As a Canadian I am immensely proud of William Rees...one of the world's deepest thinkers on the environmental crisis, in my opinion. This is a podcast well worth sharing!
Thank you Bill Rees, I am a retired 'Brit' who used my retirement to study the science, socio-political and economics of the state of humanity, what I have learned is not reassuring. Your presentation at this virtual meeting has distilled my understanding and been a crystallisation of my own conclusions, as such I am most grateful of your considerable clarity. A cursory glance of you tube offerings would suggest that you have been on top of this issue for some time, so I wish I had come across your output earlier. I look foreword to consuming more of your incisive analysis.
@@MrRollingEgo Most certainly, I am a Extinction Rebellion (UK) supporter so already shouting from the rooftops to anyone who will listen. Thanks again for your efforts.
@No9Shrek Why bother with extinction rebellion? Even if you managed to get UK to net zero, it would be irrelevant, so I don't see the point. The only way we can improve everything is to find more energy, surley.
I made some mental calculations as a teenager 40 years ago and formed the conclusion that humanity was heading for disaster. Even though maths was never my strength. I tried to live simply my whole life and hoped my fellow humankind would get there eventually however over the past 10 years I've come to believe we will not change before some cataclysmic event wakes us up by which time it will be to late unfortunately. I can't see it any other way.
Wow you're a foolish man then. Waste of the great times in the 80s and all the fun things in the 90s. Where is the humanity disaster? Did you research anything to contradict your idea? Did you check with anyone to see if your idea was remotely correct? What variables were you using to calculate that humanity was doomed? When was humanity going to be doomed? You say you're not strong at "maths", why would you think your calculation is correct?
We still won't change even if such an event were to happen. We decided in 1980 to ignore the warning of scientists like Rees and to instead ride this train to the bitter end right off the cliff.
I read "The Population Bomb" and "The Limits to Growth" around 1968 - 1972. I have lived my life based on them. I therefore had few friends. I could not marry and have a family because American women didn't want to be poor. Everyone rejected my information, I converted no one. The situation seems hopeless to me based on my failure and the rapidly approaching tipping points. IMHO, the best we can do is to slow growth and share the wealth for the next several to many years until we all die from the 4 deg. C hotter world we will soon have to live in.Suicide to avoid roving mobs of desperate people seems like the wave of the future. Remember the American West and the thought that you must save your last bullet for yourselves.
I don't think about giving up in the face of raging fools, it seems I am worthy enough to endure that, as you have. Every woman on my dating site "wants to travel" in some deeply habitual chain reaction of being "treated like royalty" for a few dollars. I have puzzled how to end casual overspending as a way of life.
@@robertcox14 The underlying problem of the whole world is the conflict between the desired life styles, population, food and energy sources. We need to 1. Half the total world area used for agriculture while doubling food production. Replace all open air farms by controlled environments. 2. Increase energy production to 100,000 KW hours per person, needed for an equitable life expectancy, for a population of 10 billion (Chose 10 for ease of calculation). A Nuclear electricity production at Billion Gigawatt hours per year is needed to meet energy demand. (Fossil energy sources are a non-starter, they simply don't have the capacity, and fossil fuels are the feed stock for the chemical industry production of fertilisers, etc. ) (Solar power would have to be increased by a factor of 1000 to even approach current power demand, the only chance would be orbital power plants allowing both solar energy concentration by at least a factor of 100, and an improvement in throughput by being in orbit. ) 3. Reforest / Restore much of the world.
Communist China IS the worst environmental criminal on Earth, by far and in every way measurable. See the data. Put the engineers in charge. We'll fix all this $H!T real quick.
@@bimmjim My sentiment exactly, the question is, How do we get that done. We known what people want, what the power needed is, what the sources will need to be, and how to solve pollution, supply and space. It's just a question of getting the poletician class on side. It's as if the horse buggy union blocked their obsolescence by campaign contributions.
RUclips has it's faults, but I'm glad it works to the extent that it allowed to me find and listen to William Rees. A similar message is expressed from Derrick Jensen ... but a lot more sane and rational.
I'm old enough to remember life in the late 60s/early 70s. Dad had *the* car. We kids had bikes and Mom not having her own car was no problem because shopping, etc were all walking distance. This was suburban California then suburban Hawaii. We had *the* TV which was in the living room. *The* electric clock, in the kitchen. We had a lot of books, and going to the library was a treat too. We did hobbies like kites, built models, jigsaw puzzles, and so on. All low-energy things and all things that didn't take a lot of energy to make (for instance the kites were made of paper with cotton string and wooden sticks) we all just used so much less energy and owned so much less *stuff* compared to now it's amazing.
I'm from a family of five kids in the same era. We skied, played hockey, baseball and all had bicycles. Dad had a middle class job. Not possible these days unless one is wealthy.
Sorry, but ecologically speaking (as a "Malthusian"), the above-described lifestyle is not ecologically sound for the long-term survival of species in the wild. Specifically, not counting the number of "kids," the fossil fuel burned by dad was deadly to life on earth as we know it.
@@climatedeceptionnetwork4122 Yes, and now there are too many of us. Incidentally, I remember, back then, going on joy rides, frequently, all over kingdom come, on rides that went nowhere, and only succeeded burning lots of gas, and giving us a sense of mindless freedom.
Indigenous people were talking to each other, and others outside their tribes, about overshoot and collapse, for many thousands of years. They experienced directly what would happen when they or other people overshot carrying capacities and some of them, many even, learned from those mistakes and passed down that wisdom, through their generations. They also reminded each other and themselves of the rules for living on earth in equilibrium with surrounding nature. They experienced ongoing relationships within nature and the need to tend to those relationships daily and in greater ritual and ceremony, for the sake of their lives and future generations. When that wisdom was lost, so too was the equilibrium. Which is never ever perfect, and humans are a young and immature species prone to being sht heads. But wisdom traditions and life ways help keep the sh*ttiness in check. Without those wisdom traditions and *ingenuity that aligned with how the earth works* (so much ingenuity too, despite the ignorant belief they were dumb and primitive) kept them in general equilibrium within nature. And some of those people and their traditions are still alive today.
Also, elders and teachers, especially medicine people and holy people, were key roles that reminded others of the need to tend to these relationships within nature and remain always mindful of equilibrium and when it was forgotten or people started being selfish and making bad choices, they’d be reminded by these elders and medicine people, often through dreams they’d have, visions etc. When those roles were lost, then so was the wisdom, guidance and reminders
@captainflatfoot2176 and inventions are what got us here in overshoot- inventions and innovations that serve only humans and human needs and desires. Smart and imaginative does NOT equate with wisdom, and with the wisdom to know what works for living on earth sustainably and long term. Human innovation and industry does not work with how the earth works and earth has the first last and final say, not humans. It’s our cognitive hubris that has us believe that inventions like the wheel can overcome and control nature and that’s delusion. Watch the entire video (you won’t but maybe someone else reading this actually will)
Simplifying it: It's like burning a large ship at one end, thinking that it's OK at the other end where you don't see the fire. Until you do and its too late.
I wish there was a way that we could have a gentlemanly discussion or debate on this video. The thing that I find ironic is that these gentlemen are at the top of their class and they admit within it, they are not intelligent enough to find a way through it. They declare Woe Is me the end is near. Though I do not like our current situation. I do believe there is a way we can exist without utter destruction of the planet for our species. I believe our species is is it the end of one era and the beginning of the new way to live. A masterpiece is always messy in the middle. our current generation is the one that will admit we are at a messy point of the masterpiece and we have the privilege of fixing it. Please do not attack me; I just believe something that is profoundly different. I will entertain a discussion if it is kept polite
@@brianspence1020 you seem very optimistic.. please point out one thing we have done, or are doing, to stop abrupt irreversible climate change. I could use something positive.
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 I see your point of view, I disagree with a few parts. And I would love to have a discussion face-to-face. Unfortunately that's not possible however, I will take your response and think about it for a while. Thank you
Human brains have evolved to focus on three things primarily: consumption, social standing and reproduction, all three being interrelated. The fear of death is a spooky shadow that follows us around. Even if you inform those brains of the ecological peril, they will tend to get back to the primary business they evolved to address (consumption, social standing, reproduction).
Humans won't do anything until we are falling down the fossil fuel production cliff. After that, the best case scenario will see small pockets of order in a giant sea of chaos. There are way too many variables to even begin to predict the future.
@@kayakMike1000 But somehow...you think you know better. But in order for you to believe that you do, you have to keep it all to yourself...lest your delusional bubble gets quickly burst by someone who actually knows what they are talking about, debunks everything that you hold so dear on this topic.
An additional 10K over the last 2 months but I suspect most are simply second viewings. It feels as if people who don't understand the problem don't look for it and never see it.
.. Communist China IS the worst environmental criminal on Earth, by far and in every way measurable. See the data. Put the engineers in charge. We'll fix all this $H!T real quick.
10,000 (more or less) years of colonization, expansion, destruction, mooching and plunder has reached it's limits. Our anthropocentric civilisation was but a big mistake in essence. Great explanations by Bill Rees ! Kudos !
