The rich, self-serving political leadership who espouse climate change denial will be protected from its' worst effects with their resources. The rest of us, not so much. Me, I'm old and will not be around for the worst effects either, but it still pains me to see what we are doing to the planet and I vote accordingly.
Greqt to hear a meaningful discussion, which points to the rational alternatives to conspiracy theories, and nationalistic responses to today’s worldwide crisis. I am curious about the ways of disentangling mythic identifications that prevent collaboratiion and clear headed, compassionate problem solving.
I wish I shared this optimism. In order to have made any significant headway to mitigate CO² would have been to have started 50 or more years ago. Our energy demands and population continue to grow each year, as does GHG emissions. We have to grapple with collapse, in the next few decades, being a reality.
Very insightful! Thanks you. Speaking of books, Eric Hoffer's classic The True Believer suggests it's the "new poor" that initiate mass movements. Thoughts?
Thinking about an israeli style border in my lifetime that separates the metropole from the masses of humanity who want to escape extinction is very disturbing
Can we look at greenhouse gas emissions as a practical problem we absolutely can address? No scare tactics, no extremist politics, just people using their heads.
Sorry, it's too late for no scare tactics. We have reached the point already that the accelerating global heating is out of control (for centuries or millennia per the IPCC). Peter Carter recently said the Climate Change Indicators are now Climate Catastrophe Indicators since all indicators are bad and getting worse faster: ruclips.net/video/Uk9vulmEbqc/видео.html
Our economic system is, and always will be, fossil fuel based. The economy is our life support system. 8 billion humans can only be supported at current energy consumption levels, and "clean" electricity can never hope to substite what oil and coal provides. The ecomomy, as well as being based on a finite resource, is dependent upon credit funded by infinite growth. Our life support system is very obviously unsustainable and WILL collapse at some point. The new barons make their billions from fossil fuel based consumption (try building a Tesla or selling a computer without having oil!), and they will therefore lobby to maintain growth rates - until we go over the cliff due to climate change, nuclear war, resource depletion, mass migration, pandemic, or, most likely, a combination of two or more of these issues. No credible economist can argue against any of this. Only massive reductions in consumption - requiring de-population and strategic economic recession - could make any difference. This will never be allowed to happen. Enjoy the ride... PS. Copper will be the first major resource to become completely depleted. Without copper, everything stops.
Looking forward to the day that someone can translate this into language that the average person can understand. It’s easy to deny the veracity of gobbledygook.
Hey, didn't you realise that Reality got cancelled years ago?! Cheers to informed distraction. Paradigm too strong to shift, stuck in self-sabotage gear. Only absurdist anarchy works for me, good night!?
@ Yes, I’ve read the book, and I found its arguments unconvincing and disconnected from reality. Sophie Lewis’s central claim that the nuclear family should be abolished because it reinforces inequality and privatizes care work is fundamentally flawed. The idea that unpaid domestic labor is inherently oppressive ignores the agency and value many people derive from family life. Families are often built on mutual care and love, not solely on exploitative power dynamics. Furthermore, unpaid labor within families is not unique to the nuclear structure; collective systems, too, often assign roles based on necessity, and someone will inevitably perform caregiving tasks. Her critique that the family exists to serve capitalism is reductionist and unsupported by data. The family is not a capitalist invention but a universal institution across all types of societies throughout history. In fact, evidence shows that families often resist economic systems rather than conform to them. For example, during economic downturns, families provide crucial financial and emotional support that collective systems, like those in highly bureaucratic states, often fail to deliver. A report from Pew Research found that in 2018, 64% of Americans lived in multigenerational households, largely for mutual support-not due to capitalist coercion. The suggestion to replace families with collective childcare or community care models is also naïve. Historical experiments, such as Israel’s kibbutzim or Soviet communal childcare, frequently fell apart due to a lack of emotional bonds and individualized attention to children. Research indicates that consistent, loving relationships with primary caregivers are essential for child development, a fact recognized even by proponents of communal living. The nuclear family may not be perfect, but there’s no credible evidence that abolishing it would produce better outcomes for children or caregivers. Last point-Lewis’s argument disregards the cultural significance and adaptability of family structures. Extended families and kin networks, which function as a source of resilience and support in non-Western societies, do not fit her binary framing of family as oppressive versus collective care as liberatory. In practice, abolishing the family would not liberate anyone but would instead destabilize the primary support systems on which millions rely, particularly in regions where state-sponsored alternatives are unreliable or nonexistent. Her vision is not a blueprint for liberation but a recipe for chaos and harm. also, she recognizes abortion as a “form of k*lling,” and does not care, whatsoever, if the fetus is a fully formed baby or not. She views abortion as not only a “form of k*lling,” but one necessary to “eliminate gestational work.” And if I remember correctly, she views “gestational work” as a “form of violence,” one that must be eliminated through a necessary “form of k*lling” of babies, whose development to which she has complete disregard. Which I find odd, considering that she’s writing on family structure. Anyway, I find her very unbalanced, she’s not well, I vehemently disagree with her, and I find her to be pretty immoral
