Why It's Time to Stop Saving the Planet*
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 апр 2024
- We care about the planet. But what if it's time to stop "saving it"?
Western cultures - and even some climate scientists and sustainability advocates - often share the idea that there is the “natural world” and the “human world.” The natural world is seen as pristine and untouched, while the human world is chaotic and ever changing. But all living things change the world around them in order to build homes, eat, drink and move around. In this first episode, join host Rae Wynn-Grant, Ph.D., as she explores how humans can think differently about the way we change the environments around us, how we can do it better, and why doing so could be a key foundation for addressing climate change.
Based on the Jenny Price book "Stop Saving the Planet!"
Correction:
A previous version of this video had onscreen text that mistakenly identified the speaker as "Voice of Joshua Johnson, The Week, MSNBC." The speaker is actually Dominic Waghorn, appearing on the TV show The Week with Joshua Johnson and the video has been updated to correct this.
*****
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateTerra
*****
"Stop Saving the Planet" is part of PBS' Earth Month celebration. Check out more videos about our planet here: • Earth Month from PBS
Subscribe to PBS Terra so you never miss an episode! bit.ly/3mOfd77
And keep up with PBS Terra on:
Facebook: / pbsdigitalstudios
Tiktok: / pbsterra
Instagram: / pbsterra
"Our lives are foundationally environmental." 🎯 Thank you for clearly articulating something that should be obvious, but gets obscured.
As much as cancer is...
Unfortunately, we live in a "what's in it for me society."
😮
That’s the point, we need to change how we do things and think
Yes, it's frightening but at least we can act differently.
Give it another 20 or 30 years, they'll see what's in it for them. It won't be what they thought.
@@mfg4919 Not "WE"
There are roughly estimated 2 Billion people living within planetary boundaries. They don't have the money.
In other words, our lives are utterly dependent on natural processes. We destroy nature, we destroy ourselves. It's that simple.
Global heat waves are killing land and marine biodiversity. Earth global tempature had exceeded 1.5c fir the first time in 10,000 years. Climate extinction isva real possibility be thr year 2100.
Well put in a very succinct way.
and humans shape natural processes, and if done correctly, its benefitial for everyone. every living being interfere with the environment they live in, what is different in humans is that we can decide how we are going to interfere, instead of our impact being directed by evolution, its directed by conscious decision. that was the point of the video, we are not separated from nature.
Fundamentally, humans are a part of nature. Destroying the whole will leave no part unscathed.
@@danilooliveira6580 Unfortunately we still have a very limited understanding of the far reaching consequences of our manipulation of nature. And we cannot yet replicate the processes of nature in any meaningful way. To really understand it we need to get over ourselves and our perceived superiority. Cognitive dissonance has always stood in the way of true scientific progress.
*People need to have a relationship with nature.* Back and forth. Give and take. Nature is not a product. Nature is a series of complex relationships of innumerable living things, lives and deaths and lives again.
Well said!
❤
Well put! Have you read Braiding Sweetgrass by chance?
1600 PPM is the minimum atmospheric CO2 for plant growth! Why aren't we providing it for nature? We can't on a global scale. The ocean temperature controls atmosphereic CO2!
@@terenceiutzi4003 "Why aren't we providing it for nature? "
we ARE, you utter twunt. in overabundance.
I grew up in a rural area, and I've been saying this for years. I think some people are still missing point. We need to see everything as an ecosystem. New York city is an ecosystem regardless if it's healthy or not.
So how do we optimize it for us and wildlife? How do produce what a city needs within the city itself? How do we encourage local plant and wildlife diversity in a city? If we can figure these things out, we'll benefit the planet. Tightening our belt won't work.
"New York city is an ecosystem" No it's not. It is a city inside a ecosystem. Maybe you mean microclimate. Those are still inside and together with their surrounding ecosytem.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 What is your definition of an ecosystem?
@@stuartwithers8755 The complete interworking of flora and fauna of a given area usually limited by defined borders like mountains, lakes, sea.
A city is not a ecosystem.
I don't think anyone is 'missing' the point. 'Avoiding' the point is the most likely scenario.
The deniers won't face fear, won't face taking action, and definitely won't face taking personal responsibility.
Indoctrinated from birth to believe their country is the greatest, and a religion that more or less says 'Help yourselves! This world is yours to exploit!' - you're never going to change that mindset very much.
And as America generates so much 'want,' imposes so much influence, forces franchises and political alliances (or wrath and ruin) upon the rest of the world - it is there that the biggest changes could be and should be made for the environment.
The peoples and infrastructure of any European country could magically vanish from the face of the Earth right now, and the change in the rate of global environmental influence would be incredibly small. America though? It would be planet-saving.
I was astounded by how much electricity even environmentally conscious YT channel presenters joyfully burn through in a month.
One, after loading his house roof with new solar panels and then covering his huge, sprawling house extension with even more solar panels was still spending $200 per month on electricity.
What on Earth is he doing in that house?
I spend less than £100 per month, British electricity is more expensive than American electricity - and I have no solar panels/turbines.
If this is how Americans eat through resources, then no wonder we're all in trouble. And it's no wonder countries like Scotland have decided they have to push their net zero target dates back. Why bother to meet targets if no one else is really trying anyway? The rate we're going it will be only our bones that will see the net zero target date of 2040 and no more.
@@Debbie-henri Very well said. Thank you.
I'm stoked PBS just said all this out loud and for everyone to hear. 📣 (you are it.) 💛🌱
Sadly egos and greed are human nature, notice how this host herself has a ring, earrings, and dental whitened teeth, why must she adorn herself in jewellery and such? Societal pressures.
@@thatguy5801 dude, you’ve completely missed the mark. We’ve had self adornment for as long as animals have existed. Stop using vanity as a moral indicator, that doesn’t help anyone, it’s the same as “you use an iPhone”. What is more important is reducing consumption, that is why individualist moral indicators like carbon footprints have been debunked as productive, when people don’t have control over where most of their consumption comes from, however people in power (political or wealth) do control the systems that control how people get their goods.