In the 1971 film documetary "Say Goodbye", it was indicated that we had reached irreversable limits. I was 9 years old. My eyes & ears were glued to the set. The man said: "I believe its too late". That scared the shit out of me. 😳 We need to elevate the conversation & take action.
01:03:00 Technooptimists should listen to this - "use less and consume less, otherwise it does not matter what we do". "Optimism can destroys the motivation to move forward."
@Pool Bal i give a ratsassman. i really care that as many people as possible know they are dead, and that they deserve a horrible fate. and their kids, which they should not have had, who would behave just like them given the chance, too. its important they all know the horrors that await them.
I wish everyone would watch this. . I agree we need a massive hopefully non fatal shock to shake this world into awareness excuse me if I don't hold out any hope. ..
Unfortunately for the total amount of suffering coming our way, our collapse will probably come as a result of a thousand cuts (even nuclear war wouldn't kill the majority of humanity in days/weeks). We're already seeing it today: people throughout the world have already died as direct consequence of the collapse, yet the politicians stick to the neoliberal ideology like bloodsuckers to a succulent mammal. WASF
But no sane leader would dare accelerate towards any serious shock because of the extremely fragile interconnections of the world system. You'd think you're causing a net benefit but you might lock in further existential risks. Less population, yeah but under the current system what about pensions. Less fossil fuel use, yeah but under the current system what about preserving the capacity to prevent worse catastrophes like nuclear meltdowns, grid failures, recessions, civil unrest. Geoengineering, yeah but what about the climate and social feedbacks. And so on and so forth. The speed at which changes would need to occur is so blistering the speed wobbles get ya.
@@leeroyescu The “extremely fragile interactions of the world system”. Only you’re talking about the economy, this bs monetary system rich men made up to make sure they stayed that way. That’s the problem. You’re not talking about the only world system that actually matters to human life, the living world that gives us oxygen, water and a temperate livable human habitat. At any rate that living world system has already been shocked, is already terminally broken. We’ve destroyed the only system capable of supporting life that we’re aware of in the entire universe. Not even the tardigrades are expected to survive us now. And all that world economic system amounts to quite literally is absolutely nothing.
Human beings do not have a biological predisposition to unsustainability. Indigenous peoples have been living sustainably throughout human history. Many societies still do like the Amish for example. A society that lives in mutualism, one with zero crime, because it has no incentive to competition. No wealth to aspire to. No one tho prove you’re better than. No power to be had. Only the community you love and need to survive. All nature works in mutualism. So do we and we fit into the natural world just fine when we do. It’s our current monetary system, now global religion, destroying the balance.
Hey!...today is November 23, 2021 and I've only just now noticed and listened to the entirety of this presentation; better late to the party than not at all, eh! Whoops I just tried speaking Canadian...having only now come across them, Dr. Reese over the past 4 days I have watched, listened to, tried digesting and also sharing other of your presentations; even though perhaps I'm your newest adherent, I am solidly in support of what you are saying, thank you! Finally I have found someone who most eloquently speaks to what, for several decades now, I have realized is at the core of this, our and Gaia's predicament: there are too, way too, many of us, and we are consuming far, far-far, too much of those resources ("stuff"*) we and all of life on Earth needs to sustain us over time. As a avocation regularly I travel from my home here in SW Oregon to the Arcata, California to purchase sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) seedlings which get transplanted to lands in northern Oregon and Washington state...helping this species relocate as those refugia it now is confined to gets consumed by climate change and wild fires. I do this on my own $ without any assistance because I see it as something that needs doing...however, I digress. In your presentation I couldn't help but notice the lack of any "young" people responding to your call for questions, and only 2 women. Even if "the die is cast" here on the fate of our civilization, I feel it is imperative that some, at least a few, younger minds not only grasp what you allude to, but also have a public forum where they too are able to reach-out to peers, getting them on-board here like the rest of us (soon to be) fossils comprehend. These newest generations of us will more and more be bearing the growing ever more burdensome realities you speak of; they are the ones most needed to help assist future generations adjustments, and, perhaps finding, or rediscovering how our earliest ancestors lived within without overly exploiting Gaia as she begins healing after this on-coming collapse. I feel, finally, man has the tools to comprehensively explain ourselves to ourself, to succinctly illuminate the errors of our ways as a way of not repeating them (that ol' mark of insanity...repeatedly doing the same things over and over expecting a different result). Yes!...one or two billion of us, as a "steady-state" world population just might give Gaia the time both to heal, and provide enough "room" for all her other myriads to live and prosper. So, as a biologist, lets dive a little deeper, shall we: it has long been noted that we only use a small percentage of our brain's full potential, and, much of our internal preferences, since cave-man age, has been dominated by the more primitive portions of that brain, OK. Why then, most simply stated, don't we re-engineer our brain to function more in its higher functioning areas! Yes, I understand we are not quite there yet for safely being able to do so, but we are getting close; CRISPR might not prove to be the way to do so, but who is to say CRISPR is not the door to discovering yet unresolved technologies that can. "We" have far fewer base pairs than many plants, and lower animals, yet already quite regularly they are being genetically modified to better serve our needs; it's only a matter of time before enterprise comes up with ways to get us to better serve our needs, our higher needs, our better reintegration back into cooperation with the rest of life on Earth instead of continuing with our selfish, myopic exploitations. As you mentioned several times during this program, "Another 3 hours could be spent discussing...", so too I will leave off here just opening this door, for hopefully deeper, future discussions here on how "Mohammed might come to the mountain" when it comes to the intricacies of re-engineering our brains to produce a more compassionate, considerate, universally conscientious being; shall we! *I do love how the late political comedian George Carlin nailed us all to the cross, so to speak. You have listened to him yes? In case you haven't here's a link to get you started: ruclips.net/video/MvgN5gCuLac/видео.html
The example of the marriage contract and its constaints on promiscuity, shows a contrast to our collective acceptance of greed. Greed should be collectively seen in a similar way as other destructive vices, such as promiscuity, violence, dishonesty, etc.
Excellent, just excellent for its approach to ecology, systems, and such. His approach reminds me of the US Green Movement of the 80s before there was a party, a party that killed the movement. Ecology belongs at the center of our analysis of human activities.
Excellent talk. The questions were almost as informative as the presentation. I found the exposure of the influance of cognative dissonance and the lower brain functions to be extremely valuable in explaining our difficulty in generating support for radical change very constructive. The old "Think global, act local" adage still holds validity. Our greatest difficulty, I think, is getting the 'big players' to see that what is in the interest of the ecology of the planet is in their best long term interest too. The eighties 'greed os good' attitude has alot to answer for!
You mean getting them to prioritise reality over taking control over other people when their entire lives have been spent prioritising control over all other priorities whether personal or even financial.
Most westerners would go years by not buying anything but food, drinks, electricity and heat. We have everything that is needed, but yet still we buy more almost each day. This completely insane.
My first thought, at the beginning, was that the gigantic office overlooking a city could have housed several more professorial offices and eliminated the need to add buildings to the campus. Universities are notorious land grabbers, not always in relation to student population.
That is actually a computer generated background the host used. He was sitting in the basement of his off-grid home, running his computer system off solar power.
@@canadianassociationforthec7885Glad to hear but Optics are an important consideration when presenting, especially when this is the first visual that we see on a talk purporting to be about lowering environmental footprints. Although we do eventually see him in his basement, that is not unusual during pandemic. What we do see first is the opulent office.
My first lecture in the School of Architecture was Bill Rees as a guest speaker foreshadowing the challenges ahead of us for designing in a world with extreme climate fluctuations.
I highly recommend the recent book by anthropologist Dr. Christopher Ryan, Civilized to Death. He argues that the end of hunter-gatherer tribal groups was the advent of the illusory sense of a "self" that was allowed to arise in sedentary societies and eventually civilizations some 10,000 years ago. Therefore, today humans are reaping the results of relatively short-term "self-imposed" toxic complex industrial climate extinction.
Tainter and the "collapse of Complex Societies" And Ponting's "Green History of the World". It might be time to recognize the green revolution in agriculture is actually the catalyst for our eventual collapse. We overused the system to destroy the balance. Then consider "Population Bomb" and others that are showing too many people will destroy the planet.
@@evadd2 Never mind eventual collapse. Simply watch the news and it's apparently evident that complex global technical industrial civilization is collapsing as we speak.
That sounds very similar to what Terence McKenna often said. Did they independently came to the same conclusion or did one inspire the other with that idea?
Many years ago - sometime in the 1990s - I wrote this in my then extant blog - "There is the massive cosmological joke being played on humanity and that is that the our species was created with just enough intelligence to make use of our planetary resources but just insufficient to do so wisely"
@@halphantom2274 No, I don't know him. It was just an observation. But as you've brought up this author, and I've learnt a bit about him in Wiki, can you recommend a book of his that might make a good start? I should add that I'm not really a Sci-Fi enthusiast, well, at least since my teen years fifty years ago. Cheers. JKM
@@jockmoron , I read only a few of him. I liked the non-fictional ones better, where he just lays out his philosophy and tells anecdotes. If I remember correctly _Cosmic Trigger_ is a good start, because he tells a few things about his life in that, so you get the feeling of getting to know him. And I liked _Prometheus Rising_ , because it gave me hope, that humans can change. His humor is gorgeous, but subtle. I also found some videos here on youtube. With those you can get a first impression.
