@@cg.r6577 clearly sankara knows/knew nothing about ecology and is talking bollocks, like most humans. 8 billion humans is a manifestation of fossil fuels. humans are a plague. the greatest plague the earth has seen or likely to see. like all plagues, the humans will go away very rapidly once the resources that powered it all are used up. unlike other plagues, human cleverness will extend the growth phase at the expense of even greater environmental degradation and resource depletion, making the collapse even more spectacular and violent when it happens.
Human cognitive dissonance is a beast. We should have transitioned to some kind of resource-based economy advocated by Jaque Fresco decades ago. Well, now the ocean thermal inertia is the only cover-up of the locked-up global temp rise combined with the ecological overshoot. If we don't drastically reduce our lifestyle to that of average Ethiopian folk, we will seem never to make it as a species. I agree with Arthur that we're unlikely to change.
I agree. We're unlikely to change. But there's a reason for that. We're taught to take all we can - amass as much as we can. No one was taught with any sincerity that we were harming nature by taking all we can get from our host.
So funny it’s been over a decade at least since I watched zeitgeist and we are nowhere near a resource based economy proposed by the Venus project. I think one thing I realized was that regardless of technology this is a human problem and a problem of humans relationship with nature (which is ourselves in another way)
Every single person on this planet seeks to improve their standing and improve their conditions economically and materially. Everyone wants a home, plenty of food, entertainment and clothes, these things cannot be had under a planned decline. People cannot want or need things anymore. This is why our economy is in shambles, the exiting structure is trying to limit the individual’s buying power to not increase their footprint but people want things. They want a car, new shoes, a vacation, children. All big no no’s if they seek to improve the planet or their own economic standing. Minimalism and rejecting material comforts is all we can do to combat this shit and the vast majority will NEVER go along with it. Which makes me think the world powers will force these changes onto the working class under the guise of economics or whatever since if they came out and said it to our faces, we would never fucking comply.
@@seymourbutts3615 classical economics is pseudo science, aiming to justify greed and short term vision; with the help of the trickle down theory, and the bizarre claim that an exponential infinite growth in a finite Universe is realistic.
Lets say I have 10 rabbits. Every year their population doubles which means I can eat 10 and still have 10 left for future growth. Lets say I get greedy and start eating 11. No big deal, I have plenty of rabbits, right? 1st year 10x2=20-11 (eaten)=9 left. 2nd year 9x2=18-11 (eaten)=7 left. 3rd year 7x2=14-11=3 left. 4th 3x2=6 (oopsie). Now, up to 4th year I thought things were fine. I had my stomach full and life was good. Few less rabbits around but my freezer was always full. 4th year itself was sudden shock- not enough rabbits to eat. I then realized I had a problem BUT I was starving and I had no other option to eat remaining 6. 5th year was game over. We're (as mankind) are entering the fourth year. We are going to have a sudden shock of massive constraints coming in AND we are not going to be in position to change things because we are hungry. It will be violent and bloody. Believe what you want but bullets will be currency of the future.
These explanations of our possible futures are great. The charts and your commentary illustrate our situation so well. Subscribing and sharing. Thank you.
Greed is the prime motivating force of our global "deciders". We COULD change course but we WILL NOT because those in power are mesmerized by their own well-being and ascendancy .
Not only that, billions of people will refuse to change. Who wants to voluntarily downsize their life style? Very few if any. Everyone wants to "super-size" their life not downsize.
1972: We can manage a slow and orderly planned decline. 2022: Decided not to do that? Now it's every man for himself. The speaker has not actually given up hope that the decline can be managed, but obviously we have a lot less wiggle room today than we did 50 years ago.
It's an is and ought problem... Eco-communes and bon homie would be lovely. But history has taught us there are two semi-stable forms of living. You either band together and create surpluses, or you band together to take surpluses from others. Rural communities are one thing, but an increasingly metropolitan humanity with no access to their own land are going to struggle unless the state gets things nicely in order...
The fact that this has so few views proves that we deserve what's happening to us. Time to reap what we've sowed. I do feel terrible for the rest of the species. They didn't deserve any of this.
Always amazed that I was born at this pivotal time in human (and of course planetary) history. If Population fell by 2100 by as much as it has risen in my life - 60 yrs, I cant imagine the suffering (thank god)
One aspect of this scenario is the unspoken, verboten, inescapable reality that BILLIONS of those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum will die horrible deaths. BILLIONS!
Not just lower socio-economic ladder. Once collapse occurs, it will be free for all. No more social classes. Anarchy and equal opportunity for violence and horrible death for all. Musk and Bezos hiding out in their bunkers will be a perfectly fair game.
thank you for posting this. i applaud your effort, in my humble opinion it could do with some better graphics and some reference to citations. Buckminster Fuller's Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth" was published in 1968. Dennis and Donella Meadows' "Limits to Growth" was published by the MIT Press in 1972. Neither changed policy making in the slightest. The scientific community have been trying to raise awareness about the scale of the challenge since the seventies. The dominant political and economic culture have been collectively ignoring the warnings since then. You're absolutely correct about the solution. Systems Theory/Dynamics as pioneered by Jay Forrester at MIT has grown and matured as an academic discipline and given us an insight into the solution, but it is yet to be taken seriously as a macro level policy tool. The need to transition to some form of Resource Based Economy (RBE) is abundantly and overwhelmingly clear. We are arcing towards the lower curve in your presentation due to greed, inertia, willful ignorance and a preference for the status quo. The sooner we transition to a sustainable, resilient and equitable society the less people will suffer.
