilisation and the planet it lives on. Thank you as always Rachel for your hard work!
Great guest, very interesting discussion.
Good conversation. Yes - 'By disaster or design...' Yes - Professor Joseph Tainter author of "Collapse of complex societies" would be a worthwhile guest.
How well can we live on much much less? What is the minimum amount of energy and resources required for a good life? How did past civilizations exist before fossil fuel use? How did human beings evolve without burning fossil fuels? Can we continue as a species without burning fossil fuels?
1. We can live quite well, if we adjust our expectations.
2. Depends on how "good" is defined.
3. Past civilizations had nowhere near the standard of living we in the modern West take for granted.
4. With far, far less creature comforts.
5. Absolutely, though I doubt most of us accustomed to our present lifestyles will find it pleasant.
I guess Christmas came early for me today. Good to see Tim again.
Wonderful podcast, thank you!
Fascinating discussion. I'm sharing this far and wide - everyone needs to listen to this conversation. Well done Rachel - you never fail to surprise me (in a good way).
We consume energy to create order, an increase in Entropy is a consequence
Thank you both
Fascinating! The myths of Prometheus / Tubal Cain really hold up now that we're facing down extinction. And then on the other hand, the application of physics and systems theory to economics is dialectical materialism in a nutshell. Energy and Matter are the first dialectic.
The “holy trinity “ is actually matter, energy and time
fockin brilliant conversation! best one imo!
Thank you very much.
Classic physics is always the base for common sense. ShakeUp XR
Hello, Rachel!
I really recommend you interview some marxist ecologists like Kohei Saito, or John Bellamy Foster.
It may be hard to hear, but we need a spiritual recovery before any other recovery. If it's hard to hear, one may consider to whom he or she puts trust; to whom is one loyal. Loyalties get transferred when someone has the power of reward and punishment. It's a survival mechanism.
very interesting, valuable and enlightening conversation. I learnt a great deal. So many thanks. Bateson (and Nora Bateson is fantastic on such things) was also onto this, with his notion of "bioentropy" (which I found via Peter Harries-Jones' excellent book, Upside-Down Gods, and his work elsewhere .. you probably won't find it in Bateson's actual writing, not named anyway ... or at least I can't). Bateson adds in information of course (which in some ways makes the situation worse as much as better, well all in all just different .. differently modulated one might say ....). Given the role of information and more (which I probably think in somewhat quirky terms via Bateson, Whitehead and a whole bunch of others) I'm still not totally convinced that the social and power are quite so simply correlated with the ways that modeling plays out in straight physics/energy etc. Though all the ways in which energy itself plays out are of course running through all of "ecological multiplicity" (an idea still not thought very clearly at all ... both what ecology is and what multiplicity is and what they might be together, or not). This includes the social, politics, everyday life, power distributions. But that's not the same as saying the analysis, via the science of physics, applies .. at least not fully. Then there's the question of life and energy ... is this exactly the same as clouds and energy etc? Maybe. I'm not sure. Totally with it all on the problems of out of date (possibly always) economics. Great also the hear that rug being pulled at once more.
PS Wish I could be more persuaded by Marxist ecological economics. I sometimes think maybe .. there's a lot there .. and it's better than the rubbish we've had from the other team. But it's still a bit mired in nineteenth century turns to the social, historical materialism and straight materialism. Which was all great and a fantastic advance at the time, but limited and constraining as time went on (in terms of the social, history and the physical/material). I think John Bellamy Foster, Moore and Saito are interesing in their very different ways, though I'd have to read more of them. I'm less interested in saving Marxism though, and do have doubts how much you can actually add on the fuller ecological to what can be a little regressive in its constraints. I'd rather immerse Marxism's key ideas that are still useful, if modified, into more fully ecologically multiple thinking, without having to fall back into the entire Marxist system. Maybe Saito heads that way .... not sure. Probably clumsy thinking on my part. Apologies if so.
Another interesting talk. I found the explanation about waste heat a little misleading. Waste heat from human activity is trapped by our greenhouse gas emissions in the same way that the Earth’s radiant heat is trapped. However, the latter process is the more significant for the Earth’s radiation budget.
Around 2200 TW of solar energy hits just the land of USA, at 300 million barrels of oil equivalent that's around 510 TW. Really makes you wonder why we are using these polluting fuels if the emissions are so bad.
All the energy the world emits is around 1 quarter of all the energy that falls on the land of just one country. I like to say one tank of diesel ( 636 kw ) emits the same amount of energy as 3 months of my electrical energy, in summer, with the air con going 24-7. Electricity really is the low hanging fruit, to replace that is simple, to stop the other fuels though being the hard part.