@@jockmoron Here's a short video of multiple snippets, that I like: _Robert Anton Wilson On Reality_ - ruclips.net/video/GuOplymDx4I/видео.html Edit: He suffered from polio in his childhood. That's why he mumbles so much.
Reading tips from this video: - The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger - Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett - Lewis Powell Memorandum
It has been pointed out that while humans can live in all sorts of environments, the plants and animals that support our modern population of many billions, cannot. Humans might be able to deal with living on the land mass at the South Pole as the Earth heats, but there's not going to be much in the way of crops that can be grown on the regolith, the kind of lifeless rock and scree, that is there instead of soil. The crops we depend on are much less versatile than we are.
a couple of great quotes from bill rees in this talk, about the need to transcend 'techno-modernism' and 'what's ecologically necessary is politically unfeasible'. something that isn't covered much here is the role that the relationship between elites and the masses plays in the dumbing down of humanity. specifically that domestication is a dumbing down process that facilitates the control and exploitation of one by the other. as the great american comic george carlin observed, they (the elites) don't want a public trained to think critically. i think this is a big reason that dogmatic religion is pushed so much by them. dogmatic religion indoctrinates followers, the antithesis of critical thinking. another observation: the utter blandness with which the idea of a great collapse, or 'correction', of civilization and human population is discussed. something we're all guilty of. we're talking about an event that will be the greatest cataclysm of human history, dwarfing anything that preceded it, in a tone of calm and measured voice as if remarking upon today's weather, devoid of all emotion and sense of urgency. finally, i think rees and the others in this video are actually far too optimistic of the chance that humanity will effectively begin to address the crisis before teotwawki. i think this chance is effectively nil. we're dystopian and doomed! having read SIX DEGREES and UNDER A GREEN SKY among many other books, i think there's very little chance our species will survive the 6th great mass extinction it's already initiated. btw, i came across this video thanks to reading a blog titled THE COLLAPSE OF INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION. if y'all aren't familiar with it, u should be! collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2021/07/18/man-in-the-box/#comments
Wonderful presentation. I had to laugh at the end when the first comment was, "Is anybody there?" I couldn't help answering, "No, you're the last of your species - sorry."
The pursuit of enrichment along with the power and sexual abundance it promises is the core of the human problem. We want more than we can sustainably have. And we vehemently oppose those who tell us we can't have it.
Excellent thanks from New Zealand. Keep promoting the message...this is the beginning of understanding, defines the problem and outlines the solutions.
Outstanding 👌👌, thanks for putting this on RUclips. In summary the evolutionary charteristics and abilities which made homo Sapiens the most dominant species on earth are now the biggest threat for humankind's downfall, collapse and even extinction.
Great talk, yet at the back of my mind a question kept popping up: "How many more years until the first significant global crop losses occur and then how many more years till the next?"
You wonder when the new ice age are coming? 20 000 years from now? ( That is all about the earths orbit and tilt!) At moment the earth is greening due to increased Co2. 45% greener last 40 years. That means more plants, food and more trees. Where i live the forrest volume has tripled in 90 years. But you might think of Eddy minimum. The new sun cycle that are lower than the previous cycles. Meaning colder weather in a 30 to 50 years periode. 1 to 2 c colder. electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-cycle-will-be-lowest-in-200-years-dalton-minimum-levels-the-implications/
Even climate part of the ecological overshoot problem will be hard to handle. Here's why: Climate models does not include tipping points that have seen started. So talking only from inside of these models gives you false premises. Specially those who talks about keeping temp rise under 1,5C is just wrong. Adding slightest value from seen tipping points you see temperatures are going to raise much more. Likelyhood of 3,5C temperature rise or more, even with phasing out all fossil fuels, making all other efforts to not go that far, has been risen at the point that I can't see going below that limit. (Just add aerosols median 0,6C, La Niña/El Niño variation, solar minumum, slowly (30+ years) phasing fossil fuel emissions, agriculture emissions, ... and low tipping point values to the current temperature mix.) Without any actions temperatures will rise even more. I just hope that this is just my own false thought construct, but it is backed up by loads of scientific data and studies. Keep hoping that climate is kept in safe limits, but in the mean while do what ever you can to avoid worst case scenarios.
Yes. We need to embed a powerful sociological impediment to greed, and it needs to extend from individuals to corporations. This would curtail our innate acquisitive nature.
excellent presentation with clear path forward if we are able to educate enough people to take back our planet. Felt sad that many neighbors thought that buying an air conditioner would help them through the next heat dome, ignoring the fact that we were already having power outages before and during the heat dome.
Exactly. I have been wanting to have University level studies that are for generalists like me. Knowing a lot from different fields of science is needed in our current world, but most lines ends up to some weird corner of the society. In climatology we don't really need the fundamental facts of one lakebed, but we need crude estimate what all of them are doing to our climate. And in the same way we need understanding what the whole climate concept mean. Ie. IPCC is doing pretty good job, but it is still missing all tipping points, because "lack of data". Data is there, we have some estimates, but these are not used, just because the "correct" physical formulas does not occur. So leave out most fundamental changes to our environment and use only what we are used to use. IPCC could add all predicted tipping points to their estimates and give 30+ scenarios of future climate. Then narrow this point to most likely ones, just like they have done with RCP's. Generalists will go through narrowminded solutions and think further applications. I can see that some localized experiment is great, but it doesn't say anything what does it mean in a larger system. Means and thinking what really happens and what our discoveries mean stays often in our specialized narrow minds. We may think this is important, but have you got the key ideas and have you presented those to the leaders that really matter? I have been sending e-mails to all our politicians and most meaningful media outlets and therefore our country has slided toward the direction needed. Single party is not enough, but all and even that is too narrow perspective, so send them to public and then defend your ideas in public conversations. Seek out what people uses most and then try to get their attention. We need less science talks with scientists and more talks out loud in mostly used outlets with common people. Ie. 2,6k viewers so far, sadly :(
Between the talks of William Rees and the programs of Guy McPherson of Nature Bats Last, I think I know everything I need for making an informed choice about climate change and mans future on this earth. Sad, but there it is. Realism is harder to deal with than pretty fantasies about how technology will prevail, but reality says no, not so much. Good luck everyone, smooth passing.
Only few old people seem to realize that human civilization is headed for collapse. Humanity is probably facing the "great filter" - the reason why so few (if any) sentient races throughout the universe ever make it past juvenile stage.
So humanity is basically doomed, what needs to be done just won't be. My cope is thinking it can produce a evolutionary force leading to the death of humanity, a deeply flawed specie, and the birth of the overman. Maybe it's a crazy though but at least from this perspective there is some joy.
Brilliant and so true! There was nothing sermonic about it. True, rare and coherent thoroughness! It’s not likely that a critical mass will form on time. It’s not just the living ecology at risk that diminishes human habitat; there’s also a possibly related geological threat. We just learned that over the last 2000 years 62/68 of the Chinese dynasties collapsed after climate change following significant volcanic eruptions. This may also be happening now to us. That study notes that collapse is more likely when the society is already weakened by polarization.
I really like this talk, Bill is stating many things i completely agree with. I'd suggest one change, we don't have an innate evolved desire to expand, we have an innate evolved desire to control. There are many cultures who didn't expand because they found other methods of controlling their surroundings through harmony with nature, such as aboriginals of australia.
Thanks Dr. Rees for this clarification on what lies ahead. You appear to predict an implosion. Yet, with resources running low (even if you want to call excess CO2 capacity until a tipping point is reached a resource) across the board, is an explosion not more likely than an implosion? I mean, the result is likely to be the the same, going by what you're saying. But still. Is humanity going to fizzle out? Doesn't sound like humanity to me...
Very good presentation. We need to do it all, not focus on just one aspect. In certain aspects, we need to recreate the state the earth and our society was in about 110 years ago, but then without the colonialism, powerplay of nations and with the science and knowledge to our benefit.
One big problem I hear no one talking about is the complexity of the the answer to how to force change on everyone - but maybe impossible is even approaching something of that complexity. More complexity means more people having to agree, and having the power to push laws and policies. I don't see that happening even with a severe catastrophe that doesn't end the world. That will just foment war and division more carbon and more destruction, and more need to rebuild and more energy and resources. ONE THING, I think could work if you look at the problem simply is that people will not join the effort until they have something to gain. So one way to do that is to give people credit for polluting less. Those who do not use much gas, or water, or eat a lot of meat should get a tax subsidy. You promise the people who in their own lives work towards CO2 neutrality or reduction ... so early adopters gain something instead of just being the ones who deny themselves. Leverage people's selfishness and incentives.
You say that 2 billion is a sustainable population. Unfortunately there are about 7.9 billion of us and growing rapidly. How do we get there in the limited time available? The 5.9 of us will not go peaceably.