Merci bcp pour la traduction en anglais !!! J’habite en Pologne et c’est toujours frustrant de ne pas pouvoir partager tes vidéos géniales avec mes amis non francophones. Merci merci, 1000 fois merci!
I saw a tiktok (i know, grain of salt and all that) about how our soil is actually losing its nutrients, and that that's one major factor in causing the cancers and heart-failures in America today... Can anyone confirm this?
Tilling soil strips it of it's nutrients and starves us of vital minerals we so need. So, yes I guess it could contribute. But whats more, is that we are spraying the farm land with shit like glyphosate and using petroleum based fertilizers. Those two are likely far more responsible for causing cancer. I read an article over a decade ago that listed two reasons for obesity in America. 1) Declining nutrients in our food that causes the body to crave more volume to our diet subconsciously and 2) the addition of refined sugars. BTW cancer feeds on sugar.
We now grow industrial crops on dirt, support structures for plants. Soil fecundity ended with the loss of diversity and introduction of monoculture. An analogy is European settlers and capitalism displacing the 500 indigenous diversified ways of life.
Glyphosate market size was valued at 9.6 billion in 2022 and is projected to reach 14.7 billion by 2030 - growing at a CAGR of 5.3% from 2023 to 2030. Glyphosates are a root cause of soil and human health decline and are not being mentioned much in the msm climate change narrative. So long as glyphosates are on the increase and not front and center of every sustainability discussion then I think these Eco global initiative talks are a waste of time. And these same corrupt and criminal industries will now get wealthy off carbon footprint/social credit currencies.
Around 40 years ago I read "Limits to Growth", and wondered why it wasn't being taken seriously. People told me, we have found ways around limits in the past so we will do it again. Innovation was the way. I thought about this, it didn't sound right, and eventually realized that this was not a scientifically rational expectation, as there is no observable relationship between what was found in the past and what might be found in the future. If you had something and lost it, it is a reasonable expectation that looking might find it. But to expect to find things that are imaginary, is not reasonable. Looking doesn't make imaginary things pop into existence. People were confusing correlation with causation with their expectations of past events repeating. They were assuming they knew what was possible before it had been demonstrated. Science doesn't work this way. But of course, this observation about the matter has run into endless denial, either with words or people silently turn away. Scientists, laymen, it has made no difference. I looked at how people might live if some might be found who would be rational about this. Monetary systems of value are a problem. Abundant things get priced cheaply and people don't conserve cheap things. They reproduce freely on cheap food and shelter. Others pile up money. And over time, they make themselves abundant and cheap and make the things they need, scarce and expensive. The huge amounts of money saved become increasingly worthless with increasing scarcity. You can't buy things that are no longer for sale. How else to consider the situation? I came to realize that we are a highly social species, we live by belonging to a social team and die without it. We all have the naked body to experiment with this if we want. Social teams can have rational expectations about the future, or irrational. They can measure value scientifically or not. And as part of that, it can be observed, that like other animals, we have a requirement for what Prof. Hall wrote about with food energy returned over food energy expended. Food EROEI. A poor ratio of this means death. Not surprisingly, people and animals have strong instincts about such a life and death relationship, we are always looking to get more for less work. But looking honestly at whether a good food EROEI ratio is sustainable, has not been something people have wanted to do. People who accept that we need to change our measures of value to science based ones of food EROEI and sustainability of the ratio, no longer confusing correlation with causation in expectations about the future, and take action to get together and deal with the collapse this way, should have higher odds of survival. They need to learn different ways of getting sufficient food and shelter. It will not work to try and raise children when adults don't know yet how to take care of themselves. And in a situation of severe scarcity, putting less energy into reproduction increases the odds of surviving the scarcity. Animals have been selected for doing this, when we consider seasonal breeding patterns. And the amount of reproduction is obviously a major factor in the sustainability of the society, and has to be something considered on the social level. Another observation about all this, is that voluntary behavior is generally more efficient than coerced behavior. If people don't want to try to make such radical changes, insist on maintain their faith in other ways, then it is better to let them go and find out whether their beliefs work or not. Fanatical reactions in favor of blind faith, could collapse the whole thing much faster, and give those who get out of the way of this, a better chance of survival as well.
The entire economic systems were/are designed against the notion of 'scarcity'. So which people actually more need/rely on this, the capitalists/elite groups or the poor?
I don't see that the designs are working to avoid scarcity, they are creating it. It is something often said in some circles, that you can't have infinite growth on a finite planet, and the major economic systems tried, and are currently in operation, have rejected limits to growth. Both capitalists and communists rejected Malthus' observations, for example. "Limits to Growth", which I mentioned, has also been widely ignored. The struggle between the classes to have more in the face of using things up in damaging ways to everyone, doesn't look intelligent on either side. We are eroding and depleting and sometimes salting soil, cutting down forests, wiping out wildlife on land and in the oceans, spewing pollution everywhere, changing the climate. This has largely happened with some getting rich selling stuff to a growing population who liked what was being sold and didn't question how it was obtained very seriously at all. But communist countries haven't done much better on how their environment has been treated. China made an attempt at controlling numbers for awhile, which was something I felt needed to be done by everyone, but that ended before it really had any good effects, and no question, the demographics can look painful and would be painful. You have smaller numbers of young people and a lot of older people and that would be a big burden on the young. The old need to die faster but that isn't pleasant at all to think of. Growth is like addiction, trying to quit is unpleasant. But continuing can end up in worse situations. When animals lose environmental controls on their population, they grow in numbers, often do damage to their environment, and end up with a dieoff. At least one local extinction has happened that I know of, with the reindeer introduced to St. Matthews Island during WWII. We aren't behaving any differently from those animals. I'm sure some were stronger than others, that there were competitions for food and sheltered places, and a small number did survive the initial dieoff, but no fertile males survived so in the end none of them survived what they had done. And of course, they were animals, they didn't have the ability to think ahead and curb their instincts to reproduce to keep their population within the limits of what the island could support on a long term basis. But humans haven't done any better.