Similarities between your experience at the two conferences with your reaction to William Rees a number of months ago. You have come a long way! See also Joseph Tainter on energy and civilisation.
I think help understanding this can come from two sources. One is the illuminated in Philip balls book "How life works", which tries to go back to some first principles on life and suggest that you need some kind impetus for life to exist beyond a blueprint which could be rooted in thermodynamics. Life itself tends to fight against the background flow of thermodynamics decay by stockpiling energy. The second is that thermodynamically, entropy is a one way street, which means that as 'life' we are always in a crisis of fighting against background entropic decay, and only ever increasing stockpiles shore up the levy against this flow. Growth as a concept is an illusion, it's just an ever increasing dam built from the walls of the canyon you are building it in.
Also I really love the journey Rachel is on right now. The material vs psychic worlds train of thought is a perfect metaphor for humanity. We increasingly live in the world we make in our minds, of politics and power, as opposed to the real physical world that we are fundamentally a part of. We seem to find far more solace in imagining ourselves from within our own heads, as opposed to looking at ourselves from outside of them.
It's so hard to visualize the heft of daily oil production, in million barrels. A long time ago, the back of the envelop calculation was something in the order of the area of Inner London, if if were filled with about 250.000 Olympics size pools, in annual terms.
Excellent analysis of some basic physical principles, which are generally ignored, in considering the energy-matter relationships of our looming crises.
The concept that non-egalitarianism is true in physics is also enlightening. It is not obvious, however, that life is constrained to the physical laws, which are themselves based on the behaviors of inanimate matter. The process of life, in fact, appears to be counter to the law of entropy, in that "random" matter transform into a highly organized (physically) being. No?
A principal assumption in all discussions on the future of man and society, is that Man is the zenith of natural evolution. Maybe that assumption needs to be re-thought?
I just realized watching this a second time, you have a really cute laugh Rachel, I like it 😉.
I do have one question about the inequality thing he mentioned: how does the high energy consumption affect the inequality of the USSR? There was certainly inequality but the wealthiest people weren’t that much further ahead. The USSR was a major energy producer and consumer back then too.
The holy trinity that was mentioned now sees no need for primary, or even secondary energy. Just go straight to the tertiary with renewables. Far less energy is needed in gross terms, to yield far more work. Primary energy fallacy videos can shed light on this topic.
Moreover, cloud formation can be precipitated by mature forests. Mature forests emit aerosols. So, rain forests create not only their own shade, but also prompted water cycles.
Airsheds, should therefore be studied as intensely as watersheds.
I'm curious how Tim measures droplet size inequality in clouds. Entropy?
Jack of diamonds, I've known you of old. If the power law is built on hustle culture, and the hustle on the long con, can we shuffle the house of card without tumbling down?
I asked Google's Gemini AI the following question:
"If the current exponential growth in the creation of new data continues into the future, how much energy would be needed to store and keep cool all of the data in the world's data centers by 2124?"
Gemini's answer:
● Current Consumption: Let's assume a conservative estimate of 4% of global electricity consumption by data centers (as of 2020).
● Growth Rate: For illustration purposes, let's assume a high annual growth rate of 21%.
● Timeframe: We're looking at 100 years until 2124 (2124-2024).
Calculated Future Consumption: With these assumptions, data centers could consume an astronomical 75,962,110% of global electricity by 2124.
Minute 39: the best analogy on how to translate barrels or kWh into something meaningful comes from Jean-Marc Jancovici. As much as I like and respect Nate Hagens Mr. Jancovici is his senior by something like 20 years.
A great podcast, thank you very much!
I use that there is around 640 kilowatts of energy in a tank of diesel, that is around 3 months of my electrical energy in summer with the air con going 24-7
@@antonyjh1234 that is a nice comparison. However, a comparison that matters much more is translating it into human labour. Why? Because I'll have to do things manually if we cannot exploit external energy sources, that's why!
It's easy to say: "let's use less energy" until you try to do things by yourself, like using your bicycle (non electric please!) to go to work.
@@stefanbernardknauf467 The more I think about it the less I like it. We don't personally use the whole barrel once, the plastics, the asphalt the products we get from each barrel can be in and around the home for years. So how do you personalise the whole amount? A person in Norway might get the diesel while a person in Thailand might get the plastic. Oil equivalents of energy are important of course, like a litre of petrol has more energy than a human working all day, unless it is personalised I don't think people will get it the same as you.
@@antonyjh1234 that's a very good remark! It was not quite the point I tried to make: these energy resources we use are finite, there will be a point where they're not available and then what? Well, we'll have to work harder.