We are at an interregnum awaiting a societal clarity of the norms that by necessity need to be established. Assuming of course that we have something left with which to build and builders around that are motivated and aspirational let alone anyone who could be a builder or anything!
What economics text describes externalities as being 'mere'? Economists (on occasion) say that externalities must be accounted for to avoid excessive harmful impacts on the environment. [Then they might outline the various approaches that governments have or could take, and analyze benefits and costs of each. Beyond that, they pretty much assume that the dysfunctional political system will work it out somehow.] I learned about pollution fees from an economics text. IF we charge fees proportional to extraction, emission, or habitat destruction, industries will strive to reduce harm. If we share fee proceeds, we will end poverty. We can keep economic activity within sustainable limits if we charge high fees to industries that cause harm to the environment. If random polls show that most people think impacts are excessive, we can raise fees and we'll see more effort put toward reducing the harm. We can promote sustainability, end poverty and bring human impacts on the Earth into line with what most people think is acceptable. Edit: Any economist who speaks publicly should start and end by reminding people what economists know: We can end poverty and promote sustainability by charging fees to industries proportional to harmful impact on the environment, then sharing fee proceeds to all. We will embody in practice a respect for basic precepts that assert truth (accurate prices) and fairness (sharing of a representation of natural wealth). The fact that the price system is not honest is the cause of the defect that creates a market that rewards harm. This is a defect in the economic system. Economists should be most prominent in calling it out and pointing to a remedy.
Industries will never strive to reduce harm, they will at best strive to make a profit while furthering the destruction of the biosphere and pretending to be concerned about the environment. There is no bottom line for capitalism other than profit.
@@alandoane9168 A high pollution fee means that a company can reduce their operating expenses by buying new equipment that will allow them to produce without emitting pollution. A high pollution fee will motivate efforts to reduce pollution (because it makes release of pollution a costly activity to be avoided).
It is good that a person would follow their passion for learning to pursue it. Especially if it is to address charity for the earth and hope for it’s children. Nobel.
I am curious if there is someone under 40 years of age, that watched this video and explanations by W. Rees. What do you (under 40 years) thinks about ? I will appreciate your responses.
Thanks to the boomers for spending their entire lives bending the world for their own benefit, shaping legislation, lobbying governments, using the outsized influence of their cohort group to shape economics and government to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else and the ecology of the planet... And their rear ends are still firmly glued to the seats of power, not retiring when they should have, still in Congress, still Presidents, Still CEOs... Not graciously conceding to any younger generation but keeping their death grip on Power and self aggrandizement.
Tgere is only one solution short term and that is the development of a carbon sink and food production capability utilizing desert environments. The problem with that is mostly international organization based not on profit but on cooperation and secondly the effects this would have on the albedo of desert environments. Long term we have to learn to produce our food and procure our resources without undercutting the environments we depend on. Easier said than done especially geopolitically but its the only hope we have for managing this crisis.
Thanks Prof. Reese. Technology is the indirect cause of climate change. We need a new Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit, and this 'profit' definition must map well with nature's economy. In nature, we have been paid in full, in advance, and our job is to gain sustenance without going into Overshoot. I recommend this definition: Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us. Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM. The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance. As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies. Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be: 1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive. 2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others. 3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable. 4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness. 5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods. 6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly. 7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs. I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point. This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you! 💖
The first page of the bible and democracy have a lot to answer for - the other pages of the bible are about being nice to each other even at the expense of the natural world. If the majority vote to eliminate future generations then let it be, even a dictatorship risks overthrow if it imposes the lifestyle restrictions to enable long term survival... as I remember milk still had cream on top in the 1980's...
There is a global trend for humans to organize themselves into corporations that amass power and increasing behave like organisms. Even though these corporate/organisms are composed of highly intelligent individuals, there is need of the corporation for unbridled growth at the expense of the environment and also the individual. Is this idea valid and are these sort of corporations the source of coordinated resistance to climate change?
Thanks Bill, i agree with your analysis. Lets remember that oxygen is dropping and will limit humans ability to think. Ocean’s are dying and produces most of our oxygen! We are heading for collapse socially and environmentally.
That a societal reorganisation and transformation is required but will that impetus come from within or From outside ? Or mixture of both? A case of thesis , antithesis , and synthesis. The late Bronze Age collapse gave rise to a golden age of philosophy, spirituality, and governance so humanity has a capacity to transform itself yet those golden age achievements took hundreds of years. The question to ask is if humanity have the hundreds of years to required to manifest a new mythology. According to geneticists who study our DNA for evolutionary markers concluded that humanity underwent a prehistorical crisis that nearly resulted in our extinction , so humanity could endure and survive such a crisis should not be dismissed . Extrapolating if humanity has already endured the crisis of a near extinction event as humanity has shown it has a capacity to respond as we may see in our history and prehistory and the question begs is the damage we have done to our ecosystem so profound that extinction a fait accompli. To conclude I am left to ponder the Greeks and their mythology and one such being comes to mind namely Dionysius and I leave that with anyone who would read beyond an established social framework.
I think our greatest handicap are our RELIGIONS! Religions have billions of people believing in things we now know are not true. As long as so many of us follow magical "thinking", we cannot make the changes that must be made, like ENDING GROWTH. We MUST STOP GROWING! We are simply a big brained, bipedal APE NOT a "special creation." Nothing else we could do is more important, we must STOP POPULATION GROWTH & our GROWTH IN CONSUMPTION. A more equatable distributions of our wealth would improve the lives of billions of people BUT that would also result in increasing consumption! We in the rich would could consume much less leaving more for those that have so little, but given human nature, this will not happen. I'm afraid we will continue to fight to continue BAU no matter what it's cost until we finally collapse. Who knows what, if anything will survive this. The sooner we lose the ability to extract sufficient fossil resources to fuel growth so that growth ends & declines, the better off the rest of our planet will be, but we will have to pay a horrible price for being so long in denial.
The reality we are in is the matrix We enslave ourselves by using or participating in the matrix...as apposed to a more self reliant existence which inherently exposes us to a more raw experience of reality.. whereas. What we do is participate in a matrix
Things will change when fishing boats go out and find no fish it's coming. We don't acknowledge the problem let alone join for a solution. We need way more ecologists and way fewer economists
As a Canadian I am immensely proud of William Rees...one of the world's deepest thinkers on the environmental crisis, in my opinion. This is a podcast well worth sharing!
Thank you Bill Rees, I am a retired 'Brit' who used my retirement to study the science, socio-political and economics of the state of humanity, what I have learned is not reassuring. Your presentation at this virtual meeting has distilled my understanding and been a crystallisation of my own conclusions, as such I am most grateful of your considerable clarity. A cursory glance of you tube offerings would suggest that you have been on top of this issue for some time, so I wish I had come across your output earlier. I look foreword to consuming more of your incisive analysis.
So much innocuous, decisive yet uncontrived gramma using here, you are...YODA.
Are you going to share your knowledge with other people?
@@MrRollingEgo Most certainly, I am a Extinction Rebellion (UK) supporter so already shouting from the rooftops to anyone who will listen. Thanks again for your efforts.
Same, I have a lot of XR friends and are also a climate and animal rights activist. Be strong friend
@No9Shrek Why bother with extinction rebellion?
Even if you managed to get UK to net zero, it would be irrelevant, so I don't see the point. The only way we can improve everything is to find more energy, surley.
I made some mental calculations as a teenager 40 years ago and formed the conclusion that humanity was heading for disaster. Even though maths was never my strength. I tried to live simply my whole life and hoped my fellow humankind would get there eventually however over the past 10 years I've come to believe we will not change before some cataclysmic event wakes us up by which time it will be to late unfortunately. I can't see it any other way.
Wow you're a foolish man then. Waste of the great times in the 80s and all the fun things in the 90s. Where is the humanity disaster? Did you research anything to contradict your idea? Did you check with anyone to see if your idea was remotely correct? What variables were you using to calculate that humanity was doomed? When was humanity going to be doomed? You say you're not strong at "maths", why would you think your calculation is correct?
We still won't change even if such an event were to happen. We decided in 1980 to ignore the warning of scientists like Rees and to instead ride this train to the bitter end right off the cliff.
I read "The Population Bomb" and "The Limits to Growth" around 1968 - 1972. I have lived my life based on them. I therefore had few friends. I could not marry and have a family because American women didn't want to be poor. Everyone rejected my information, I converted no one. The situation seems hopeless to me based on my failure and the rapidly approaching tipping points. IMHO, the best we can do is to slow growth and share the wealth for the next several to many years until we all die from the 4 deg. C hotter world we will soon have to live in.Suicide to avoid roving mobs of desperate people seems like the wave of the future. Remember the American West and the thought that you must save your last bullet for yourselves.
I don't think about giving up in the face of raging fools, it seems I am worthy enough to endure that, as you have. Every woman on my dating site "wants to travel" in some deeply habitual chain reaction of being "treated like royalty" for a few dollars. I have puzzled how to end casual overspending as a way of life.
@@robertcox14
The underlying problem of the whole world is the conflict between the desired life styles, population, food and energy sources.