@@crayonburryHumans are inherently greedy, she choose to get those procedures done for an advantage over others, competitiveness which is apart of us all is "gotta get mine" mentality. And believe me this host outside the show "gets hers".
@@thatguy5801 humans are inherently nothing, we are shaped by our experiences in our environment.
Your limited view of the human experience literally blinds you to the privilege you need to be able to work without making yourself appear pleasant. And like I said before, her jewelry and clothing are literally nothing compared to actual people in power who control how we source our needs. You’re literally just berating a black woman for existing in patriarchal society.
@@thatguy5801 humans are inherently nothing, we are shaped by our experiences in our environment. If you create a culture of greed like capitalism, that is what you get, if you create a culture of selflessness, that is what you get.
Your limited view of the human experience literally blinds you to the privilege you need to be able to work without conforming to beauty standards. And like I said before, her jewelry and clothing are literally nothing compared to actual people in positions of power who control how we source our needs. You’re just berating a black woman for existing in patriarchal society.
There was a shaman who laughed at the slogan 'Save the Planet!' He said that the planet would be fine, it is humans that need saving from themselves.
George Carlin?
Charlton Heston said this too
Exactly, I always contradict anyone saying to save the planet. The planet will be fine, and people have a hard time caring about "the world." Telling them we are saving ourselves is both far more relatable - better for prompting action - and more accurate to what's actually being done.
If we need to accept that there is no “out there” nature, we must also recognize that there is no “out there” industry. We cannot save the environment without changing ourselves, but we cannot banish industries without changing ourselves either.
We ALL have to be the change. But we also need to be smart enough to recognize when we are being misled about "change" under the false promises of politicians, laws, mandates, taxes, etc. We need to use our best judgement to see through that stuff, when applicable. We need *_real_* change, not lies and false promises, or laws/taxes enacted under the guise of the "better good"...considering such types of laws/taxes would probably actually be used to line someone's pockets.
Btw I don't support either the left wing or right wing politics, or political parties at all...taking sides is not what I'm talking about here at all. I don't have any affiliation to any type of political group or ideology.
@@yearginclarke
There is nobody that "doesnt support left or right wing politics" you may not choose to label yourself on one side or the other, but you ultimately fall on one or the other. The right wants to exploit, colonize, and expand the empire. The center pretends theyre different, but is really just the right with more progressive ideas. The far left is the only side that actually recognizes the problem and wants to do everything we can to fix it. The problem is capitalism. And fixing it is eliminating capitalism, and erecting an egalitarian, centrally planned economy in its place whats focus is on providing the best quality of life for all people, while cultivating and protecting the natural world.
@@ElectricAlien577 Not true. I started recognizing the absolute failures and ridiculousness of divide and conquer politics a long time ago. I choose not to play the game. I base my opinions (to the best of my personal abilities) on objective reality and rationality, not "belief" systems that your "supposed" to go along with, as a member of a party.
@@yearginclarke I disagree with your perspective, but have decided not to argue on this point further, as i dont see it going anywhere useful at current time.
I will ask, if you take no sides, how do you think the world should be run, and are you okay with the exploitation and destruction that is required to uphold the capitalist empire we currently live under?
@@ElectricAlien577 No I'm not ok with it...didn't I make that VERY apparent with my original comment? If you're capable of accurately interpreting information, it should be obvious what I meant. But you choose to play games and choose to be divided and conquered, and distracted.
You can disagree all you want. Repeat: I view all things with objective reality first and foremost, and NOT "oh what side are they on". That's brainless to worry about that garbage. That has nothing to do with FIXING problems, that CREATES problems.
Yes. Every time someone talks to me about saving the planet I respond by saying “The planet will be fine. The planet will go on. Save the humans. We need to make the planet hospitable for our kids so that human beings don’t go extinct!”
It won't go on without suffering a tremendous and preventable loss of life. You might might be able to inanely giggle at the prospect but I won't.
Save the planet.
She forgot to mention the billions of lives saved by the technological improvements made over the last century. Life expectancy has increased significantly and billions have been raised out of extreme poverty.
Can we do better? Yes. But let's not forget all the benefits we enjoy.
@@Mrpersonman0 I think you missed the point. "Life" is not "the planet". "The planet" does not require life to continue being "the planet". What you are actually concerned about is NOT saving the PLANET, you are concerned about saving LIFE, so say that instead.
@@Mrpersonman0 The planet doesn't care if there is a massive loss of life. Life will go on just fine. Mass extinctions have happened time and again, and this will hardly be the last one. We are saving ourselves (as long as we can), not the planet.
Duuuuuuuude!!
I've been saying this for YEARS!!!
We ought to save the environment for OURSELVES!! Be selfish!
The planet was there before we were there, and it will go on without us, when we are not there....likely of our own making...
People have got this all wrong!
Also, it's simply better marketing/advertising strategy to appeal to people's own self-interest/self-preservation, rather than something altruistic, esp. for something as abstract and as expansive & complex as the 'environment' (or 'climate')....
That’s what I thought we were doing
@@franimal86 Sure. Sure.
My issue was/is with the phrasing/'marketing'/messaging/communication aspect...
I wish i was that optimistic... i think its going to take much more than what you say (no offense). Humans are too lazy, gullible, and greedy. Alot of folks out there couldn't care less about their own children, let alone their grandchildren's children.
I think it will take a very brutal reset for humanity to really make any positive changes. The only thing that gives me any hope for life on earth is that it will go on long after we're gone... granted anything is left after we're gone.
We're like a parasite too prolific for its own good, and our environment is the host.
True. I wish she would have said "for the benefit and well-being of all living beings" instead of "for us all" at the end, though. Part of saving the environment "for ourselves" is to aim to benefit all life, since we are so interdependent, even when that interdependence isn't obvious to us. I think we stand to lose much if we focus only on self-preservation (food, water, fuel, materials.) The animals, plants, and other beings that we share the Earth with are AMAZING, and I don't want to lose any of them, and I want everyone to have a chance to experience their wonders. The devastating thing about extinction is that it is PERMANENT -- once every member of a species is lost, the species and its genetic wisdom is gone forever.