There is a reason why there has been slavery: slavery is harnessing a big source of energy for your personal benefit.
@@stefanbernardknauf467 Why work harder? 20% of our energy is electricity, we could provide people food, shelter and medical care and tell then they aren't allowed to work and simplified we have lowered emissions/ usage of energy 80%.
Numerology is the interpretation of actual logarithmic condensation modulation superposition-quantization that appears to have the logic of deterministic functionality.., aka the Measurement Problem.
"Wouldn't it be great if more people were thinking about these things?" There are actually, quite a few... For all the good the thinking has done.
Good conversation though. I've spent a lot of time on the sociopolitical or climate systems / complex systems side of this. You don't hear much discussion of thermodynamics in this sense.
Why do I get the feeling that one person in this discussion holds deeply that we have agency as individuals to change the thermodynamic flow of energy through our lives and the other knows that such agency is not the case, that we are "just along for the ride."
Agency suggests relationship beyond the popcorn bucket.
@@jacquesvincelette6692 We were warned, right? "Deterministic." I'm surprised Tim G has never dipped into the relationship between the 2nd Law and Evolutionary Game Theory. Or has he?
Determinism and gaming support Moloch and the colonial framework. Curiosity holds space for surprise.
Did they ever pursue the discussion about determinism? I was too impatient to keep listening.
I keep hoping that Rachel will come around to accepting that free will is myth, but she just keeps hanging onto the idea we can turn this ship around. I forgive her, though. It's beyond her control! ;)
This is Randy Thibeault, aka The Ghost of Diogenes, can we have a grown up Philosophical conversation about what this means and how it's going to happen and what possibility sounds like?
He finally got to "The Question" at 1:05,
"If we're looking at a crisis does the world become more egalitarian?"
To that I would say, that is what all the efforts of lobbying, bribing and control have been investing in all along.
I cannot accept that these are natural forces, except that of a virus or something that is accelerating the End of Things.
E= MC^2
Energy = mass (matter) x the speed of light (the amount of heat and energy conversion to create momentum of atoms to the physical limit of speed or velocity) 😊
At 59:00, I give you the "pushback" rebuttal you seek .
You're the greatest!
I've been wondering for a long time whether life on Earth is just a manifestation of entropy.
If matter is changing to energy all around us, isn't life just another mechanism to this end?
Is there any philosophy or scholarship regarding this idea?
"The Gods Must Be Crazy" the movie, comes to mind. The divine Coke bottle from the sky gods is an analog for fossil fuels.
Great post! Humans siding and abetting entropy. I think you are right!!
There is a profound disconnect between physics and economic theory.
none of the modern economist have incorporated physics into their economic models and that is a reason why civilization is at this point.
Listen to Rachel’s interview with DrDelton Chen and study his proposal to bring global thermodynamic balance to economics.
@@emceegreen8864 Why do you push that podcast for? What do you think was good about it? Are you mr Chen?
@@antonyjh1234I’m definitely not he! Really would like someone with to intelligently discuss. It’s not like we are not in a crisis. To me it’s a brilliant idea. Using a collective monetary policy for a win win situation. And it’s based on physics. Particularly thermodynamics. And that’s real science.
@@emceegreen8864 It doesn't solve the fact net zero is an average person born in the 50's is supposed to emit 350 ton of carbon over their lifetime, the plan for net xero is a baby born in 2020 to emit 34 ton. It doesn't solve any of that and there isn't a scheme available that won't leave fossil fuel assets as stranded assets. Are you able to explain what you think is brillant about it?
Grid energy demand has been flat for 20 years, in the US. So, I feel that green substitution is already fully under way. Meanwhile, population and GDP are increasing.
There is room for optimism.
I am missing the biosphere as a counteracting force to the second law of thermodynamics. With a little help from the Sun, it compensates for the steady production of entropy. Is that not so?
Not quite 'negentropy' as has been hypothesised, but definitely can synthesise at a far far slower entropic rate, yes.
The same critique of scientists working on climate change can be applied to economists supporting capitalism but eventually we will understand that climate is changing faster than both humans and capitalism can survive to a large extent
Wow...
Dr John Clauser is a physicist....a Nobel prize winning one at that
The future is a world with much less population than presently. The collective as a whole is suffering from various amounts of narcissism and insanity. Humanity is a creature of earth and as long we are " in " body, we creatures of earth need a healthy planet to ultimately survive. We are in the trajectory of a death.
The point that Tim eventually got around to at 28 minutes, many of your previous speakers would have led with.