We need to
1. Half the total world area used for agriculture while doubling food production.
Replace all open air farms by controlled environments.
2. Increase energy production to 100,000 KW hours per person, needed for an equitable life expectancy, for a population of 10 billion (Chose 10 for ease of calculation).
A Nuclear electricity production at Billion Gigawatt hours per year is needed to meet energy demand.
(Fossil energy sources are a non-starter, they simply don't have the capacity, and fossil fuels are the feed stock for the chemical industry production of fertilisers, etc. )
(Solar power would have to be increased by a factor of 1000 to even approach current power demand, the only chance would be orbital power plants allowing both solar energy concentration by at least a factor of 100, and an improvement in throughput by being in orbit. )
3. Reforest / Restore much of the world.
Communist China IS the worst environmental criminal on Earth, by far and in every way measurable.
See the data.
Put the engineers in charge. We'll fix all this $H!T real quick.
@@bimmjim
My sentiment exactly, the question is, How do we get that done.
We known what people want, what the power needed is, what the sources will need to be, and how to solve pollution, supply and space.
It's just a question of getting the poletician class on side. It's as if the horse buggy union blocked their obsolescence by campaign contributions.
@@bimmjim China is THE manufacturer for consumer goods in USA and Canada, China made a lot of pollution making stuff for US.
RUclips has it's faults, but I'm glad it works to the extent that it allowed to me find and listen to William Rees. A similar message is expressed from Derrick Jensen ... but a lot more sane and rational.
I'm old enough to remember life in the late 60s/early 70s. Dad had *the* car. We kids had bikes and Mom not having her own car was no problem because shopping, etc were all walking distance. This was suburban California then suburban Hawaii. We had *the* TV which was in the living room. *The* electric clock, in the kitchen. We had a lot of books, and going to the library was a treat too. We did hobbies like kites, built models, jigsaw puzzles, and so on. All low-energy things and all things that didn't take a lot of energy to make (for instance the kites were made of paper with cotton string and wooden sticks) we all just used so much less energy and owned so much less *stuff* compared to now it's amazing.
I'm from a family of five kids in the same era. We skied, played hockey, baseball and all had bicycles. Dad had a middle class job. Not possible these days unless one is wealthy.
And somehow life was grand compared to now. If we could give it all back and start from there: grand.
@@morninboy Things in the US are worse than i thought.
Sorry, but ecologically speaking (as a "Malthusian"), the above-described lifestyle is not ecologically sound for the long-term survival of species in the wild. Specifically, not counting the number of "kids," the fossil fuel burned by dad was deadly to life on earth as we know it.
@@climatedeceptionnetwork4122 Yes, and now there are too many of us. Incidentally, I remember, back then, going on joy rides, frequently, all over kingdom come, on rides that went nowhere, and only succeeded burning lots of gas, and giving us a sense of mindless freedom.
“Externalities,”-the very existence of that term in its current usage points out the arrogance of humans better than anything else that I can think of
lol good point. Those "externalities" might be bigger than the current picture we have
All aboriginal people's a couple hundred years ago told us if we keep thinking and doing things the way we do its gona end badly.....
Hard to blame us for not listening to people who hadn’t even invented the wheel.
Indigenous people were talking to each other, and others outside their tribes, about overshoot and collapse, for many thousands of years. They experienced directly what would happen when they or other people overshot carrying capacities and some of them, many even, learned from those mistakes and passed down that wisdom, through their generations. They also reminded each other and themselves of the rules for living on earth in equilibrium with surrounding nature. They experienced ongoing relationships within nature and the need to tend to those relationships daily and in greater ritual and ceremony, for the sake of their lives and future generations. When that wisdom was lost, so too was the equilibrium. Which is never ever perfect, and humans are a young and immature species prone to being sht heads. But wisdom traditions and life ways help keep the sh*ttiness in check. Without those wisdom traditions and *ingenuity that aligned with how the earth works* (so much ingenuity too, despite the ignorant belief they were dumb and primitive) kept them in general equilibrium within nature. And some of those people and their traditions are still alive today.
Also, elders and teachers, especially medicine people and holy people, were key roles that reminded others of the need to tend to these relationships within nature and remain always mindful of equilibrium and when it was forgotten or people started being selfish and making bad choices, they’d be reminded by these elders and medicine people, often through dreams they’d have, visions etc. When those roles were lost, then so was the wisdom, guidance and reminders
@captainflatfoot2176 and inventions are what got us here in overshoot- inventions and innovations that serve only humans and human needs and desires. Smart and imaginative does NOT equate with wisdom, and with the wisdom to know what works for living on earth sustainably and long term. Human innovation and industry does not work with how the earth works and earth has the first last and final say, not humans. It’s our cognitive hubris that has us believe that inventions like the wheel can overcome and control nature and that’s delusion. Watch the entire video (you won’t but maybe someone else reading this actually will)
Simplifying it:
It's like burning a large ship at one end, thinking that it's OK at the other end where you don't see the fire.
Until you do and its too late.
Its more like buring one end of the ship, seeing the fire and speeding up to run away from it.
Brilliant , sadly
This is the best presentation on this topic I have ever heard. Sadly does not inspire confidence in the human future.
I wish there was a way that we could have a gentlemanly discussion or debate on this video. The thing that I find ironic is that these gentlemen are at the top of their class and they admit within it, they are not intelligent enough to find a way through it. They declare Woe Is me the end is near. Though I do not like our current situation. I do believe there is a way we can exist without utter destruction of the planet for our species. I believe our species is is it the end of one era and the beginning of the new way to live. A masterpiece is always messy in the middle. our current generation is the one that will admit we are at a messy point of the masterpiece and we have the privilege of fixing it. Please do not attack me; I just believe something that is profoundly different. I will entertain a discussion if it is kept polite
@@brianspence1020 you seem very optimistic.. please point out one thing we have done, or are doing, to stop abrupt irreversible climate change. I could use something positive.
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 I see your point of view, I disagree with a few parts. And I would love to have a discussion face-to-face. Unfortunately that's not possible however, I will take your response and think about it for a while. Thank you
Human brains have evolved to focus on three things primarily: consumption, social standing and reproduction, all three being interrelated. The fear of death is a spooky shadow that follows us around. Even if you inform those brains of the ecological peril, they will tend to get back to the primary business they evolved to address (consumption, social standing, reproduction).
Absolutely! This is what I have always thought, as well.
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
Maybe we need an evolution booster. How about those shrooms? Ego death is better than real death, isn't it?
@@jamesbonde4470 Great video. Explains a lot.
@@halphantom2274 The shroom people. That sounds nice and sustainable.
Outstanding presentation - the best multi-disciplinarian summary I've ever heard.
And the lack of views shows just what this petri dish looks like.
I noticed that. 4,300 views is pathetic
The number of views seem to be running at about 250 per day. I suspect many of them are repeats.
Multidisciplinary is a stretch. I’d call it a rare case of severe ADHD, complicated by over qualification syndrome.
Humans won't do anything until we are falling down the fossil fuel production cliff. After that, the best case scenario will see small pockets of order in a giant sea of chaos. There are way too many variables to even begin to predict the future.
Here is an intelligent rational empathetic human being who is wise, courageous, moral and patient with an enlightened grasp of reality!
@Jimbob charles .. Thank you.
And largely wrong on most of what he's whining about.
@@kayakMike1000 But somehow...you think you know better.
But in order for you to believe that you do, you have to keep it all to yourself...lest your delusional bubble gets quickly burst by someone who actually knows what they are talking about, debunks everything that you hold so dear on this topic.
10K views is an insignificant fraction of the number of people who need to try to absorb this very sobering truth.
An additional 10K over the last 2 months but I suspect most are simply second viewings. It feels as if people who don't understand the problem don't look for it and never see it.
.. Communist China IS the worst environmental criminal on Earth, by far and in every way measurable.
See the data.
Put the engineers in charge. We'll fix all this $H!T real quick.
10,000 (more or less) years of colonization, expansion, destruction, mooching and plunder has reached it's limits. Our anthropocentric civilisation was but a big mistake in essence. Great explanations by Bill Rees ! Kudos !
In the 1971 film documetary "Say Goodbye", it was indicated that we had reached irreversable limits. I was 9 years old. My eyes & ears were glued to the set. The man said: "I believe its too late". That scared the shit out of me. 😳 We need to elevate the conversation & take action.
@@lukebieniek9069
Excellent summation of the mess we are in.
01:03:00 Technooptimists should listen to this - "use less and consume less, otherwise it does not matter what we do".
"Optimism can destroys the motivation to move forward."
Thanks for sharing this Art!
hi sandy. this is a good one eh. i wrote a comment above
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
@Pool Bal i give a ratsassman. i really care that as many people as possible know they are dead, and that they deserve a horrible fate. and their kids, which they should not have had, who would behave just like them given the chance, too. its important they all know the horrors that await them.
I wish everyone would watch this. . I agree we need a massive hopefully non fatal shock to shake this world into awareness excuse me if I don't hold out any hope. ..
This answers your question! It just shows how illiterate most of the world is! This is why thres not enough listening?.