@ also, she recognizes abortion as a “form of killing,” and does not care, whatsoever, if the fetus is a fully formed baby or not. She views abortion as not only a “form of killing,” but one necessary to “eliminate gestational work.” And if I remember correctly, she views “gestational work” as a “form of violence,” one that must be eliminated through a necessary “form of killing” of babies, whose development she has complete disregard to. Which I find odd, considering that she’s writing on family structure. Anyway, I find her very unbalanced, she’s not well, I vehemently disagree with her, and I find her to be pretty immoral
@@mielieu1513 @ also, she recognizes abortion as a “form of k*lling,” and does not care, whatsoever, if the fetus is a fully formed baby or not. She views abortion as not only a “form of k*lling,” but one necessary to “eliminate gestational work.” And if I remember correctly, she views “gestational work” as a “form of violence,” one that must be eliminated through a necessary “form of k*lling” of babies, whose development she has complete disregard to. Which I find odd, considering that she’s writing on family structure. Anyway, I find her very unbalanced, she’s not well, I vehemently disagree with her, and I find her to be pretty immoral
@@mielieu1513 lastly, being single, divorced, etc., more likely feeds into the capitalist structure. More households, more consumer spending. Less families, more opportunity for employers to exploit your labor in hours worked. She’s a deeply unserious woman. And verso lost credibility
The rich, self-serving political leadership who espouse climate change denial will be protected from its' worst effects with their resources. The rest of us, not so much. Me, I'm old and will not be around for the worst effects either, but it still pains me to see what we are doing to the planet and I vote accordingly.
Greqt to hear a meaningful discussion, which points to the rational alternatives to conspiracy theories, and nationalistic responses to today’s worldwide crisis. I am curious about the ways of disentangling mythic identifications that prevent collaboratiion and clear headed, compassionate problem solving.
I wish I shared this optimism. In order to have made any significant headway to mitigate CO² would have been to have started 50 or more years ago. Our energy demands and population continue to grow each year, as does GHG emissions. We have to grapple with collapse, in the next few decades, being a reality.
yes but collapse can be various levels of catastrophe. 95% or 99% extinction is distinctly different.
but won't someone think of the economy
@@seandepagnier extinctly different ;)
Carbon dioxide isn't energy.
@@seandepagnier Also varying time frames, how long can we stave it off and try to find solutions.
Very insightful! Thanks you. Speaking of books, Eric Hoffer's classic The True Believer suggests it's the "new poor" that initiate mass movements. Thoughts?
Thinking about an israeli style border in my lifetime that separates the metropole from the masses of humanity who want to escape extinction is very disturbing
Children of Men
Fascinating and terrifying.
Who actually are the "liberal" they?
The insanity will only increase as we approach terminal velocity. Homo Loco - our obituary.
as we ?
" as they " is muchmore appropriate to what happened yesterdays , yesternights , yesteryears
Paleoclimate deniers crack me up with their hyperbolic descriptions.
Get on with it. Quit dragging it out. Just say it.
Can we look at greenhouse gas emissions as a practical problem we absolutely can address? No scare tactics, no extremist politics, just people using their heads.
Sorry, it's too late for no scare tactics. We have reached the point already that the accelerating global heating is out of control (for centuries or millennia per the IPCC). Peter Carter recently said the Climate Change Indicators are now Climate Catastrophe Indicators since all indicators are bad and getting worse faster: ruclips.net/video/Uk9vulmEbqc/видео.html
Our economic system is, and always will be, fossil fuel based. The economy is our life support system. 8 billion humans can only be supported at current energy consumption levels, and "clean" electricity can never hope to substite what oil and coal provides. The ecomomy, as well as being based on a finite resource, is dependent upon credit funded by infinite growth. Our life support system is very obviously unsustainable and WILL collapse at some point. The new barons make their billions from fossil fuel based consumption (try building a Tesla or selling a computer without having oil!), and they will therefore lobby to maintain growth rates - until we go over the cliff due to climate change, nuclear war, resource depletion, mass migration, pandemic, or, most likely, a combination of two or more of these issues. No credible economist can argue against any of this. Only massive reductions in consumption - requiring de-population and strategic economic recession - could make any difference. This will never be allowed to happen. Enjoy the ride... PS. Copper will be the first major resource to become completely depleted. Without copper, everything stops.