@@tbailen 100% agree with this/you!
You are in relationship with everything. It’s up to you whether it’s a loving relationship or not.
Nice.
It doesn't have to be anything so pretentious, that's the whole point.
It's not an "up to you" thing anymore, though.
One of the issues that I have with most extreme environmental movements is that they don't class humans as part of the environment or ecology of the planet. It's a Humans bad vs "the other" natural world good, like we are somehow abstract and not part of the big picture.
Humans are as much a part of the evolution of this planet as any other creature or object, for better or for worse. But what is better or worse? Who decides the future evolution of planet earth? Who gets to play God and construct their vision of nature?
Or should we just allow the universe to follow it's own path and us just continue to be part of that natural evolution wherever it may go? Who is to say that the adversity we appear to bring upon ourselves isn't just a natural pathway required to evolve a better understanding, to further evolve as humans in a harsh and unforgiving universe.
We need to look at the whole picture. Covering productive farm land with solar panels, wind mill and poles and wires reduce farm production and crops are active green plant reducing co2. Destroying native vegetation for the erection of solar panels, wind mills and poles and wires is also counter productive. How could this be 'saving the planet'? We are destroying the planet in order to 'save the planet'. Why?
I, for one, am to say. Words are merely words, true enough. However, "bad" means bad for life. It kills. Kills the life. Congenital birth defects, poisoned water, cadmium, nitric acid, plastic and pfas in the body's organs-that kind of bad is what bad means in this context. Everybody dead bad. Some people enjoy it and find it fun as they feather their nest with dollars, so who can say what is natural or bad? Maybe a thermonuclear war is the will of Allah. It's not for one so humble as I to say...😔. Like many great men along the grand march of human progress, my greatest flaw is an excess of humility. What's anything anyhow? How am I different from the ocean? That's for God to say or something.
@@SandhillCrane42 Our persistent duality between human consciousness and nature likely has no resolution in the human realm, but the balance must always be considered.
"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so" - Shakespeare
An expression of our human social conscience vs nature.
And from the old master:
“Countless words
count less
than the silent balance
between yin and yang”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
We live in a constant sate of conflict in the balance in between.
>
It may seam appropriate to play "God" with nature, but how do we validate our our choices? How do we truly know what is best for nature and the universe? Truth is we don't know, so I feel we need some sense of caution with our assertions to correct the perceived faults in nature. This is our divine human limitation... :(
Not everything can be classified easily. But some can. Pollution is bad. Dumping chemicals toxic/harmful to human health irresponsibly to air/land/water is pollution.
@@billyswong Earth is quite capable and does dump toxic chemicals into the environment. How do we define Earth bad vs Human bad?
I remember the forest fires in Yellowstone in 1988. They brought smoke and darkness to thousands of square miles. It was devastating.
Then for the next few years, we saw a steady stream of "can you believe how the flora and fauna is returning?" It was a healing, restorative time. There was a bright side to the destruction. The indigenous people's seemed to have understood the cycle and used it in a positive, sustainable way.
Humans changing their environment is not inherently bad. Through deliberate maintaining of our forests and habitats, the change we make can be a force for good.
I feel this episode should have mentioned or went into how people can REDUCE the amount of garbage they produce. Figuratively and metaphorically.
Love the mushroom sound effect in the beginning! 💛
One easy way to reduce waste is to grow your own food. Unfortunately that is not an option for enough people.
@@Caldermologist One doesn't need to grow everything. But, anyone can do something. Heck, worm bins, grow mushrooms, something. Every little bit helps.
The economy we live under demands a financial incentive to make any significant changes ie. reducing garbage.
There are other videos PBS has made about that.
These videos are meant to display one point, for effective messaging. This video tackles the separation our culture emphasizes on humans and nature. Saying that we are a part of it and shape it, and that we must steward it. We can’t include everything climate change in one video.
@@tccragun I disagree. When enough people care enough, society changes even without financial incentives.
Thank you! The Planet doesn't need Humanity to save it because it will still exist whether we are here or not. It existed as a Planet long before Humanity arrived. We need to save Humanity.
from aberrant capitalism
Thank you for this content! My hometown is an industrial city and it's clear my health issues stem from growing up near the factories.
Or your health is caused by eating highly processed foods. Watch Dr Robert lustig for his detailed explanation.
Because of solar panels and windmills the factories are going to get only bigger and causing more harm.
Beautifully crafted, educational and inspiring. Just need to convince corporate and governmental entities that life is more important than dollars.😢
^this
Yes! Thank you. Put more succinctly than I ever could.👍
I live in Sydney Australia, and I have turned my little garden into a safe-haven for wildlife just by planting native bushes and trees, and also putting fresh clean water out every day for wildlife. I also keep domestic cats out of my garden. My garden is full of life, there are lots of wildlife and tons of insects like bees in my garden. Everyone with a garden can do the same.
Thanks for all the fish
Just about that time, isn't it?
This shows the intelligence of the of the original native people on this continent in the west. Many thought the natives were very unintelligent and uncivilized because they wore little to no clothing in good weather. Many thought they were unintelligent because some western tribes had no concept of war, or weapons to kill people. They were very intelligent how they managed their environment, and clothing is not needed when the weather is comfortable. That is just a waste of resources. They were very civilized with how the people within tribes took care of the children and learned from and cared for the elderly. Modern society should look back a little and learn from the past from all people on the planet and use some of their knowledge to improve the environment. That can be done while also advancing science manufacturing and modern comforts, and urban environments. We are all a part of the environment, not apart from the environment.
Nonsense. Google: torture and cannibalism native Americans. You will be shocked. They raised their children to be sociopaths with no feelings of mercy or empathy. They were so violent that America tried to cause their extinction by wiping out the buffalo. They were put on reservations to keep them from torturing people. Eventuallly the children were taken away from the parents and given an education to break the cycle of violence. You have learned Hollywood's fake history.