Unfortunately for the total amount of suffering coming our way, our collapse will probably come as a result of a thousand cuts (even nuclear war wouldn't kill the majority of humanity in days/weeks). We're already seeing it today: people throughout the world have already died as direct consequence of the collapse, yet the politicians stick to the neoliberal ideology like bloodsuckers to a succulent mammal. WASF
But no sane leader would dare accelerate towards any serious shock because of the extremely fragile interconnections of the world system. You'd think you're causing a net benefit but you might lock in further existential risks.
Less population, yeah but under the current system what about pensions. Less fossil fuel use, yeah but under the current system what about preserving the capacity to prevent worse catastrophes like nuclear meltdowns, grid failures, recessions, civil unrest. Geoengineering, yeah but what about the climate and social feedbacks. And so on and so forth.
The speed at which changes would need to occur is so blistering the speed wobbles get ya.
@@leeroyescu The “extremely fragile interactions of the world system”.
Only you’re talking about the economy, this bs monetary system rich men made up to make sure they stayed that way.
That’s the problem.
You’re not talking about the only world system that actually matters to human life, the living world that gives us oxygen, water and a temperate livable human habitat.
At any rate that living world system has already been shocked, is already terminally broken.
We’ve destroyed the only system capable of supporting life that we’re aware of in the entire universe.
Not even the tardigrades are expected to survive us now.
And all that world economic system amounts to
quite literally
is absolutely nothing.
Human beings do not have a biological predisposition to unsustainability.
Indigenous peoples have been living sustainably throughout human history. Many societies still do like the Amish for example. A society that lives in mutualism, one with zero crime, because it has no incentive to competition. No wealth to aspire to. No one tho prove you’re better than.
No power to be had.
Only the community you love
and need to survive.
All nature works in mutualism. So do we and we fit into the natural world just fine when we do. It’s our current monetary system, now global religion, destroying the balance.
Overshoot is almost unknown outside the eco community unfortunately
Hey!...today is November 23, 2021 and I've only just now noticed and listened to the entirety of this presentation; better late to the party than not at all, eh! Whoops I just tried speaking Canadian...having only now come across them, Dr. Reese over the past 4 days I have watched, listened to, tried digesting and also sharing other of your presentations; even though perhaps I'm your newest adherent, I am solidly in support of what you are saying, thank you!
Finally I have found someone who most eloquently speaks to what, for several decades now, I have realized is at the core of this, our and Gaia's predicament: there are too, way too, many of us, and we are consuming far, far-far, too much of those resources ("stuff"*) we and all of life on Earth needs to sustain us over time. As a avocation regularly I travel from my home here in SW Oregon to the Arcata, California to purchase sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) seedlings which get transplanted to lands in northern Oregon and Washington state...helping this species relocate as those refugia it now is confined to gets consumed by climate change and wild fires. I do this on my own $ without any assistance because I see it as something that needs doing...however, I digress. In your presentation I couldn't help but notice the lack of any "young" people responding to your call for questions, and only 2 women. Even if "the die is cast" here on the fate of our civilization, I feel it is imperative that some, at least a few, younger minds not only grasp what you allude to, but also have a public forum where they too are able to reach-out to peers, getting them on-board here like the rest of us (soon to be) fossils comprehend. These newest generations of us will more and more be bearing the growing ever more burdensome realities you speak of; they are the ones most needed to help assist future generations adjustments, and, perhaps finding, or rediscovering how our earliest ancestors lived within without overly exploiting Gaia as she begins healing after this on-coming collapse. I feel, finally, man has the tools to comprehensively explain ourselves to ourself, to succinctly illuminate the errors of our ways as a way of not repeating them (that ol' mark of insanity...repeatedly doing the same things over and over expecting a different result). Yes!...one or two billion of us, as a "steady-state" world population just might give Gaia the time both to heal, and provide enough "room" for all her other myriads to live and prosper.
So, as a biologist, lets dive a little deeper, shall we: it has long been noted that we only use a small percentage of our brain's full potential, and, much of our internal preferences, since cave-man age, has been dominated by the more primitive portions of that brain, OK. Why then, most simply stated, don't we re-engineer our brain to function more in its higher functioning areas! Yes, I understand we are not quite there yet for safely being able to do so, but we are getting close; CRISPR might not prove to be the way to do so, but who is to say CRISPR is not the door to discovering yet unresolved technologies that can. "We" have far fewer base pairs than many plants, and lower animals, yet already quite regularly they are being genetically modified to better serve our needs; it's only a matter of time before enterprise comes up with ways to get us to better serve our needs, our higher needs, our better reintegration back into cooperation with the rest of life on Earth instead of continuing with our selfish, myopic exploitations. As you mentioned several times during this program, "Another 3 hours could be spent discussing...", so too I will leave off here just opening this door, for hopefully deeper, future discussions here on how "Mohammed might come to the mountain" when it comes to the intricacies of re-engineering our brains to produce a more compassionate, considerate, universally conscientious being; shall we!
*I do love how the late political comedian George Carlin nailed us all to the cross, so to speak. You have listened to him yes? In case you haven't here's a link to get you started: ruclips.net/video/MvgN5gCuLac/видео.html
Awesome -- thank you for publishing this vitally important information.
Unfortunately we will first need to experience more extreme events before any real action is taken. Great presentation.
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
By the time we experience extreme events, it is too late. Game over.
Rees is a very good Doctor. We should listen.
The example of the marriage contract and its constaints on promiscuity, shows a contrast to our collective acceptance of greed. Greed should be collectively seen in a similar way as other destructive vices, such as promiscuity, violence, dishonesty, etc.
Thank you Bill for a brillant presentation. You answered some very difficult questions with honesty, wisdom, humour and first class information.
Excellent, just excellent for its approach to ecology, systems, and such. His approach reminds me of the US Green Movement of the 80s before there was a party, a party that killed the movement. Ecology belongs at the center of our analysis of human activities.
Excellent talk. The questions were almost as informative as the presentation. I found the exposure of the influance of cognative dissonance and the lower brain functions to be extremely valuable in explaining our difficulty in generating support for radical change very constructive. The old "Think global, act local" adage still holds validity. Our greatest difficulty, I think, is getting the 'big players' to see that what is in the interest of the ecology of the planet is in their best long term interest too. The eighties 'greed os good' attitude has alot to answer for!
You mean getting them to prioritise reality over taking control over other people when their entire lives have been spent prioritising control over all other priorities whether personal or even financial.
Excellent presentation and questions.
Most westerners would go years by not buying anything but food, drinks, electricity and heat. We have everything that is needed, but yet still we buy more almost each day. This completely insane.
Thanks to all for doing this
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
My first thought, at the beginning, was that the gigantic office overlooking a city could have housed several more professorial offices and eliminated the need to add buildings to the campus. Universities are notorious land grabbers, not always in relation to student population.
That is actually a computer generated background the host used. He was sitting in the basement of his off-grid home, running his computer system off solar power.
@@canadianassociationforthec7885Glad to hear but Optics are an important consideration when presenting, especially when this is the first visual that we see on a talk purporting to be about lowering environmental footprints. Although we do eventually see him in his basement, that is not unusual during pandemic. What we do see first is the opulent office.
@@damselflyaway LMAO
GREAT presentation! should have 100k likes & views.
My first lecture in the School of Architecture was Bill Rees as a guest speaker foreshadowing the challenges ahead of us for designing in a world with extreme climate fluctuations.
Interesting
@@em945 yup, back in 1992
Brilliant presentation
Amazing guest!
Malthus and The Four Horsemen are playing at the local pub , I think I will go down there and party.
Lol
The Rev was right after all eh 🤣🙌🏻
I highly recommend the recent book by anthropologist Dr. Christopher Ryan, Civilized to Death. He argues that the end of hunter-gatherer tribal groups was the advent of the illusory sense of a "self" that was allowed to arise in sedentary societies and eventually civilizations some 10,000 years ago. Therefore, today humans are reaping the results of relatively short-term "self-imposed" toxic complex industrial climate extinction.
That sounds very interesting!!!
Tainter and the "collapse of Complex Societies" And Ponting's "Green History of the World". It might be time to recognize the green revolution in agriculture is actually the catalyst for our eventual collapse. We overused the system to destroy the balance. Then consider "Population Bomb" and others that are showing too many people will destroy the planet.
@@evadd2 Never mind eventual collapse. Simply watch the news and it's apparently evident that complex global technical industrial civilization is collapsing as we speak.
That sounds very similar to what Terence McKenna often said. Did they independently came to the same conclusion or did one inspire the other with that idea?
Many years ago - sometime in the 1990s - I wrote this in my then extant blog - "There is the massive cosmological joke being played on humanity and that is that the our species was created with just enough intelligence to make use of our planetary resources but just insufficient to do so wisely"
Sounds like it could come from Robert Anton Wilson. Have you read something of him?