@@arthurcnoll Thank you Arthur for your detailed explanation! I realized that I'd have phrased my wording in other way in my original comment. What I wanted to express is: the entire economic systems were/are designed and based on the notion of 'scarcity'. In your words, they are creating the scarcity instead of avoiding it. This is where capitalism has gone astray in the past a number of decades.
@@Teal_Leadership I have thought about your answer above, though certainly busy with other things as well. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. There is the "notion" of scarcity, in other words people believe the scarcity isn't real, but people are controlling the market, prices are high even though there is plenty of something. And in some cases that might happen, as when someone gets a monopoly. But the scarcity I'm talking about is real scarcity. For example, for all practical purposes fossil fuel is a finite resource, so we have been making it scarcer since the first use of it. Again, I'm not sure which idea of scarcity you are talking about being created. I think we have gone astray with creating real scarcity of a lot of things going back much further than a number of decades.
I cannot imagine this young man's frame of mind! I am 40 years older than he is and I am freaked out! Ironically, in this modern world, ignorance and naiveté seems to be a "blessing".
I would watch this, but I can’t deal with the two vocal soundtracks over top each other. Thank you for the English translation, but could you please turn off the original so the ideas being presented were not lost in the drone of two simultaneous languages?
Our cleverness has been our Achilles’ heel. I don’t blame Eve and Adam for eating the apple. They lacked Parental Guidance as do we, and apparently this is our collective punishment. (God couldn’t be such a jerk like the Evangelicals are okay with.)
He ridicules "survivalists," yet he never suggests what ordinary people should do to improve their chances if their governments do nothing. I don't think he should ridicule the actions of people if he is not going to offer them a better alternative than "write your congressman!" Other than that, the talk was excellent.
15:28 It's hard to argue the lack of evidence for *decoupling* because it IS validated by everyday experience on the small scale. Understanding how all that works out to no decoupling globally relies on following scientific papers (see for instance Tim Garrett's work, which firmly links GDP to emissions). Dynamics like Jevons' paradox, and "externalities" in a global supply chain are not widely known and accounted for.
What succesful exemple of decoupled growth is validated on a small scale ? People are led to believe believe that the "virtual economy" is really virtual. It creates growth, but it needs metal extraction and it needs energy.
The 2 examples I hear often are, increase quality of production and increase amount of services in order to fuel growth without increase resource consumption. While on the face of it sounds credible, it amounts to wringing out a damp towel. Premium products rely on the fact there is a scale of qualities to create supply and demand. If every product was a premium product well what would happen to those that cannot afford it? There is also a quality ceiling before it basically becomes over engineered which is then a waste of resources. The idea that we can saturate economies with services aswell is wrong, wealth is created via resource extraction and processing, services just serve to move the excess wealth created around within an economy and as quite rightly stated, most services still require ‘goods’
Simplicity is not only necessary but inevitable. We are not going to be able to keep living the modern indulgence. Agriculture and cities must be abandoned if we are to survive.
People who live in cities actually consume less resources and co2 than people in rural areas. This is due to efficiency of using less land, living within walking distance of everything, multi unit buildings lose less heat, and running utilities to dense areas are more efficient. Also, less square feet of paved road per person in cities. Statistically speaking, suburbs and rich neighborhoods are by far the most indulgent and wasteful. Agriculture also isn’t bad necessarily, but the industrial, mechanized, mono crop agriculture that is. Take a look at Cuba’s urban sustainable agriculture. It doesn’t use fertilizers and is very space and water efficient, it’s just much more labour intensive due to a lack of mechanization. But it’s a great model to follow, especially in poorer countries in the global south.
@@sizor3ds I dig Cuba’s solutions. They ate examples of what i mean by simplicity. Urban areas are producing rather than just consuming like in the U.S. and Europe. Although personal transport in cities is more efficient resource support requires massive transport infrastructure much more so than rural areas. The land use issue is deceiving for cities in this way. The ecology is a system that works within certain perimeters. Trying to force it into a capitalist economy efficiency model isn’t working and never will. Humans have to live within the ecology we depend on instead of next to it otherwise the destruction of the web of life will continue
C'est toujours bien tourné, instructif, conscientisant, modéré et maintenant traduit. En un mot, indispensable. Mais seulement 28000 abonnés ( oui ce n'est pas si mal...mais si peu). Si peu au regard du bouleversement qui nous attend...d'ici 5 ans, 20 ans...en tout cas c'est déjà en pleine érosion. Le navire "Civilisation industrialisée" est tel le Titanic; tant que nous ne déciderons pas, par milliers, à descendre en salle des machines pour changer le cap nous-mêmes, hurler et tempêter sur le pont qu'il y a un gigantesque Iceberg droit devant ne changera sans doute pas grand chose. Etre Acteur du changement est le chemin qui mènera vers un avenir acceptable.
