Elizabeth Kolbert: Can human technology solve unintended consequences of human technology?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 май 2024
- Consider supporting the podcast and our non-profit foundation, The Origins Project at www.originsproject.org/
To see commercial-free, full HD video episodes, join us at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/
A Message from Lawrence:
Seven years ago I invited Elizabeth Kolbert to participate in a dialogue about Extinctions at the Orpheum Theater in Phoenix, following the publication of her Pulitzer Prizewinning masterpiece, The Sixth Extinction. Once we began The Origins Podcast, I knew that I wanted to have an in depth discussion with her about her work reporting on science issues, most importantly on climate change and other technological challenges facing modern society. An opportunity arose with the publication of her most recent book, Under a White Sky, which focuses on how scientists, and politicians, have attempted-with with widely varying degrees of success-to address the unintended consequences of various human alterations of terrestrial ecosystems. It is a fascinating book, told, as is typical in her writing, by relating personal experiences as Elizabeth has traveled the world to meet scientists and others spearheading attempts at solving sometimes urgent ecological crises induced as a result of the application of previous human technologies.
Elizabeth writes so clearly about science that I wanted to explore her own journey, from a student focusing on German literature, to one of the pre-eminent science writers in the country, working as a staff writer for The New Yorker Magazine. We had a wide ranging discussion about her own experiences and then moved on to discuss more broadly the issues raised in her most recent books.
Incidentally, the title of her new book comes from the fact that one of the side-effects of solar geoengineering, which I expect will be an inevitable response to climate change in a world where governments and businesses prefer to carry on business as usual in spite of concerns about rising temperatures, sea levels, and other potentially dangerous consequences of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The effect in question, if aerosols are injected in the upper atmosphere to reduce the intensity of solar radiation impinging on the earth’s surface, will be to cause formerly bright blue skies to instead resemble the whiter skies those who live in big cities are used to. A potentially unfortunate consequence, but perhaps less unfortunate than other potential consequences of global climate change.
The conversation was fantastic. Everything I had hoped for. We went on for over 2 hours, but the time passed quickly because it was so fascinating. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. And by the way, if you enjoy this podcast, Elizabeth will be joining the Origins Project Foundation Galapagos Travel Adventure in January of 2024. Reservations will open up at the beginning of April for this exciting trip, with Elizabeth, Frans de Waal, me, and 33 other Origins voyagers. I hope you can join us.
-------------------------------------
The Origins Podcast, a production of The Origins Project Foundation, features in-depth conversations with some of the most interesting people in the world about the issues that impact all of us in the 21st century. Host, theoretical physicist, lecturer, and author, Lawrence M. Krauss, will be joined by guests from a wide range of fields, including science, the arts, and journalism. The topics discussed on The Origins Podcast reflect the full range of the human experience - exploring science and culture in a way that seeks to entertain, educate, and inspire.
Full Episodes Playlist:
• Ricky Gervais - The Or... 
Наука
39:30 "Lawrence will never know I'm knitting while he talks" 🤣
Finally. Someone using the Premier feature in a reasonable fashion.
"No, I'm not coming back a week from now. Yes, I can be back later this evening."
Very infrmative, more info on fenbendazoleorg resource
I, for one, welcome our new giant crab overlords.
Very informative! Thank you!
Wow! I have new books to read!
I live how humble and clear she is in this conversation. We need more science writers like Kolbert
Mosquitoea and their larvae are important food for birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Eliminating them would cause major trophic cascade that would even harm plants and fungi. Evolution needs diseases to keep species strong and smart. If GMO are released experimentally, at least do it on a very remote island where they are invasive and are less likely to escape.
You are absolutely right about the ecological need for mosquitos, but i dont imagine such an isolated place exists anymore for testing. As was alluded to in the discussion, if western scientists and politicians wanna give it a try then ethically we need to try it within our own ecologies. This we, i believe rightly, wont do, thus proving it would be wrong to do it elsewhere. We have never succeeded at manipulating species.
Thank you for this information!