@@halphantom2274 No, I don't know him. It was just an observation. But as you've brought up this author, and I've learnt a bit about him in Wiki, can you recommend a book of his that might make a good start? I should add that I'm not really a Sci-Fi enthusiast, well, at least since my teen years fifty years ago. Cheers. JKM
@@jockmoron , I read only a few of him. I liked the non-fictional ones better, where he just lays out his philosophy and tells anecdotes. If I remember correctly _Cosmic Trigger_ is a good start, because he tells a few things about his life in that, so you get the feeling of getting to know him. And I liked _Prometheus Rising_ , because it gave me hope, that humans can change.
His humor is gorgeous, but subtle. I also found some videos here on youtube. With those you can get a first impression.
@@jockmoron
Here's a short video of multiple snippets, that I like:
_Robert Anton Wilson On Reality_ - ruclips.net/video/GuOplymDx4I/видео.html
Edit: He suffered from polio in his childhood. That's why he mumbles so much.
Reading tips from this video:
- The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger - Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett
- Lewis Powell Memorandum
Perfect presentation!
It has been pointed out that while humans can live in all sorts of environments, the plants and animals that support our modern population of many billions, cannot. Humans might be able to deal with living on the land mass at the South Pole as the Earth heats, but there's not going to be much in the way of crops that can be grown on the regolith, the kind of lifeless rock and scree, that is there instead of soil. The crops we depend on are much less versatile than we are.
Brilliant conversation 👍
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
a couple of great quotes from bill rees in this talk, about the need to transcend 'techno-modernism' and 'what's ecologically necessary is politically unfeasible'.
something that isn't covered much here is the role that the relationship between elites and the masses plays in the dumbing down of humanity. specifically that domestication is a dumbing down process that facilitates the control and exploitation of one by the other. as the great american comic george carlin observed, they (the elites) don't want a public trained to think critically. i think this is a big reason that dogmatic religion is pushed so much by them. dogmatic religion indoctrinates followers, the antithesis of critical thinking.
another observation: the utter blandness with which the idea of a great collapse, or 'correction', of civilization and human population is discussed. something we're all guilty of. we're talking about an event that will be the greatest cataclysm of human history, dwarfing anything that preceded it, in a tone of calm and measured voice as if remarking upon today's weather, devoid of all emotion and sense of urgency.
finally, i think rees and the others in this video are actually far too optimistic of the chance that humanity will effectively begin to address the crisis before teotwawki. i think this chance is effectively nil. we're dystopian and doomed! having read SIX DEGREES and UNDER A GREEN SKY among many other books, i think there's very little chance our species will survive the 6th great mass extinction it's already initiated.
btw, i came across this video thanks to reading a blog titled THE COLLAPSE OF INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION. if y'all aren't familiar with it, u should be!
collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2021/07/18/man-in-the-box/#comments
Wonderful presentation. I had to laugh at the end when the first comment was, "Is anybody there?" I couldn't help answering, "No, you're the last of your species - sorry."
Thanks for the clarity!
The pursuit of enrichment along with the power and sexual abundance it promises is the core of the human problem. We want more than we can sustainably have. And we vehemently oppose those who tell us we can't have it.
Excellent thanks from New Zealand. Keep promoting the message...this is the beginning of understanding, defines the problem and outlines the solutions.
Very good presentation! We seem to be stuck in a disaster movie with a predictable final act :(
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
“Demonstrably untrue.”
So much more elegant and diplomatic than arrant nonsense.
Outstanding 👌👌, thanks for putting this on RUclips. In summary the evolutionary charteristics and abilities which made homo Sapiens the most dominant species on earth are now the biggest threat for humankind's downfall, collapse and even extinction.
Animals and plants have empathy and adjust their behavior to adapt to different circumstances
Great talk, yet at the back of my mind a question kept popping up: "How many more years until the first significant global crop losses occur and then how many more years till the next?"
Not long...
@Pool Bal We're getting closer, but we're not there yet.
You wonder when the new ice age are coming? 20 000 years from now? ( That is all about the earths orbit and tilt!) At moment the earth is greening due to increased Co2. 45% greener last 40 years. That means more plants, food and more trees. Where i live the forrest volume has tripled in 90 years. But you might think of Eddy minimum. The new sun cycle that are lower than the previous cycles. Meaning colder weather in a 30 to 50 years periode. 1 to 2 c colder. electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-cycle-will-be-lowest-in-200-years-dalton-minimum-levels-the-implications/
@@arnehofoss9109 It would be such a shame to see this lush green flat earth covered in ice.
Yeah, that's going to be a horrifying shock, and I think it's not far down the pike.
Greed, intolerance and selfishness reign. Until that changes we are doomed!
Thanks for this video!
Even climate part of the ecological overshoot problem will be hard to handle. Here's why:
Climate models does not include tipping points that have seen started. So talking only from inside of these models gives you false premises.
Specially those who talks about keeping temp rise under 1,5C is just wrong. Adding slightest value from seen tipping points you see temperatures are going to raise much more. Likelyhood of 3,5C temperature rise or more, even with phasing out all fossil fuels, making all other efforts to not go that far, has been risen at the point that I can't see going below that limit. (Just add aerosols median 0,6C, La Niña/El Niño variation, solar minumum, slowly (30+ years) phasing fossil fuel emissions, agriculture emissions, ... and low tipping point values to the current temperature mix.)
Without any actions temperatures will rise even more.
I just hope that this is just my own false thought construct, but it is backed up by loads of scientific data and studies. Keep hoping that climate is kept in safe limits, but in the mean while do what ever you can to avoid worst case scenarios.
Yes. We need to embed a powerful sociological impediment to greed, and it needs to extend from individuals to corporations. This would curtail our innate acquisitive nature.
but i need to have sex.
One out of a billion may be interested in your message. It's a tragedy.
excellent presentation with clear path forward if we are able to educate enough people to take back our planet. Felt sad that many neighbors thought that buying an air conditioner would help them through the next heat dome, ignoring the fact that we were already having power outages before and during the heat dome.
Very interesting. I think my paradigm moved while I watched.
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
Exactly. I have been wanting to have University level studies that are for generalists like me. Knowing a lot from different fields of science is needed in our current world, but most lines ends up to some weird corner of the society.
In climatology we don't really need the fundamental facts of one lakebed, but we need crude estimate what all of them are doing to our climate. And in the same way we need understanding what the whole climate concept mean. Ie. IPCC is doing pretty good job, but it is still missing all tipping points, because "lack of data". Data is there, we have some estimates, but these are not used, just because the "correct" physical formulas does not occur. So leave out most fundamental changes to our environment and use only what we are used to use. IPCC could add all predicted tipping points to their estimates and give 30+ scenarios of future climate. Then narrow this point to most likely ones, just like they have done with RCP's.
Generalists will go through narrowminded solutions and think further applications. I can see that some localized experiment is great, but it doesn't say anything what does it mean in a larger system. Means and thinking what really happens and what our discoveries mean stays often in our specialized narrow minds. We may think this is important, but have you got the key ideas and have you presented those to the leaders that really matter? I have been sending e-mails to all our politicians and most meaningful media outlets and therefore our country has slided toward the direction needed. Single party is not enough, but all and even that is too narrow perspective, so send them to public and then defend your ideas in public conversations. Seek out what people uses most and then try to get their attention. We need less science talks with scientists and more talks out loud in mostly used outlets with common people. Ie. 2,6k viewers so far, sadly :(
More people must understand these points. Where may I download the PowerPoint? Thanks much.
Between the talks of William Rees and the programs of Guy McPherson of Nature Bats Last, I think I know everything I need for making an informed choice about climate change and mans future on this earth. Sad, but there it is. Realism is harder to deal with than pretty fantasies about how technology will prevail, but reality says no, not so much. Good luck everyone, smooth passing.
This hit the mail right on the head!!!
Oops. ......I meant nail lol
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
It throws the mail in the box!!!
I've seen you around a lot of these videos!
God damn. Good luck to all of. Let's find out how to get through this
Invite children, teenagers to this conversation. Wise people like Bill have the knowledge, young ppl have no choice.
I'd like to give solutions to our predicament but that would be totally irrational.
ruclips.net/video/ZfIKWxNiinM/видео.html
Only few old people seem to realize that human civilization is headed for collapse. Humanity is probably facing the "great filter" - the reason why so few (if any) sentient races throughout the universe ever make it past juvenile stage.
Great presentation! Either we reduce the human population ethically or nature will do it violently.
Those are the two choices, and humans made their choice a century ago.
So humanity is basically doomed, what needs to be done just won't be. My cope is thinking it can produce a evolutionary force leading to the death of humanity, a deeply flawed specie, and the birth of the overman. Maybe it's a crazy though but at least from this perspective there is some joy.
Brilliant and so true!
There was nothing sermonic about it. True, rare and coherent thoroughness! It’s not likely that a critical mass will form on time. It’s not just the living ecology at risk that diminishes human habitat; there’s also a possibly related geological threat. We just learned that over the last 2000 years 62/68 of the Chinese dynasties collapsed after climate change following significant volcanic eruptions. This may also be happening now to us. That study notes that collapse is more likely when the society is already weakened by polarization.
An good example of consumption is the space program - is here any significant benefit in it?
I really like this talk, Bill is stating many things i completely agree with.