What an important program! It shows us how essential it is that we first identify the needs of our ecosystems and THEN create whatever nature genuinely requires. "Feel Good" conservation needs to give way to "Objectively Good" thinking and action! What a tremendous lesson. Way to go PBS SoCal!
Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
🥾
You could get rid of that elephant but you would have to face an immediate invasion.
This is important context. If we brought our troops home and stopped spending so much on wars far from home, we might just restore our natural environment
@@juskahusk2247we spend 3x as much as china, 10x as much as Russia. Let's cut our military spending in half... we won't be invaded
@juskahusk2247 Invasion? By who? Aliens? Other people? God forbid we let people live where they would like
The protection given to wilderness areas was to protect old growth forests from being logged wholesale. The prehuman natural burnouts would have been from lightning strikes. These forests exististed for hundreds of millions of years without humans doing burn offs. Yes we could do things better. Much of what we use becomes landfill only weeks after purchasing them. We buy things we use once or rarely when we could share stuff. The health of our current economic system is based on maximizing waste.
Lots of indigenous cultures used fire as a tool, any environment were this occurred is adapted to it and needs it to continue. Presence and use reduces fuel. What happened before that does not apply to those areas today. And in other places it can still be applied under drying or warming conditions as a reduction measure. I think you are still intrenched in the no human presence fallacy.
First off this was a very bare bones introduction to the idea of we are all in this together. It contained hardly even a mention on how to actively manage such a task. Secondly, one must be extremely careful in applying such concepts across the board due to shifting baselines. I am personally involved in trying to manage inland turtle populations, creatures who once upon a time provided more vertebrate biomass to the environment than any other creature. They no longer do and the ecosystems we see turtles in today are biological shadows if their former selfs...or in the case of the vast long leaf pine forest that once blanketed the southeast non existent. How do we square that with managing turtles today....and what if we had or do set aside enough reserves apart from heavy human use to provide core populations for survival of something other than raccoons and coyotes...is that really not possible for us to do on this vast planet of ours or will ever inch of it need to suffer degradation directly at the hands of humans!?
@@davidharris453 Yes nothing should be done flippantly. Always with trail and research.
@@davidharris453Yes. It is "out there" because we made an "in here". We humans really did it. There's an extremely significant difference that a person would have to be kinda dense not to notice. Playing nice is a beautiful idea, but we've not been idle in this evil work these past 12,000 years. The ecosystem engineering of hunter gatherers is something that existed "out there" once upon a time. Pick your fantasy I guess.
Several decades ago, Daniel Quinn published his book Ishmael, in which he tried to get across the idea that we are a part of nature. However, people didn't get it. Even today, so many people like to say "we're a part of nature," but then contradict themselves in the next sentence by saying "we need to get closer to nature" or "we need to be in balance with nature." (There are a few people who did exactly that in the comments to this video.) The reason: your separateness from nature is one of your core cultural assumptions, which are deeply ingrained at the subconscious level.
It’s the rate of change that is the problem. Living things can adapt as long as the pace of change is slow enough to allow them to evolve. in several million years, our demise in the fossil record will appear similar to the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs than any other extinction event, it is happening that fast.
Geologic, time is a concept that is difficult to comprehend. If the entire history of the Earth was condensed to one years time human beings have been on the Earth since 11:25 PM on New Year’s Eve. The changes that initiate ice ages and interglacial periods happen over the course of thousands of years not in a human lifetime.
Sometimes events go slowly sometimes go abrupt and rapid
Loos of Habitat can be a quick dynamic
Thank you for pulling back the curtain and exposing the realities of sustainable vs unsustainable changes. Perhaps a follow up on the value of biodiversity in giving us the tools to make more sustainable changes would be useful. I love you folks at PBS
I'm really glad to see such a well put together video on the subject. This exact topic is a pet passion of mine (the control burn topic especially), and I wish this information was on more people's minds. Humanity has come far, and has a lot more potential, but we have been slow to realize the associated responsibility.
I don't think we have any way of knowing how much of a positive impact we could have on the the environment around us, if we were to act more like stewards. We expected a bump in biodiversity, but reshaping geography with the reintroduction of wolves was a surprise. Imagine the collective impact other regenerative initiatives could have if more people knew about it and engaged in it. Maybe it would seem banal to say "we could change the world," but I already said it.
In order for us, humanity, to transform our production processes so that they reach perfect harmony with natural processes, we will have to provide financial conditions for the population to bear the high costs of ecological products. It is expensive for a company to use materials from sustainable sources, and it is expensive for it to have an excellent waste treatment system. And if the population does not have enough income to buy good things, our system will continue to only encourage companies that exhaust resources and pollute. It makes sense? Being ecological means fighting politically for income distribution.
Currently reading "The Biggest Estate on Earth" by Bill Gammage, which details the use of fire based land management in pre colonial Australia.
Great book. And a great example of how human presence can be a beneficial. We need to get back to that system in conjunction with modern science.
I think you mean pre-invasion/genocide Australia.
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 Yes well nobody has a time machine. So paying attention to and respecting indigenous practice is the next best thing.
We need to make space for our nonhuman relations to do their lives' works. We have a poorly substantiated authoritarian grip on them and we need to choose contexts (many) to let go.
I have always believed we are suppose to live with nature, not control it.
The Bible says to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. Nearly every American politician worships Abraham's god of anti-nature that manifests exclusively outside of ordinary reality as burning bushes and voices instead of actual phenomena like the sea. But on a serious note, what could a symbiotic relationship with the planet's ecosystems possibly mean at this point? Some regions are still photogenic, but the water is poisoned and the animals are gone. We live in a world fully transformed into a human environment. This is the middle of the end. Before long, it will be the end of the end. I agree it should have been as you said. It's pretty sad. We all have to continue making the situation worse for dollars backed by violence because there is no solidarity; no collective to assert a will beyond some immediate individually gratifying proxy for mutual interest. It's a flaw in our species from primordial days. Too bad. Major bummer. It sucks.