Western world are fortunate enough to be able to think about solutions to over consumption. But the billions of people who aren't so fortunate, the people there just want to eat 3 meals a day or access to basic things like toilets and adjustable shower. Corporations hunger for expansion and optimized profit will always lean towards the promotion of population increase and enabling that population to have income of some sort for which they see as source of income through the exchange of products or services that mostly aren't essential. I like capitalism and I've benefitted from it as many have. But I think it needs to be capped. I don't see communism or socialism as sustainable as humans are not all equal in productivity, ability and talent. Those who can produce or add more value will want to be compensated more than those who do not, this is a fundamental human mechanism and need. Thus a capped capitalism may be a long term solution. Also legislated limit in having children and also enforcing a permit of some sort so only those who are fit parents and have the financial setup to raise a child can. But since everyone is obsessed about freedom... It's going to be a tough sell.
Yup. He hits the nail on the head here. Let's hope things change real fast because we are running out of time to cushion the collapse. The ecosystems of the world are already in freefall. We have to wake up before it's too late.
The inevitable collapse will hurt those most who have the most to lose in this fake money worshipping system. Those who already know how to get by with little will be least affected. I say push it 'till the wheels fall off and let's get back to how things should be.
I couldn't last passed 3 minutes because of the audio. I'd have preferred subtitles. After that dubbing. But dubbing on top of the original French. It's impossible to listen to. Very sad.
Il y a le 'Crash Course' de Chris Martenson, Richard Heinberg du postcarbon institute, James H.Kunstler et bien d'autres... Mais il reste de la place pour Arthur !
An issue with this is hand waving. Modern society is incredibly complex and inter-related. With respect to different aspects, we are probably faced with different short term scenarios, and different locations as far as where we are currently with respect to the limit curves. For the arguments to have a chance at being persuasive, to me, they need to be quantified into an ensemble of simulations, and various possible ways to aggregate the different aspects into some overall societal quality.
It's system dynamics, of course it's simplified but it doesn't mean it's not relevant. Of course the collapse will unfold differently and at different speed depending on where you live in the world, but regardless the global trend is correct so you know what to expect in a near future. Besides, what you're asking for would be incredibly complex (if not impossible) to properly simulate, and wouldn't add much relevant information.
Someone is not pessimistic? “It is likely that climate change will exacerbate food insecurity in many parts of the world, especially in the developing tropics, but even under the worst-case scenarios (e.g.10-20% yield declines of staple crops, combined with gross income inequality, political instability, and continued high population growth rates), it is hard to conceive how the death toll would exceed tens of millions or, at most, the low hundreds of millions. Of course, a potential death toll of tens of millions is gravely alarming and should be treated with great moral urgency. But I do not believe it is helpful to grossly exaggerate the predictions that have been made. It should also be noted that: (1) Many temperate regions will likely see increased crop yields under future climate, due to warmer temperatures and the CO2 fertilization effect. Depending on the extent of global trade and cooperation, these yield increases could help to partially ameliorate decreases experienced elsewhere. Many agricultural impact projections don’t include the CO2 fertilization effect, due to uncertainty, but in reality this effect will probably help soften the blow of climate change to some extent. (For example, global wheat production may be more likely to increase than decrease; Liu et al. 2018 Global Change Biology1.) (2) Food production and distribution is greatly dependent on policy; it is not an inexorable biophysical process. It is within our current capabilities to produce and distribute enough food for the 10 billion people who will likely be alive in 2100, if we reduce wastage, eat more plant-based foods, increase the efficiency of production, and ensure more equitable distribution. Climate disruptions will make this more challenging, but by no means impossible.” 'For example, over the historical period of global warming, technological advancements have increased yields by 100-200% in spite of any negative impact of climate change. Even if this yield trend were to reverse, the total production of calories might not be affected if economic forces cause more land to be used for agriculture. In other words, if yields were to be reduced by 10% that does not translate directly into 10% less food available. It is likely that the reduction in yield would stimulate increased land use for agriculture. In this example, if 10% more land were used for agriculture, total production would remain unaffected. All these factors would need to be reckoned with before one could make any credible projection of reduced food production in the future, much less a projection as outlandish as “…starvation of 6 billion people”.' climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/
This assumes a simple and calm reaction to the problems of food shortages, as if there will not be unrest and irrational or destructively selfish acts by people. It is similar to the monetary economy, a small contraction can cause a big reaction which exacerbates things many times over. If in a democracy a government moves to restrict food in any serious way, people will likely remove them at the next election, if they force it, you would get unrest and conflict. If it was as simple as reacting in a logical concerted manner to the problem, why have we been unable to do this with climate change or ecological destruction? Also the increases in yields are by no means linear, most of that is from a few technologies, nitrogen fertilisation for example. To plot a progression based on the handful of technologies this increase relies on as if it can be relied upon, that in future we will see similar increases in the same timescale as previously is absurd, to map such a progression in any other matter, with any level of confidence you would need thousands of data points.
4th scenario with higher curve will not be possible if there is even one China alike country that wants to consume/pollute as much as possible to achieve extra GDP growth.