There's energy, matter, but also time. Or if you prefer, Energy, Mass and the Cpeed of light. :p
The new age of energy is based on electricity, and its derivatives. Principally, hydrogen will play a leading role. So, is thermodynamics, a math approach based on heat, really appropriate?
I am more inclined to refer to Maxwell's equations. When combined with green energy portfolios, things are looking up.
Secondly, sustainable energy is going with massless energy for primary energy inputs, more and more. As such, applying mass based approaches and mind sets, may lead to mistakes, and false assumptions.
1:00:00 see Blair Fix's work
If it's fun, then you're not being serious.
Suggestion: credit the interviewer by adding her name to the video description above.
The reason economists don’t consider looking at our economic system through a physics lens is because the economic and social system of the entire world is capitalism. Capitalism’s sole reason for existence is exponentially increasing profit for the sake of profit.
There are no other considerations with capitalism. There is no concern for global warming, there is no concern for whether species go extinct, there is no concern whether people have enough food to eat. These things are outside of and not built into the system.
Not just economists, but everyone of us are indoctrinated with that mindset and it takes very hard work to even see how we are indoctrinated, but even harder to unindoctrinate ourselves. Even we socialists.
And these economists are being rewarded by capitalists. How could they possibly see anything any differently if their entire existence depends on capitalism?
Brilliant post!!!!
History has shown that socialist economics has not correctly managed the externalities of consumption. Consider that Capitalism and Socialism are describing the same consumptive system but with different distribution models.
When the end of the second world war happened the world had gone from horses to machines and had found a way to turn air into fertiliser. Any ism at that time could have had the same amount of growth. Coal meant a 800 percent increase in population and diesel 350 percent, take these things away and the means of production still being in private hands, capitalism, would not be blamed.
It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends upon him not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Ration everything. For everybody. Is human life 'supposed' to be an excess of material? (For us lucky first world consumers...) We still undervalue our access to and the relative affordability of our needs and crucially, our whims and excesses... Thank you both for a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion.
Where does the 300 million barrels per day figure come from?
Was/is it not 90 million barrels per day?
Because we also need to take into account global daily consumption of all other energy sources. This figure is then often converted to the barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) for simplicity's sake. So, Tim is relaying that global civilization consumes roughly 100 million literal barrels of oil plus another 200 million BOE in all other energy sources.
@@ScoonieP Thanks for that.
;-0)
@@EntropyJuggler No problem.
The earth receives more energy in sunlight, than humankind can use per day.
rapid sea level rise will reduce energy consumption and force a collapse. militaries and coastal mega-cities will be under water. new physics on arctic glaciers measured.
Is increasing GDP really Economic Growth?
What is NDP, Net Domestic Product?
How many automobiles have American consumers trashed since Sputnik? There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the US in 1995. What do economists say about all of that depreciation? What does planned obsolescence have to do with all of that?
I predict that the Fermi Paradox answers this situation ! When i was born the planet supported a human population of two billion ,now it trys to support eight billion ! AI will probably solve this problem as it has on the other technically overdeveloped civilizations over millions of years ! Need a sequel to Oppenheimer ?
could WE do it differently? i don't think so but many could and ultimately the power dynamic of surpluses creates more inequality essentially creating excess entropy for those sustainable few. only the tyranny of the few could force it and under competition that's still not how systems achieve success.
We know higher education levels are negatively correlated with birth rates. Is this something we can exploit to 'shrink the wheel' in a humane way? If we fund better secondary and post-secondary education on global level, can we use that to reduce population in a way that isn't authoritarian or draconian?
High-education countries are already seeing an inversion of their demographics (more older people than young), which eventually leads to economic havoc as there are more pensioners taking out of the system than those of working age putting in.
I wonder if Rachel has read or seen Exterminate the Brutes?
1:18:51 o.O
So is this the surplus you're talking about: ruclips.net/video/bMgisSJGfeU/видео.html
#thatcherpass
we are like any animal- we will hunt our food until we start dieing off due to famine. and all energy is dirty- the renewables are a bit less dirty, but not clean. then there is how we use energy- when its cheap and subsidized it gets wasted. the only way to conserve energy is to tax it- then use those funds to develope ways the public can do things using very little energy. and we DO need to reduce the amount of our species!
I like most of Garrett's points here. However, I have to say... the part about income and wealth inequality and him justifying it by turning to some bogus naturalist argument was really quite jarring. Also, the whole 'keeping us going' thing is heavily premised on the assumption that we need to keep producing what we are currently producing to 'keep us going', or 'sustain ourselves' which is tenuous at best and complete bullshit at worst
1h12': the professor is unfortunately totally wrong. There are a huge amount of things around us, and them being dominating, that are not physical at all. Take our societal organisation. He says it himself a minute later: economics. Economics are not rational, they only have a rational facade. Behind it's all psychology and human behaviour.