Yes, humans are a keystone species, our fire is like beavers and their dams.
And once other people actually do that, after that, I too will gain that responsibility. But not before.
Yes, we are part of this planet. We don't exist without it.
So much truth and clarity. I hope somehow as humans we can come to understand this. Where we are right now is quite sad and not very promising
Here is what I see where I live. They are buying up pristine farmland and putting up mile upon mile of solar panels. But they are, like said...doing it wrong. They , like said are doing it the cheapest way possible...spread out for miles. They should be built tiered, like a football stadium and trees planted on the excess land. In turn, the farmer now cuts down his remaining stands of trees to offset the land he sold! This takes the last remaining place for animals to live. It is not regulated. You can drive all day and not see many stands of trees. We are definitely doing the transition wrong.
Keep up the good work! The more people that can learn this about the planet, the better chance we will have to start behaving in ways that will not harm the environments we live in.
Since the beginning of life on the planet, life has influenced and affected how the environment changed. When life became conscious, consciousness was another strong force that caused changes to the environment and when life started to become intelligent, intelligence was a much stronger and superior force that changed the planet’s environment and continues to change it to this day. Hopefully human intelligence can recognize when the changes it is causing are harmful to humans and other life and start making changes that will not harm human life. The forces of nature can easily out power the forces of human intelligence and the planet does not need to be saved from anyone and will continue to exist for a few more billon years and at some point when our sun starts do burn out, no life will be possible on it.
If the majority of humans on this planet continue to believe that there are magical authorities that live in the sky that are responsible for creating the universe, the earth and human life and that no matter how humans behave or change the environment, everything will be wonderful for us after we die in some other magical place in the universe, then there is not much of a chance that humans can learn or even have the incentive to change the environment such that it can continue to sustain human life.
Governments, corporations, businesses and academic institutions along with the wealthiest and brightest among us keep competing for power, status and wealth by playing the economics game with the same old rules and ideas that have been used for the past five hundred years and keep blaming each other when the economy is not performing and not benefiting everyone and causing damage to the environment. We may now need to play this game with different rules.
When the scale of the planet was unknown, the old rules worked well to gain the knowledge and understanding how the game can be played to innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress on the planet and to learn the best ways to live comfortable long healthy lives.
There are also many that did not play by any rules and continue to break the rules. The mobsters, drug cartels, human traffickers, arms dealers and other criminals along with those in trusted government and corporate positions that became corrupted not only don’t care about competing fairly and honestly in the game they also do not care about any destruction or damages and many of them do not value human life.
I am not sure how many of our government, business and academic leaders along with the wealthiest and brightest among us would agree that we have reached a point in human evolution and progress where the rules for how to live on this planet so that we can innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress need to be changed with the main goal now being sustainability not growth!
If there are new rules, the winners from the old rules may not be winners anymore so changing the rules may not be possible. Their desire to keep winning with the old rules is stronger than their concern about the ability of the game to continue in the future. Either that or they believe in some type of magical authority that lives in the sky that will make everything wonderful again for everyone in some type of afterlife when life is no longer possible on this planet.
I think the solution is to figure out and agree on some new rules where the economy and population can have periods of growth and periods of decline within some acceptable boundaries with the periods of decline not being a problem and in fact being just as innovative and prosperous as the periods of growth.
The thinking that the population and economy of developed countries always has to grow by immigration from developing, failed or defeated countries for there to be innovation, prosperity and progress is old school economic thinking. Some of the new ideas in economics about transitioning to economic models based on sustainability instead of growth would not consider a declining population for a country a problem. Also, immigration from developing, failed or defeated countries would still be considered beneficial provided the immigration programs are well managed with the proper checks and balances.
With the new economic thinking and models, the population would fluctuate between some sustainable boundaries so there would be periods of population growth and periods of population decline and during both these periods there would be innovation, prosperity and progress. Continuous population growth in a country is what eventually causes conflict, misery and poverty preventing it from developing.
Continuous growth for any biological life causes it to self-destruct. Cancer cells are a good example of this. They keep growing in numbers until they use up all the resources they need to survive in the body they are living in and end up killing the body and are no longer able to survive. The rest of the cells in your body know how to live sustainably with in it because they don’t just keep growing. As they die off they are replaced and their numbers fluctuate between acceptable boundaries.
Regardless how sophisticated the technology becomes, there are limits to how much biological life, including humans, a planet with finite resources can sustain. The long term economic plan and thinking for the planet being proposed in the new economic models is to try and bring all countries up to a sustainable level of development such that they do not need to be called a developing country. All countries can have an adequate level of development to maintain a sustainable population with the long term goal to bring all of the global population to a standard of living that they are comfortable with.
I think capitalism is the best system with the best ideas but I also think some of the ideas of capitalism need to be amended with the primary focus and objective now being sustainability not growth. I also think the idea within capitalism that greed and selfishness are somehow a good thing and is rewarded needs to be forgotten. Greed and selfishness are not good in any economy and capitalism needs to correct this thinking. If this is eliminated from capitalism maybe we can’t call it capitalism anymore. We could be taking the good ideas from capitalism and the good ideas from socialism and calling this something else. Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden have had some success doing this.
I do not think it is about loving everyone. We don’t even have to like everyone. A good starting point would be to begin with the understanding that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the basis for morality. If people are struggling to survive, they will not care about anybody else or about the devastation of the planet.
Here are some books where I learned about these new economic ideas and models on how to build economies to be able to continue to innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress when trying to compete for power, status and wealth without discrimination, abusing, conquering or killing each other and without the mistrust that causes nations to spy on each other and to manufacture weapons that can wipe out most of the life on this planet.
1 “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth,
2 “Prosperity without Growth” by Tim Jackson,
3 “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
4 “Beyond Growth” by Herman Daly
Here are some other sources:
1 “The Centre for Advancements of the Steady State Economy”
2 “Growth Busters” website by Dave Gardner
OK that was a nice introduction... where is the rest of the oh say hundereds of hours of information that shows us how to better change our human based environments? I'm looking for a series of shows here,
love this channel and it's topics. Sometimes they hit you deep and you may need to take a break but the growth is always here to tap back into ❤
You can not have an inside without an outside !!! Thank You .