I'd suggest one change, we don't have an innate evolved desire to expand, we have an innate evolved desire to control. There are many cultures who didn't expand because they found other methods of controlling their surroundings through harmony with nature, such as aboriginals of australia.
pretty much most indigenous tribes had an earth based religion that had them living in harmony and they are trying to tell us something even today
Thanks Dr. Rees for this clarification on what lies ahead.
You appear to predict an implosion. Yet, with resources running low (even if you want to call excess CO2 capacity until a tipping point is reached a resource) across the board, is an explosion not more likely than an implosion? I mean, the result is likely to be the the same, going by what you're saying. But still. Is humanity going to fizzle out? Doesn't sound like humanity to me...
Very good presentation. We need to do it all, not focus on just one aspect. In certain aspects, we need to recreate the state the earth and our society was in about 110 years ago, but then without the colonialism, powerplay of nations and with the science and knowledge to our benefit.
Thank you this is just what needed to be discussed.
One big problem I hear no one talking about is the complexity of the the answer to how to force change on everyone - but maybe impossible is even approaching something of that complexity. More complexity means more people having to agree, and having the power to push laws and policies. I don't see that happening even with a severe catastrophe that doesn't end the world. That will just foment war and division more carbon and more destruction, and more need to rebuild and more energy and resources.
ONE THING, I think could work if you look at the problem simply is that people will not join the effort until they have something to gain. So one way to do that is to give people credit for polluting less. Those who do not use much gas, or water, or eat a lot of meat should get a tax subsidy.
You promise the people who in their own lives work towards CO2 neutrality or reduction ... so early adopters gain something instead of just being the ones who deny themselves. Leverage people's selfishness and incentives.
Pre- wildfires and floods in B.C. Very panic inducing.
You say that 2 billion is a sustainable population. Unfortunately there are about 7.9 billion of us and growing rapidly. How do we get there in the limited time available? The 5.9 of us will not go peaceably.
There's not much peace on the horizon, Les.
We are at an interregnum awaiting a societal clarity of the norms that by necessity need to be established. Assuming of course that we have something left with which to build and builders around that are motivated and aspirational let alone anyone who could be a builder or anything!
What economics text describes externalities as being 'mere'?
Economists (on occasion) say that externalities must be accounted for to avoid excessive harmful impacts on the environment. [Then they might outline the various approaches that governments have or could take, and analyze benefits and costs of each. Beyond that, they pretty much assume that the dysfunctional political system will work it out somehow.]
I learned about pollution fees from an economics text. IF we charge fees proportional to extraction, emission, or habitat destruction, industries will strive to reduce harm. If we share fee proceeds, we will end poverty.
We can keep economic activity within sustainable limits if we charge high fees to industries that cause harm to the environment. If random polls show that most people think impacts are excessive, we can raise fees and we'll see more effort put toward reducing the harm.
We can promote sustainability, end poverty and bring human impacts on the Earth into line with what most people think is acceptable.
Edit: Any economist who speaks publicly should start and end by reminding people what economists know: We can end poverty and promote sustainability by charging fees to industries proportional to harmful impact on the environment, then sharing fee proceeds to all. We will embody in practice a respect for basic precepts that assert truth (accurate prices) and fairness (sharing of a representation of natural wealth).
The fact that the price system is not honest is the cause of the defect that creates a market that rewards harm. This is a defect in the economic system. Economists should be most prominent in calling it out and pointing to a remedy.
Yes, and if they had done that a century ago it might have made a difference. Way too late now.
Industries will never strive to reduce harm, they will at best strive to make a profit while furthering the destruction of the biosphere and pretending to be concerned about the environment. There is no bottom line for capitalism other than profit.
@@alandoane9168 A high pollution fee means that a company can reduce their operating expenses by buying new equipment that will allow them to produce without emitting pollution. A high pollution fee will motivate efforts to reduce pollution (because it makes release of pollution a costly activity to be avoided).
It doesn not take all of the data here to understand that we must change our priorities as a single species to survive.
It is good that a person would follow their passion for learning to pursue it. Especially if it is to address charity for the earth and hope for it’s children. Nobel.
Greed, hatred and delusion - not just individual but societal - are the hindrances,
not just to spiritual awakening, but actually to human survival.
I am curious if there is someone under 40 years of age, that watched this video and explanations by W. Rees. What do you (under 40 years) thinks about ? I will appreciate your responses.
Thanks to the boomers for spending their entire lives bending the world for their own benefit, shaping legislation, lobbying governments, using the outsized influence of their cohort group to shape economics and government to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else and the ecology of the planet... And their rear ends are still firmly glued to the seats of power, not retiring when they should have, still in Congress, still Presidents, Still CEOs... Not graciously conceding to any younger generation but keeping their death grip on Power and self aggrandizement.
Tgere is only one solution short term and that is the development of a carbon sink and food production capability utilizing desert environments. The problem with that is mostly international organization based not on profit but on cooperation and secondly the effects this would have on the albedo of desert environments. Long term we have to learn to produce our food and procure our resources without undercutting the environments we depend on. Easier said than done especially geopolitically but its the only hope we have for managing this crisis.
Thanks Prof. Reese. Technology is the indirect cause of climate change. We need a new Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit, and this
'profit' definition must map well with nature's economy. In nature, we have been paid in full, in advance, and our job is to gain sustenance without going into Overshoot.
I recommend this definition: Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us.
Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM.
The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance
is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance.
As the central hub of the new GEM, EPA members will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies.
Here are just some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be:
1.) Population: Initially we need a one child per family directive.
2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others.
3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable.
4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness.
5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods.
6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly.
7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and
the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs.
I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point.
This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you!
💖
well said.
The first page of the bible and democracy have a lot to answer for - the other pages of the bible are about
being nice to each other even at the expense of the natural world. If the majority vote
to eliminate future generations then let it be, even a dictatorship risks overthrow if it imposes the
lifestyle restrictions to enable long term survival... as I remember milk still had cream on top in the
1980's...
“Very few generalists left” that’s so true. It will take a “shock” of epic scale to galvanize the people. Let’s hope it’s not a completely fatal one.
This is a brilliant presentation, but I found it discouraging that everyone asking questions was 100 years old.
Most young people can't imagine a world in which the internet won't save us all. "Collapse of the biosphere? Ha ha! We have iPhones!"
Is that a flannel bedsheet for a backdrop? LOL.
There is a global trend for humans to organize themselves into corporations that amass power and increasing behave like organisms. Even though these corporate/organisms are composed of highly intelligent individuals, there is need of the corporation for unbridled growth at the expense of the environment and also the individual. Is this idea valid and are these sort of corporations the source of coordinated resistance to climate change?
Anticipating A.I. , does the corporate organism have a mind of it own in defiance of human needs?
Thanks Bill, i agree with your analysis. Lets remember that oxygen is dropping and will limit humans ability to think. Ocean’s are dying and produces most of our oxygen! We are heading for collapse socially and environmentally.
That a societal reorganisation and transformation is required but will that impetus come from within or From outside ? Or mixture of both? A case of thesis , antithesis , and synthesis. The late Bronze Age collapse gave rise to a golden age of philosophy, spirituality, and governance so humanity has a capacity to transform itself yet those golden age achievements took hundreds of years. The question to ask is if humanity have the hundreds of years to required to manifest a new mythology.
According to geneticists who study our DNA for evolutionary markers concluded that humanity underwent a prehistorical crisis that nearly resulted in our extinction , so humanity could endure and survive such a crisis should not be dismissed . Extrapolating if humanity has already endured the crisis of a near extinction event as humanity has shown it has a capacity to respond as we may see in our history and prehistory and the question begs is the damage we have done to our ecosystem so profound that extinction a fait accompli.
To conclude I am left to ponder the Greeks and their mythology and one such being comes to mind namely Dionysius and I leave that with anyone who would read beyond an established social framework.
'Back off', meaning 'don't breed'
I think our greatest handicap are our RELIGIONS! Religions have billions of people believing in things we now know are not true.
As long as so many of us follow magical "thinking", we cannot make the changes that must be made, like ENDING GROWTH.
We MUST STOP GROWING!
We are simply a big brained, bipedal APE NOT a "special creation."
Nothing else we could do is more important, we must STOP POPULATION GROWTH & our GROWTH IN CONSUMPTION.
A more equatable distributions of our wealth would improve the lives of billions of people BUT that would also result in increasing consumption!
We in the rich would could consume much less leaving more for those that have so little, but given human nature, this will not happen.
I'm afraid we will continue to fight to continue BAU no matter what it's cost until we finally collapse.
Who knows what, if anything will survive this. The sooner we lose the ability to extract sufficient fossil resources to fuel growth so that growth ends & declines, the better off the rest of our planet will be, but we will have to pay a horrible price for being so long in denial.
The reality we are in is the matrix
We enslave ourselves by using or participating in the matrix...as apposed to a more self reliant existence which inherently exposes us to a more raw experience of reality.. whereas. What we do is participate in a matrix
Things will change when fishing boats go out and find no fish it's coming. We don't acknowledge the problem let alone join for a solution. We need way more ecologists and way fewer economists
THAT was the formula: Survival cancels programing!