China destroys nature a lot, but they might be better prepared to face these future challenges than the West, because they plan for the future (hydrogen trucks, renewables, thorium reactors etc)... The only country which did the right thing, which stopped growing (because of the oil Embargo) and which mastered population control, sustainable ressource use and non industrial farming is Cuba. People in the West say that their system "doesn' t work', (because it is not based on growth and consumer society) but actually ,they could continue living like they do for a million years if they were left alone.. For the Globalized West, we are not even sure that it could survive the next 30 years. In another model, scandinavians and Japanese might surprise us in the future.. The global Empire will collapse, but there will be islands of environment friendly sustainable technological societies. (Just like in Asimov's Foundation)
@@fathomingtheglobalocean6797 You realize that all those things are CCP propaganda? They need to import massive amount of raw resources just to keep going.
@@chriskoort5717 you realize what you’re saying is Western Propaganda right? Most of the goods manufactured in China are for the western market. We export our jobs and manufacturing abroad but still consumer the same products. We just export our carbon emissions to China. Those excess emissions are OUR emissions. We just hope that by exporting them we can blame other countries for it
We already know how to increase biocapacity with things like permaculture and regenerative agriculture. We are also increasing our general resource capacity by creating new technologies such as solar and wind energy. These allow us to tap into resources that weren't previously available to us and raise our resource capacity. None of these are prevalent because we are not at the point where they are necessary, but once that time comes, which could be very soon, then we will be forced to adopt these strategies. I do not believe a complete collapse is likely. There will likely be hard times, but we will be able to learn our lesson and eventually start to repair what we have damaged.
How do you envision repairing a complete collapse of the oceanic system? The extra heat being added is termed “ unstoppable” by scientists. A few yrs ago it was estimated to be on the order of the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima bombs a day. Now it’s 12 a second ( 1,036,800 a day). The heat is rising exponentially. The Pacific is predicted to be mostly dead by 2030 bc warm water doesn’t hold as much O2. The numbers are crashing. The salmon is now disappearing and mass starvations are happening in almost all areas of marine life including plankton the base of the food chain. Nothing above the base will survive when it goes away. In warm acidic waters only bacteria, jellyfish and algae will live. And that’s where we are going now. Collapse is imminent at this point. Already the bears are starving in the Canadian Rockies bc the protein didn’t arrive up the rivers. It’s all related. Look at the rise in conflicts globally, including 65 M refugees now mostly climate related conflicts. B 2050 estimates are 1 B refugees. We are way past new tech saving the oceans. I only described the heat, not even the acidity which is literally dissolving the exoskeletons of the plankton. A study by Feely et al around ten yrs ago found 53% of the Puget Sound pteropods, a winged swimming snail which is base food for herring salmon and mackerel, were “ severely dissolved. They can’t uptake the calcium to form the shells and bc we are so late in even realizing the scope of the problem, they will go away. Mass starvation is happening. Salmon are going away. People food...going away. Einstein predicted that when the oceans die, we will follow in just a few years. There is no human solution to balancing the acidity of 2/3 of the planet. We don’t have enough limestone cliffs to harvest and the carbon footprint we would create by even trying would make the problem all that much worse. And that’s just the oceans problem. Should I go on about the methane clathrates now being released and which if only 1% of them were to melt double the g.h. Warming on the planet? It’s called the clathrate bomb bc it could happen any day, a massive methane fart, and warming which...well. Dr shakova , a world methane expert, maybe the top scientist in this area, when asked what this means to humanity choked up...she couldn’t answer without that quiver in her voice. Many climate PhD experts are packing it in, finding a place to ride it out. Some feel “ a few breeding pairs might survive in the arctic. Many don’t. Australia is an example of what’s coming. What’s here. 500 million animals burned up so far...and stupid, uneducated voters STILL voting in idiots who, like you espouse we can pull thru just fine.
@@debidaniels2201 I agree. But now. What can we do then? You and I don't have any global impact so should we kill ourselves before living chaos ? Or should we find ways to live, - survive at least - to preserve our families, environnement as much as we can ? Isn't it everyone's lifegoals to find solutions ? Being pessimistic and inactive is being dead inside
My point was that 5 years hard work and you go off and do whatever you want for the rest of your life but then again perhaps you love being stuck in the Matrix😅
This show is completely out to lunch as he fails to convey and state the driving factors causing all the global problems - overpopulation, economics, religions, and highly subjective useless academic and government ideologies that are not based on applied mathematical and logical constructs, principles, and methodologies. This Grade 3 presentation is not comprehensive nor focused on the metrics needed to make any proposed solutions work. This guy should return back to farming three-eye pink penguins and at least make some positive contribution to our global society, near term
Exponential growth does not exist forever, what actually exist are s-curves. Show me one exponential growth, that doubles in a short timeframe, of anything that does not eventually plateau and then I will start to take this seriously.
Do you suffer from attention disorder ? How to take your comment seriously if you have an attention span of 30 seconds ?.... This video mentions that what looks like an exponential is not an exponential... You could have spent 1 minute more watching this video, instead of writing this comment (which took you the same amount of time). Watch the whole video, and come back to us after that, to give your opinion.
Western countries are the one with the larger footprint. One Billion very rich Americano-europeans eating monstruous amounts of of steel, soil, concrete, oil, etc.
Youre gonna write off a 30 minute presentation and translation just so you can tout a pointless illogical comment in a few small words ? Definition of Troll and trash..