3:05 "To power our homes, phones, and cars".
I think it would be better to say something along the lines of "To power our homes, phones, and transportation". There are more options than the car, and due to how incredibly inefficient cars are there are often way more convenient and more sustainable modes of transportation than cars. The constant focus of cars being at the core of our lives keeps solidifying this idea that life without a car isn't possible. But while it's currently not possible for many people, this can be changed
Car culture has ruined a lot of things, not least of which, the millions of people who die in or by cars every year
++++++++
The cars aren't going anywhere. Same with the plastic. Same with the guns. If you have billions of dollars, you can vote with those dollars. Changing these things means a fundamental restructuring of society. People feel they're getting a good enough compensation for destroying the planet so there will be no unifying cause to prompt revolt. No moral equivalent of a war in a world where morality is considered quaint and self important. I would like to be wrong.
Cars is a symbol of freedom. Maybe we need to be slaves again?
@@kg0173 Cars are only really so strongly associated with freedom in the US. Not entirely just a US thing but it's a bigger thing here for sure. Cars are not universally seen as some kind of symbol of freedom. And taking away cars does not inherently suggest taking away freedom. They're a mode of transportation, among many possible modes of transportation
And if we want to survive, we need to honor the indigenous people and their wisdom.
The Yellowstone example is oversimplified at best. Yes, wolves reduced the elk (not "deer") population by over two thirds. The bison filled in that gap and now have overpopulated the park. Check out Lamar Valley. It's as least as bad when elk numbers were too high. We thought we were making progress, but in reality we're not. Let's tell the complete story.
Thousand dollars for a 🦬 tag would sell like hotcakes
Tx for highlighting this issue. There are 9 planetary boundaries for a liveable planet - we have surpassed 6 (including climate) and close to surpassing the rest.
It's estimated that 70 - 80% of people will live in cities by 2050'ish. Living in cities has disconnected us from the impacts of our everyday lives (we don't see the impacts of our everyday activities)
- water from a tap
- food from a supermarket
- energy from a switch
- want a house, go to the bank or property agent
- waste gets collected from outside your house once a week
- we use our cars to go EVERYWHERE
- want something, use your phone to order it & it gets delivered to your door
- when we're sick we go to a doctor or hospital
- entertainment on our computers or phones
If we want to "save the Earth", we have to "fix" cities... cities NEED to start becoming less parasitic and start providing more SOLUTIONS
- blue, green & gey infrastructure awa protecting urban biodiversity
- protecting urban water sources
- rain & stormwater harvesting
- urban agri via green roofs, community gardens, indoor farming
- local mini grids & community energy storage (incl V2G)
- active or puplic transit & ride shares
- sustainable waste management & community composting
- managing pollution
And so on
ALL human systems depend WHOLLY on environmental systems, processes, services & goods - NOT the other way around.
We need to find out how to live within our environment without changing it unwittingly, and when we do change it, we do so constructively for ourselves and the other residents of our world. First, we have to back away form the two degrees we have gained in the last few decades, then see what we have to do further. Has anybody thought about what it might take to restart the AMOC currents and the other ocean currents that made much of Earth a wonderful place for man? Those oceans, and the billions of creatures in them, are the common foundation stone for everything alive today; that would be a great place to start. To start a process that will take much longer than anyone wants and will cost us for generations to pay for. This time there is no easy alternative; neither the bull or the horns are particularly palatable to many.
We are in profound ecological overshoot with eight billion of us consuming everything and eventually each other. We had a good ride and couldn't heed the warnings from over fifty years ago when we had four billion people. It's too late now, bottleneck time for the human enterprise.
Thank you for your presentation, I found it refreshing in its different slant on environmentalism.
This should be on major TV networks, prime-time either Saturday night, or Sunday afternoon...with links to repeat presentations on-line!!!
Well explained. Yes, people see nature, the natural world, as this perfect untouchable piece of art, a portrait on a museum. Wrong, it is a system. A living and active system that is sensitive to the slightest bit of change. We are a part of it.The six rivers situation is a good example of how we have and must take up a more active part in this system. Though excessive deforestation is bad so is untouchable overgrowth.
For Now, we need PBS to take the lead on setting people straight. I am a retired environmental engineer. Many people hated me because they believed I was an "environmentalist." WE ARE THE OPPOSITE. We are enemies of each other. WE seek logical science-based solutions. THEY do slogans, fads, protest signs, and all things emotional. MANY things we do in this country in the name of "saving the environment" IS BAD For the Environment. BUT THE "RIGHT" PEOPLE ARE GETTING RICH. Generally, doing the right thing and reversing the damage is going to cost money, but political power is insanity. People like PBS might be our only hope.
Lived in the same place for 30 years, not classified as flood prone, therefore can’t buy affordable flood insurance. But the government planning documents expect the neighboring street to be underwater in 17 years. Not surprised, in my home town February was 20 degrees warmer during the most days than what I, my parents, and grandparents experienced. Imagine where you live having daytime temperatures 20 degrees higher during the summer. Asphalt melts, roads are undriveable, runways are unusable, power grid fails more severely than ever before, lots more people die from heat than ever before. Perhaps you think I misremember what February used to be like in snow county, with skiing and snow mobiles, not likely as snow requires temperatures below 32 and we had daytime temperatures in the 50s, even one day at 62 officially, but a neighbor saw 68. We did have four days of normal and snow during those four days, but it vanished fast. Never forget scientists are conservative in their work, climate scientists doubly so, nothing gets into their work without full validation, which is why you need to divide their timelines by 3 to be prepared. Me, I am moving as soon as possible, my current home and the streets will be someone else’s problem, maybe even be more valuable for a time as it becomes waterfront property for a while with an indoor swimming pool, aka a basement.
This is precisely something I'm trying to learn~ THANK YOU for making this!