Al Jazeera ruclips.net/video/udsUNnHxjUs/видео.html
Al Jazeera the take eating our way out of climate collapse
You know nothing. Read a book, any book.
Looking forward to the day that someone can translate this into language that the average person can understand. It’s easy to deny the veracity of gobbledygook.
Using the word ' veracity ' I think you can handle gobbledigup.
Hey, didn't you realise that Reality got cancelled years ago?! Cheers to informed distraction. Paradigm too strong to shift, stuck in self-sabotage gear. Only absurdist anarchy works for me, good night!?
Oh yeah, this reminds me to unsubscribe. When you published the book about “abolishing the family,” I noticed that morally, we don’t align.
did you read the book? what were your specific criticisms of it?
@ Yes, I’ve read the book, and I found its arguments unconvincing and disconnected from reality. Sophie Lewis’s central claim that the nuclear family should be abolished because it reinforces inequality and privatizes care work is fundamentally flawed. The idea that unpaid domestic labor is inherently oppressive ignores the agency and value many people derive from family life. Families are often built on mutual care and love, not solely on exploitative power dynamics. Furthermore, unpaid labor within families is not unique to the nuclear structure; collective systems, too, often assign roles based on necessity, and someone will inevitably perform caregiving tasks.
Her critique that the family exists to serve capitalism is reductionist and unsupported by data. The family is not a capitalist invention but a universal institution across all types of societies throughout history. In fact, evidence shows that families often resist economic systems rather than conform to them. For example, during economic downturns, families provide crucial financial and emotional support that collective systems, like those in highly bureaucratic states, often fail to deliver. A report from Pew Research found that in 2018, 64% of Americans lived in multigenerational households, largely for mutual support-not due to capitalist coercion.
The suggestion to replace families with collective childcare or community care models is also naïve. Historical experiments, such as Israel’s kibbutzim or Soviet communal childcare, frequently fell apart due to a lack of emotional bonds and individualized attention to children. Research indicates that consistent, loving relationships with primary caregivers are essential for child development, a fact recognized even by proponents of communal living. The nuclear family may not be perfect, but there’s no credible evidence that abolishing it would produce better outcomes for children or caregivers.
Last point-Lewis’s argument disregards the cultural significance and adaptability of family structures. Extended families and kin networks, which function as a source of resilience and support in non-Western societies, do not fit her binary framing of family as oppressive versus collective care as liberatory. In practice, abolishing the family would not liberate anyone but would instead destabilize the primary support systems on which millions rely, particularly in regions where state-sponsored alternatives are unreliable or nonexistent. Her vision is not a blueprint for liberation but a recipe for chaos and harm.
also, she recognizes abortion as a “form of k*lling,” and does not care, whatsoever, if the fetus is a fully formed baby or not. She views abortion as not only a “form of k*lling,” but one necessary to “eliminate gestational work.” And if I remember correctly, she views “gestational work” as a “form of violence,” one that must be eliminated through a necessary “form of k*lling” of babies, whose development to which she has complete disregard. Which I find odd, considering that she’s writing on family structure. Anyway, I find her very unbalanced, she’s not well, I vehemently disagree with her, and I find her to be pretty immoral
@ also, she recognizes abortion as a “form of killing,” and does not care, whatsoever, if the fetus is a fully formed baby or not. She views abortion as not only a “form of killing,” but one necessary to “eliminate gestational work.” And if I remember correctly, she views “gestational work” as a “form of violence,” one that must be eliminated through a necessary “form of killing” of babies, whose development she has complete disregard to. Which I find odd, considering that she’s writing on family structure. Anyway, I find her very unbalanced, she’s not well, I vehemently disagree with her, and I find her to be pretty immoral
@@mielieu1513 @ also, she recognizes abortion as a “form of k*lling,” and does not care, whatsoever, if the fetus is a fully formed baby or not. She views abortion as not only a “form of k*lling,” but one necessary to “eliminate gestational work.” And if I remember correctly, she views “gestational work” as a “form of violence,” one that must be eliminated through a necessary “form of k*lling” of babies, whose development she has complete disregard to. Which I find odd, considering that she’s writing on family structure. Anyway, I find her very unbalanced, she’s not well, I vehemently disagree with her, and I find her to be pretty immoral
@@mielieu1513 lastly, being single, divorced, etc., more likely feeds into the capitalist structure. More households, more consumer spending. Less families, more opportunity for employers to exploit your labor in hours worked. She’s a deeply unserious woman. And verso lost credibility