![S02 E04 - Collapse : the only realistic scenario ? By Arthur Keller - [NEXT]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kLzNPEjHHb8/mqdefault.jpg)
TRADUCTION ANGLAISE DE LA VERSION ORIGINALE : ruclips.net/video/kLzNPEjHHb8/видео.html
Bravo ! Une version en espagnol et en chinois bientôt ?
@@josselinelemanach7430 xD
Merci beaucoup pour la version Anglaise!
This video should be compulsory to all economic and environmental policy makers.
They would just ignore it because it doesnt align with their dogma. People only want to be told what they want to hear.
Excellent. We are in Planetary Hospice but few know this yet.
It seems that ignorance is bliss.
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
― Albert A. Bartlett
AND more importantly apply it to the multi-variables we face in reality.
But the exponential equation doesn't apply to Boulder Colorado!
@@A3Kr0n bc of Bartlett
This fall marks ten years since Al Bartlett’s passing. What an influential figure he was here in Boulder! Miss him!
@@weboflifeproducts5310 Very cool that you knew him! Best to you~
"We must choose between Champagne for a few or safe drinking water for all." Thomas Sankara
A great man
Brawndo with Electrolytes It's Got What Plants Crave
👏
It’s not even sure we can still guarantee safe drinking water for all ...
@@cg.r6577 clearly sankara knows/knew nothing about ecology and is talking bollocks, like most humans. 8 billion humans is a manifestation of fossil fuels. humans are a plague. the greatest plague the earth has seen or likely to see. like all plagues, the humans will go away very rapidly once the resources that powered it all are used up. unlike other plagues, human cleverness will extend the growth phase at the expense of even greater environmental degradation and resource depletion, making the collapse even more spectacular and violent when it happens.
Human cognitive dissonance is a beast. We should have transitioned to some kind of resource-based economy advocated by Jaque Fresco decades ago. Well, now the ocean thermal inertia is the only cover-up of the locked-up global temp rise combined with the ecological overshoot. If we don't drastically reduce our lifestyle to that of average Ethiopian folk, we will seem never to make it as a species. I agree with Arthur that we're unlikely to change.
I agree. We're unlikely to change. But there's a reason for that. We're taught to take all we can - amass as much as we can. No one was taught with any sincerity that we were harming nature by taking all we can get from our host.
So funny it’s been over a decade at least since I watched zeitgeist and we are nowhere near a resource based economy proposed by the Venus project. I think one thing I realized was that regardless of technology this is a human problem and a problem of humans relationship with nature (which is ourselves in another way)
@@seymourbutts3615 I agree. I just wanted that sentence to exist, while we can still keep the Internet going anyways.
Every single person on this planet seeks to improve their standing and improve their conditions economically and materially. Everyone wants a home, plenty of food, entertainment and clothes, these things cannot be had under a planned decline. People cannot want or need things anymore. This is why our economy is in shambles, the exiting structure is trying to limit the individual’s buying power to not increase their footprint but people want things. They want a car, new shoes, a vacation, children. All big no no’s if they seek to improve the planet or their own economic standing.
Minimalism and rejecting material comforts is all we can do to combat this shit and the vast majority will NEVER go along with it. Which makes me think the world powers will force these changes onto the working class under the guise of economics or whatever since if they came out and said it to our faces, we would never fucking comply.
It's so easy an eight year old could understand it. Yet our entire civilization is based on maintaining the first graph. Utter madness.
Economics -ruling- ruining the planet
@@VFatalis Greed is ruining the planet.
@@seymourbutts3615 classical economics is pseudo science, aiming to justify greed and short term vision; with the help of the trickle down theory, and the bizarre claim that an exponential infinite growth in a finite Universe is realistic.
@@VFatalis GREED is! 🧐 Everyone: Start doing YOUR bit! 🟢NOW.
IT IS GETTING LATE.🌍🔥 BUT NOT TOO late. 🗝👁
@@seymourbutts3615 TRUE in many ways! We can change that... Vote GREEN
next time. 💚 Do your bit!
If YOU would have listened to US fifty-five years ago, WE wouldn't be in trouble NOW.
Lets say I have 10 rabbits. Every year their population doubles which means I can eat 10 and still have 10 left for future growth. Lets say I get greedy and start eating 11. No big deal, I have plenty of rabbits, right? 1st year 10x2=20-11 (eaten)=9 left. 2nd year 9x2=18-11 (eaten)=7 left. 3rd year 7x2=14-11=3 left. 4th 3x2=6 (oopsie).
Now, up to 4th year I thought things were fine. I had my stomach full and life was good. Few less rabbits around but my freezer was always full. 4th year itself was sudden shock- not enough rabbits to eat. I then realized I had a problem BUT I was starving and I had no other option to eat remaining 6. 5th year was game over. We're (as mankind) are entering the fourth year. We are going to have a sudden shock of massive constraints coming in AND we are not going to be in position to change things because we are hungry. It will be violent and bloody.
Believe what you want but bullets will be currency of the future.
These explanations of our possible futures are great. The charts and your commentary illustrate our situation so well. Subscribing and sharing. Thank you.
Thankyou for articulating the 4 visions. Very useful.
Greed is the prime motivating force of our global "deciders". We COULD change course but we WILL NOT because those in power are mesmerized by their own well-being and ascendancy .