It's not the world that's ending, it's our world that is ending. Also this episode is a great foray into Frank Herbert isms.
Throughout the "known" history of humanity (300,000+ years) there have been dozens of catastrophes that'd wipe out our civilization today in an instant.
The oldest known civilization (that's about 8000 years old) has a story that begins with "In those ancient times..."
Creative Society 22 November 2022 forum
2036 mathematical model
Our lives are a symptom of the system. We have to change it in order to change our trajectory. Outro music sounds like Daft Punk's Contact.
Finally got to the Western Culture critique .
Thanks for being so consistent PBS
The biggest mistake we've ever done was move away from nuclear energy. It should be utilized in collaboration with other energy sources all over the place by now. Especially since so many things around it have advanced. Our knowledge of safety measures are much better understood. Also Capabilities in engineering, material science, technology, robotics, etc. are much more advanced now. We need to improve our environment by lowering emissions. The only things holding us back is past trauma instilled in people (which is understandable but we gotta give it a chance to prove we can do so much better) Did they outlaw electricity or oil, coal when things went wrong in the early days of those fields? No! They kept going and understood things usually are bumpy and difficult in the beginning and kept going even tho those sources negatively impact our environment and health a million times more than nuclear energy options ever could. Yet governments and Legal procedures BLOCK any sort of progression from happening. We'd be lucky to see even the slightest projects approved and finished with-in the next 100 years.. It's very annoying to see how much we have gotten in our own way when it comes to improving or advancing certain things. Instead we let fear, money, man made "required legal processes" Stop us from doing anything other than wind, solar, oil, natural gas, damming our rivers, mining for minerals... It's very frustrating because we should be able to use all these options in collaboration. If we actually wanted to improve anything. That's what we need to do and stop letting so much potential get blocked from ever occurring in the first place.. It's really irritating. I wish certain people didn't make this so "complicated and difficult" Why would any reasonable person want to block progression?
My farm be uncompensated sacrifice zone for a uranium mining operation if we go that route. So I'm out. Thorium molten salt reactors make purified weapons grade that must be distilled separately into warhead sized packages 🎁
Let's make 2000 small ones of those for the incompetent Feds to keep track of... whole mobile reactors will go missing. At least one turns up at a Forestry Department lot and nobody even knew what it was...
Watch Dr Doug Tallamy's lectures. Grow your own Homegrown National Park. Remove invasive plants. Learn from, and really respect, indigenous cultures. We need to utilize all that we have, to restore our ecosystems. We haven't got much time left.
Don't forget the wood in your studio brought to you by a timber industry capable of forest tending with much less fire and much less waste.
I don't think I have ever heard a more pragmatic statement about the situations we are facing. Use this as your bellwether for everything you do and we will all be fine. Great job!
This is what I've complained about for a long time. Everyone says to save the environment as if we're not a part of it. A beaver builds a dam, its natural, we build a dam, and we're altering/destroying the environment. Instead, we need to live alongside the rest of the world and learn to be a productive and sustainable part of it.
Really well done. Chief take away is we are a part of the entire environment. We took wolves and fire away. Reintroducing these has restored balance. Another step is to value where people live the same as a pristine natural world.
Thank you
“We often forget that WE ARE NATURE. Nature is not something separate from us. So when we say that we have lost our connection to nature, we’ve lost our connection to ourselves.”
-Andy Goldsworthy
A most excellent video. We are all part of this biological entity called Earth.
Well done!
Wolves weren’t eliminated from the lower 48 by over hunting. It’s next to Impossible hunt wolves to extinction. The wolves in the lower 48 where exterminated with poison. Strict nine. There where bounties on there head tell recently.
How does saying "Save the Planet" imply a distinction between the "natural world" and the "human world"? I don't think we should be telling people to stop saving the planet...
Because obstructionists use ambiguity as a weapon in rhetoric.
"Duh, the planet will still be here no matter how much carbon we emit. Humans cannot affect or destroy the planet you lefty nazi's just want to make billions by controlling my life for this stupidity."
If we use language like: reduce pollution - save our resources - reduce risk - lower emissions - reduce consumption - new competitive solutions - new economy...then it is a lot harder to refute our logic without sounding moronic or just plain selfish.
It's to force a recalibration of thinking.
Considering what people get through "save the planet" I guess you could say it so😅
Bringing fire back works unless you have a bunch of people who built their dream homes in the WUI. Then it gets complicated real fast.
Everything in this video's something I basically agree with. What I object to is the deliberate, ongoing refusal to present fission as something we need to pursue. It's absolutely anti-science to self-censor like that for a political cause. It's also very telling that the presenter (correctly) damns the overuse of fossil fuels, but completely leaves out the fact that if we had leaned into fission in the '70s, we could have started reducing the number of coal plants which were spewing more uranium into the environment every year that the uranium release of every fission power accident of all time, every year.
Dr Wynn-Grant is unfortunately part of a political collective that denies science because of a political agenda. This is perfectly consistent with Hank Green's policy for Complexly, where the climate issue *must* be addressed (agreed), but fission power *must never* be mentioned as a tool we desperately need to moderate our effect on the climate. It's the best one we have in terms of carbon footprint and chemical contamination of nature, so why do these Piled Higher and Deepers refuse to embrace the real science?
I'd call out Hank, but since he's got the arrogance conveyed by his degree, he'll never listen to me, and if I "journalist ambushed" him, forcing him to talk about it, he'd talk around it. Complexly only delivers the science it supports, and that means none of their channels support science at all. If you disagree, I won't reply unless it's something constructive, the anti-science nuts will be ignored. I'm writing to reach those who haven't bought into this anti-science agenda, or can otherwise be reached.
In short, if you hate fission as much as Hank Green does, you are anti-science, and don't deserve a seat at the climate discussion table, and I don't listen to anti-science people when they tell me I'm wrong, because cherry-picked incidents and data, while denying the contrary facts. No facts, no science.