Indeed we need to adress the economic foundations. We're locked in our growing energy consumption because it is required to fire the global growth in GDP. If we stop that (degrowth), because of the level of debt we will immediately plunge into a huge economic crisis, that will threaten the maintenance of current order. It will threaten the wealth of the rich, so of course they will fight to keep that away, even against better knowledge.
The analogy of driving up a nice mountain road with the ravine behind is very good!
Why not invite an economist? For a vibrant discussion, hopefully. Dialogue is far more difficult when the world views collide. Would also be interesting to hear someone who is not aligned to accept these very real problems.
She has. Steve Keen.
I do like Tim Garrett's perspective, and I do think his arguments contain important observations and truths, but overall his arguments rest too much upon analogies, which prevents convincing many people.
As an example, yes wealth obeys some power law distribution, but likely the parameters change somewhat across human societies. You could ask how the parameters change over time, like if wealth becomes more or less inhereted, or how party favoritism distorted the USSR & communist China.
In nature, there exist ecosystems that achieve considerable sustainability, so humanity could be much more sustainable, and solar might play some roll there, but..
An anaogy here would be "nature is red in tooth & claw". In fact, we might need more international violence because countries needed to take covert actions against one anogther cattle, refineries, etc.
Hopefully, this has shown Rachael that degrowth and steady state is impossible, and that Hannah Ritchie's optimism is completely misplaced. Even steady state requires continued destruction of the environment and continued depletion of resources. It would be great to get 8 billion people thinking about these problems but a continuation of modernity certainly seems impossible. (By the way, why did Rachael become more blurred over the video - visually - whilst Tim remained crystal clear?)
The biggest problem is that the exploitive capitalist class has successfully figured out how to use the genius of modern technology not to better the mass of human society, but rather to monitor and psychologically reprogram the great majority into complacency and fragmentation. The only potential hope would be in a massive grass roots old fashioned return to plain old communism. The business class fears this most of all just because of its simplicity, its potential access as a mindset for the average man and woman. The elites know that most people don’t watch intellectual podcasts. They could care less about “planet critical” because they know that ultimately most people aren’t ever going to watch it. Grass roots communism. Us vs. them. That’s the only answer.
guess we are gonna have to use our frontal lobes
I'd say degrowth and reducing complexity for achieving equality is a risky territory. You know, in a prison camp all the prisoners are perfectly equal.
Unfortunately how the conversation has to change and encompasses Everything for Everything
Thats 1.5 hrs I will never get back Tim Garrett. Added nothing to degrowth movement
Dear Rachel. Again a comment to erase after reading. I'll try to formulate this positively and more politically correct:
I might be wrong, but it looks like you did not apply filters and I can perceive so much more non-verbal communication in your face. A big improvement, well done!
I see 2 vertical concentration folds on your forehead, and I can see wrinkles on each side of your mouth when you're smiling, and other minute things. You look much more active and much less mask-like. You look alive! Incidentally you become even more attractive and good looking.
I hope I didn't hurt you with my last message, I really do!
Now I'm looking forward to the remaining 1h15' content. When your guest said he worked with Steve Keen he got my full attention (no, I was not staring at you before that).
Cheers!
Degrowth means the starvation of 7 billion people.
Nothing can replace fossil fuel.
We had a replacement a long time ago: The Lost Century: And How to Reclaim It .
Just use hydrogen.
@@FlameofDemocracy Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a storage mechanism. Energy must be expended to split water to get it.
@@Caitanyadasa108 Just leave this one to experts.
I know this isn’t very professional buuuttt…
Am I the only one who thinks there’s chemistry here between these two?
Fascinating talk though seriouslyz
mega chemistry, & it distracted me from their conversation throughout! she obviously has a huge crush on him - even talking at one point about how she can imagine falling asleep to the sound of his voice :)
Unnecessarily complicating the issue. Making it more obscure rather than clarifying it. Getting lofty and esoteric about thermodynamics is unhelpful.
The world is overpopulated. Resources are limited, energy and access to materials. Disparity between rich and poor is increasing. We know that. The problem is to get people to equitably work towards a common goal, within the limitations of resources.
Rachel have you ever done a deep dive into Powering Down eg how much energy used vs how much energy actually needed?
Capitalist luxury for me ut socialist povert for thee.
He seems to confuse GDP (Gross! domestic product) and GDP growth. Unfortunately, his explanations are not very comprehensible.
Shes allergic to the current administration..
Its ok babe, we all are 🤧 🤕