Not only that, billions of people will refuse to change. Who wants to voluntarily downsize their life style? Very few if any. Everyone wants to "super-size" their life not downsize.
thank you so much for all this clarity,,
1972: We can manage a slow and orderly planned decline.
2022: Decided not to do that? Now it's every man for himself.
The speaker has not actually given up hope that the decline can be managed, but obviously we have a lot less wiggle room today than we did 50 years ago.
It's an is and ought problem... Eco-communes and bon homie would be lovely.
But history has taught us there are two semi-stable forms of living.
You either band together and create surpluses, or you band together to take surpluses from others.
Rural communities are one thing, but an increasingly metropolitan humanity with no access to their own land are going to struggle unless the state gets things nicely in order...
Three years later and we're still on the path to collapse. It's good to be old.
The fact that this has so few views proves that we deserve what's happening to us. Time to reap what we've sowed. I do feel terrible for the rest of the species. They didn't deserve any of this.
Always amazed that I was born at this pivotal time in human (and of course planetary) history. If Population fell by 2100 by as much as it has risen in my life - 60 yrs, I cant imagine the suffering (thank god)
One aspect of this scenario is the unspoken, verboten, inescapable reality that BILLIONS of those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum will die horrible deaths. BILLIONS!
Not just lower socio-economic ladder. Once collapse occurs, it will be free for all. No more social classes. Anarchy and equal opportunity for violence and horrible death for all. Musk and Bezos hiding out in their bunkers will be a perfectly fair game.
Excellent video thanks for sharing
thank you for posting this. i applaud your effort, in my humble opinion it could do with some better graphics and some reference to citations.
Buckminster Fuller's Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth" was published in 1968. Dennis and Donella Meadows' "Limits to Growth" was published by the MIT Press in 1972. Neither changed policy making in the slightest. The scientific community have been trying to raise awareness about the scale of the challenge since the seventies. The dominant political and economic culture have been collectively ignoring the warnings since then. You're absolutely correct about the solution. Systems Theory/Dynamics as pioneered by Jay Forrester at MIT has grown and matured as an academic discipline and given us an insight into the solution, but it is yet to be taken seriously as a macro level policy tool. The need to transition to some form of Resource Based Economy (RBE) is abundantly and overwhelmingly clear.
We are arcing towards the lower curve in your presentation due to greed, inertia, willful ignorance and a preference for the status quo. The sooner we transition to a sustainable, resilient and equitable society the less people will suffer.
Super je vais enfin pouvoir partager cette vidéo avec mes amis non francophones
La même!
Great in English too! Thanks Arthur!!
Thank you for this, Arthur - excellent.
Thank you so much! Sharing.
Great video ! Thanks for making the effort to translate it to English
can you put more of your videos to english?
thanks
You can tap CC for subtitles.
Merci bcp pour la traduction en anglais !!!
J’habite en Pologne et c’est toujours frustrant de ne pas pouvoir partager tes vidéos géniales avec mes amis non francophones. Merci merci, 1000 fois merci!
I've seen this pattern before. It is the pattern of a drug addict hitting rock bottom. This will not be pretty !
I saw a tiktok (i know, grain of salt and all that) about how our soil is actually losing its nutrients, and that that's one major factor in causing the cancers and heart-failures in America today...
Can anyone confirm this?
Tilling soil strips it of it's nutrients and starves us of vital minerals we so need. So, yes I guess it could contribute. But whats more, is that we are spraying the farm land with shit like glyphosate and using petroleum based fertilizers. Those two are likely far more responsible for causing cancer. I read an article over a decade ago that listed two reasons for obesity in America. 1) Declining nutrients in our food that causes the body to crave more volume to our diet subconsciously and 2) the addition of refined sugars. BTW cancer feeds on sugar.
We now grow industrial crops on dirt, support structures for plants. Soil fecundity ended with the loss of diversity and introduction of monoculture.
An analogy is European settlers and capitalism displacing the 500 indigenous diversified ways of life.
Glyphosate market size was valued at 9.6 billion in 2022 and is projected to reach 14.7 billion by 2030 - growing at a CAGR of 5.3% from 2023 to 2030. Glyphosates are a root cause of soil and human health decline and are not being mentioned much in the msm climate change narrative. So long as glyphosates are on the increase and not front and center of every sustainability discussion then I think these Eco global initiative talks are a waste of time. And these same corrupt and criminal industries will now get wealthy off carbon footprint/social credit currencies.
Je cherche la version française purée !!
Excellent
I was a child in the 70s, and even that young, perhaps intuitively, I knew the moment the Reagan/Thatcher revolution happened, we were screwed.
Reagan/Thatcher was inevitable under Capitalism....
Excellent video, thank you.
Around 40 years ago I read "Limits to Growth", and wondered why it wasn't being taken seriously. People told me, we have found ways around limits in the past so we will do it again. Innovation was the way. I thought about this, it didn't sound right, and eventually realized that this was not a scientifically rational expectation, as there is no observable relationship between what was found in the past and what might be found in the future. If you had something and lost it, it is a reasonable expectation that looking might find it. But to expect to find things that are imaginary, is not reasonable. Looking doesn't make imaginary things pop into existence. People were confusing correlation with causation with their expectations of past events repeating. They were assuming they knew what was possible before it had been demonstrated. Science doesn't work this way. But of course, this observation about the matter has run into endless denial, either with words or people silently turn away. Scientists, laymen, it has made no difference.