The indigenous ppl knew wildfires wud happen. No one listened. And when it happened the news was like 😮.
the problem is that the responsibilty of being environmentally responsible has been thrust onto the consumer, even though the majority of carbon emissions come from just fifty companies.
PBS is only on cable ? I used to pick it up .been gone for many years , now its here ? How freaking disappointing!!
Would be nice to know what science states in how we manage land, water and air in various scenarios. And what priorities each approach is assigned based on impact. In my opinion- Degrowth would be the first one but again science can establish with facts and data.
It'll be instructive to read Ram Guha and Matinez-Alier's 1997 book 'Varieties of Environmentalism Essays North and South'
Before the working from home of the pandemic... I asked 2 neighbors who worked in the same building and shift as me to carpool. Neither wanted to, both wanted the independence of driving separately each day
I've visited some of those places & people mentioned, respects for the Klamath, or aware about them, along with envirochem & toxicology, ecology, environmental history & philosophy, ... maybe touch on a couple items among that tour, which felt like a barrage. That idea about fire suppression fueling those blazes among misinfo & obfuscation about those matters, when should indicate risks from ignition source & encroachment. May have been assorted & apart beside the clinical aspects, but there was earlier knowledge about industrial pollution & health effects. Perhaps ecosystem aspects & components were nascent, still misuse, misunderstood, & misapply, but the apex predator hypothesis seems become substantiated in theory with Yellowstone Wolf Project. Could go over finer distinctions on that, conserve from preserve, but enviro law been among sausage factory processes that diverge from science, service, & application, including that idea about climate which get's awfully exploited ...
National forest initiatives always felt separate to those of the Indigenous communities. I'm glad to see them taking a second look at what they've done over the years and embrace Indigenous knowledge.
So, in every aspect of life, we should live in cooperation, not separation
We don't need to save the planet. The planet will be fine. We need to save ourselves by repairing the world around us, back to how we received it.
Yess
We humans are not the crew of this huge spherical generation ship. We are the mere passengers. We don‘t have the ability to govern ourself successfully, we are not like the ants (or other insect states)
Wow this is the first video I have seen that connects all the dots. So much truth in this video! It’s refreshing to hear that solar and EVs wont solve all our problems!
Very good point.
I am studying environmental science and the human vs nature dichotomy is so annoying to encounter again and again. Old (and some current) conservation plans are just "no humans allowed in nature" as if we can divide the world into nature and not and staying in our cities will protect the nature from us. That's silly, humans are part of nature and have always been, we just need to learn better, less destructive ways that regenerate our surroundings rather than exploit them.
I agree its a flawed concept, better balance is what we need not banning humanity.
Great insight, thank you for reminding us.
Thanks Dr. Whnn-Grant.
This video is everything I’ve been telling my friends for the past 5 years. I’m so happy more people will have this in mind when talking about climate change
Amen, we need to preserve the quality of the human environment for ourselves and future generations.
It's wrecked man. I guarantee there's copious lead in every mountain stream. We can't just run a rag over it and get the empties to the curb before god comes back.
1. Increase Miles Per Gallon to 300mpg (the inventor disappeared).
2. Add water as a fuel (3 companies exist now)
3. Brineless Salt water (non RO) ocean water purification. The tech is here now.
4. Increase percentage of small farmers to 20% of all food production.
5. Release cancer cures.
6. End planned obsilecence (misspelled)
7. End monopolies
8. Increase cooperation
9. Decrease waste by increased composting.
Great video! Really unique perspective taken. It's just like our own bodies and our health. You cannot live in a pristine bubble and expect to be healthy once leaving that bubble. You also cannot constantly subject the body to stressors and conditions and expect to heal with no residual long term effects. Our bodies are a microcosm of our environment. Both operate optimally when there is an ebb and flow, or a give and take. Stress and relaxation, stamina and strength, summer and winter. Better to be sick occasionally but to recover each time than to only get sick once and never recover. We have the brains and the brawn to clean up the messes we've made. Hell, we have enough malaria vaccines to protect an entire generation of children Africa!! As long as capitalism is the primary economic system, there will only be solutions for problems if it makes someone rich.
Personally, I have always enjoyed the outdoors, trees and green landscapes. Growing plants is one way I try to keep the planet green. I don’t do it for me. I’m trying to preserve the land long enough for my son to see it and appreciate it. If I can help him fall in love with the outdoors then maybe I can help future generations. It doesn’t all have to be for money and profit.
When something is hopeless then there's nothing to worry about and nothing that needs doing. The human animal is an animal that does what human animals do. Mass extinction is natural. As we accelerate down the fast track toward our own imminent extinction celebrate with joy, kindness and compassion.
Humans are the environment, the Earth, the planets, and the stars. Intrinsically intertwined
It's very depressing but nobody should have to starve.❤
I've worked in the solar and wind industries for the past 17-years and almost never mentioned, save the planet, global warming, climate change, instead, I say: save money and embrace independence with solar, wind, hydro, as none of these energy sources relies on import or export of fuel.
I like to think we, as humans, were made to clean up and perfect other things, like trees, waterways, rocks, dirt. Kinda like beavers and what they do. And the 'perfect' I said above is not the human convenience one we have in our head now (the incorrect one), it's doing the beaver thing to give other things the ability to do what they were made for.
6:25 Is that a Philip glass music ? It is really in the "glasswork" album mood !
I reccommend the famous video How Wolves Changed Rivers. It amazingly depicts the interconnection of life and environment.
this is why many parks do control burns but not all parks do this and probably should
Thank you for talking about healthy forests needing active stewardship, like the Native Americans did. Selective logging to thin the forests and reduce fuel is also healthy for them. It is better to harvest sustainably from the forests than for them to burn uncontrollably when lightning strikes, and that gives us more lumber to build homes and sequester carbon that way.
rewild as much area as possible - set up something to survive us when we collapse
I'd never heard of PBS before. But I love this. Going to watch a lot more PBS now. Thanks to this video. What does PBS even mean?
Public Broadcasting System
This gives me vibes of a trailer for a series on humans interacting with the environment around them