I'd argue the answer is NO; only a revolutionary change in the socio-economic and political structure of human society can save the ecological environment upon which we and other mammals, birds, reptiles, insects and other organisms depend.
Please elaborate!
@@ristershah Whilst technology can provide solutions to our reliance on fossil fuels, such as solar, wind and wave power and electric vehicles will help technology alone doesn’t address our over consumption of natural resources and destruction of natural habitats and diversity which is leading to extinction of species at an unprecedented rate. As an engineer, I remember in the early 1970s plastics were the material that was going to solve everything, a bit like going from the stone age, to the bronze and iron age. Look at what a problem plastic have become to the environment, so whilst it’s provided engineering with a fantastic material saving fuel consumption and incredible for food production, medical and space exploration. Plastics have become one of the major problems of the 21st century.
Industrialization and modern capitalism requires a consumer society, and whilst for those of us who grew up in the era after the Second World War in the developed world have experienced a world of unprecedented plenty, it’s been at a cost to the ecosystem and hasn’t resolved the issues of poverty, inequality and exploitation. We still live in a world where there’s an imperialist relationship between the developed and developing world. If we carry on as we have over the last 270 years and certainly, as we have since the 1950s we will destroy the ecosystem that supports civilization, maybe not the human race, but society as we’ve known it will collapse, I’m certain of that. So technology aside, we need a socio-economic model based upon use-values rather than generating surplus-value from the exploitation of nature and the populations of the developing and underdeveloped world.
Modern consumerism hasn’t resolved the inequalities of health, education and quality of life in the developed world never mind the developing world, and I think we have in the past forty years plus years seen those inequalities growing, to the extent that most of the socio-economic gains of the mid-20th century in the developed world have been eroded. Add to this the ecological crises we now face, technology and the socio-economic model of modern capitalism has failed. I’m not advocating a return to pre-industrial feudalism or for us all to become members of the Amish, although that could be a plausible solution, other than it requires us to have a certain belief system and reject most of technology post 1750. I think we need a new socio-economic model, which utilizes technology, but also requires a balance between nature and human civilization. For me personally, I’d call it eco-socialism, but if that’s a dirty word we can call it post-consumerism.
interesting interview! thank you!
It is astonishing to me that this video does not have more views. An utterly fascinating video, and sad, heartbreaking, and also uplifting all rolled into one.
One interesting blunder occurred in oil pumps, when sometime in the early 2010s, they started to mix, at least in Europe, bio fuel to oil. That bio oil was palm oil. The measure was thought to reduce the CO2 emissions of combustion engine cars, but instead an irreplaceable amount of rain forest was destroyed and emissions increased. The permission to start the operation was surprisingly quick when you think that half of the politicians did not even believe in climate change or at least did not sound very worried then. But for some reason the termination of the operation, even though the damage it does has been known for a long time, will still take at least until 2030. I don't know why we humans always seem to be attracted to the idea that to solve a problem, and I'm comparing this to medicine, that it's enough to take a pill or take pills rest of your life to treat illnesses, even though changing one's lifestyles could really produce a better results to patient. One important part of the problem may be that income to doctors (or to engineers) would undoubtedly reduce if we learned to change our thinking.
Absolutely concur with the medical analogy
@@ristershah Now when EU is doing something to fix palm oil problem the infrastructure is in place and bio oil is just going to be made from some other material, witch all probably have more useful ways to be used than be converted to fuel to mainly cars. Like food waste to make soil to replace erosion for example. There really should be some short of future thinking process invented so that we make less mistakes.
Great interview and discussion. My only criticism is the sound quality of Kolbert's audio/micrphone.
Praying for your full recovery!
I'm excited that there's a new book, but halfway through I'm thinking maybe she wrote pieces on these big issues in Harper's, because it's all review to me. A great refresher, though, and fun as a conversation. And I love that she's knitting!
Thank you for another great podcast.
The intrusuon of myriad commercials is ridiculous. The content is crucial. I suggested using a transcript to my husband.
Grate video!
or rather can capitalism solve unintended consequences of capitalism ?
No it cannot. 😒
True capitalism is the right solution. True capitalism allows free trade between parties as long as no harm is caused to uninvolved 3rd parties. If you do cause harm to 3rd parties by free dumping pollution onto everyone else's property's, they get to sue you for damages. Charge fees on pollution to make pollution unprofitable and the pollution will stop. As long as pollution isn't happening, or other market failures, let people trade freely in free markets.
@@jffryh that's extremely naive.
@@jffryh "true capitalism". What is that? "true socialism" also is great. But no such things exist.
@@montymonto6430 I define socialism more flexibly than I define capitalism. Some kinds of true socialism might be ok, and other kinds of true socialism are definitely very terrible.
New technology can help us. Sustainable solutions. Greatest problem however is our decadence. We must go back to a simpler way of life. And we have to address the problem of overpopulation
Repent!
In order to achieve that, we need to replace the leaders who aren't interested in us.
When it comes to labyrinthine questions, Krauss leaves Charlie Rose in the dust. Imagine a question that could fill a book.
Thank you for this ingeresting interview! Is there any information on the Galapagos trip on your website? I only found a picture, nothing more.
it will be announced by the end of the month
Thank you!
Enjoyed discussion with W Shatner.I share your fascination with science I am a former science math teacher.
1:06:57 Miami! My city!
I took Biology and Astronomy (which I loved) but I wish that I’d understood Chemistry better-but I had such a terrible Chemistry teacher in High School!
There are more info on fenbendazoleorg resource.
Yes. Took you 2 hrs to solve that?
Randomly advance through this video and stop at various points and the majority of the time you will hear Professor Krause talking and not the guest. He is an interesting and bright man but he really needs to let the guest talk. I know he is aware of this but I guess old habits are hard to break. He also needs to interview Steven Koonin if he wants to give a balanced approach to a discussion about the climate. You would think he would want to talk to a nuclear physicist who has spent a lot more time investigating the climate than he has and who sticks to the facts.
In your book you write about visiting the Castelo Aragonese, but you never mention there are no cars on the island and in spite of the fact that it’s absolutely beautiful, it’s illegal to build a place like that today. You never talk about walkability in your book even as you visited amazing places.
God bless you!
May god bless you!
Started wondering what is the point of saving animals when they won’t have anywhere to live when humans take up all the space? I get that zoos try to persevere certain species but they shouldn’t continue living in zoos. Just make another museum.
The Nile changed course that a drought with pics in tombs they ate their children
Karl Pilkington?
@@LettersAndNumbers300 Krazy Person.
people producing carbon isn't the problem, it's too damn many people producing carbon. Why is this seemingly obvious fact never mentioned in dialogues such as this? How about paying people to not have children or at least having only one? This is a long term concept that might be a substantial "bang for the buck" which would benefit societies and help reduce poverty.
Sorry. The interviewer talks way too much. He prefaces everything he wants to ask with his own view first. We know he is well informed, but the guest should speak more. Just ask questions first and fill I after she has responded.
Trees love CO2. We need to plant more trees.
Well….I'd love to listen to this bc I like Lawrence a lot- but 2 commercials in 7 minutes is just too much to take. Sorry.
She seems distracted, in any case off to a slow start. Perhaps this is why the viewership is down for this interview.
a lot of preliminary drivel
Lawrence let her speak! Sounded like mansplaining and I found it irritating. I wanted to hear her thoughts and priorities. Next time ask open ended questions and let her lead.
Yeah, so irritating isn't it that the people responsible for 90% of the world's scientific knowledge also explain it.
Bring Niall Ferguson
Boooooring...
Biased gullible hype and lies. Shamefull
Global Warming has been a fantastic blessing. Humans are flourishing as never before as the planet gets greener every day.
Yeah apart from in the parts of the world where the human body cannot survive because the temp has exceeded the wetbulb temp limit. an area of the world that will just grow bigger and bigger as the climate changes. By 2070 much of the world will be too hot for human survival
@@deanfowles3707 You've been listening to Krauss for too long.
@@yamishogun6501 err no I haven't, I barely know who he is
Very infrmative, more info on dcaguide