I looked at how people might live if some might be found who would be rational about this. Monetary systems of value are a problem. Abundant things get priced cheaply and people don't conserve cheap things. They reproduce freely on cheap food and shelter. Others pile up money. And over time, they make themselves abundant and cheap and make the things they need, scarce and expensive. The huge amounts of money saved become increasingly worthless with increasing scarcity. You can't buy things that are no longer for sale.
How else to consider the situation? I came to realize that we are a highly social species, we live by belonging to a social team and die without it. We all have the naked body to experiment with this if we want. Social teams can have rational expectations about the future, or irrational. They can measure value scientifically or not. And as part of that, it can be observed, that like other animals, we have a requirement for what Prof. Hall wrote about with food energy returned over food energy expended. Food EROEI. A poor ratio of this means death. Not surprisingly, people and animals have strong instincts about such a life and death relationship, we are always looking to get more for less work. But looking honestly at whether a good food EROEI ratio is sustainable, has not been something people have wanted to do.
People who accept that we need to change our measures of value to science based ones of food EROEI and sustainability of the ratio, no longer confusing correlation with causation in expectations about the future, and take action to get together and deal with the collapse this way, should have higher odds of survival. They need to learn different ways of getting sufficient food and shelter. It will not work to try and raise children when adults don't know yet how to take care of themselves. And in a situation of severe scarcity, putting less energy into reproduction increases the odds of surviving the scarcity. Animals have been selected for doing this, when we consider seasonal breeding patterns. And the amount of reproduction is obviously a major factor in the sustainability of the society, and has to be something considered on the social level. Another observation about all this, is that voluntary behavior is generally more efficient than coerced behavior. If people don't want to try to make such radical changes, insist on maintain their faith in other ways, then it is better to let them go and find out whether their beliefs work or not. Fanatical reactions in favor of blind faith, could collapse the whole thing much faster, and give those who get out of the way of this, a better chance of survival as well.
The entire economic systems were/are designed against the notion of 'scarcity'.
So which people actually more need/rely on this, the capitalists/elite groups or the poor?
I don't see that the designs are working to avoid scarcity, they are creating it. It is something often said in some circles, that you can't have infinite growth on a finite planet, and the major economic systems tried, and are currently in operation, have rejected limits to growth. Both capitalists and communists rejected Malthus' observations, for example. "Limits to Growth", which I mentioned, has also been widely ignored. The struggle between the classes to have more in the face of using things up in damaging ways to everyone, doesn't look intelligent on either side. We are eroding and depleting and sometimes salting soil, cutting down forests, wiping out wildlife on land and in the oceans, spewing pollution everywhere, changing the climate. This has largely happened with some getting rich selling stuff to a growing population who liked what was being sold and didn't question how it was obtained very seriously at all. But communist countries haven't done much better on how their environment has been treated. China made an attempt at controlling numbers for awhile, which was something I felt needed to be done by everyone, but that ended before it really had any good effects, and no question, the demographics can look painful and would be painful. You have smaller numbers of young people and a lot of older people and that would be a big burden on the young. The old need to die faster but that isn't pleasant at all to think of. Growth is like addiction, trying to quit is unpleasant. But continuing can end up in worse situations.
When animals lose environmental controls on their population, they grow in numbers, often do damage to their environment, and end up with a dieoff. At least one local extinction has happened that I know of, with the reindeer introduced to St. Matthews Island during WWII. We aren't behaving any differently from those animals. I'm sure some were stronger than others, that there were competitions for food and sheltered places, and a small number did survive the initial dieoff, but no fertile males survived so in the end none of them survived what they had done.
And of course, they were animals, they didn't have the ability to think ahead and curb their instincts to reproduce to keep their population within the limits of what the island could support on a long term basis. But humans haven't done any better.
@@arthurcnoll Thank you Arthur for your detailed explanation! I realized that I'd have phrased my wording in other way in my original comment. What I wanted to express is: the entire economic systems were/are designed and based on the notion of 'scarcity'.
In your words, they are creating the scarcity instead of avoiding it. This is where capitalism has gone astray in the past a number of decades.
@@Teal_Leadership I have thought about your answer above, though certainly busy with other things as well. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. There is the "notion" of scarcity, in other words people believe the scarcity isn't real, but people are controlling the market, prices are high even though there is plenty of something. And in some cases that might happen, as when someone gets a monopoly. But the scarcity I'm talking about is real scarcity. For example, for all practical purposes fossil fuel is a finite resource, so we have been making it scarcer since the first use of it. Again, I'm not sure which idea of scarcity you are talking about being created. I think we have gone astray with creating real scarcity of a lot of things going back much further than a number of decades.
Wonderful explanation. Thanks.
What do we do on a daily basis to resolve this?
You educate yourself and you educate others
Institute planetary hospice.
I cannot imagine this young man's frame of mind! I am 40 years older than he is and I am freaked out! Ironically, in this modern world, ignorance and naiveté seems to be a "blessing".
Everything comes back to the 3ó bell curve
Question is where are we on the curve?
I don’t think we like the answer!
We will need growing facilities for veg and fruit plus lab meats for protein Buildings that remove CO2 with scrubber technology
Oh, on s'ouvre à un nouveau public :)
I would watch this, but I can’t deal with the two vocal soundtracks over top each other. Thank you for the English translation, but could you please turn off the original so the ideas being presented were not lost in the drone of two simultaneous languages?
Our cleverness has been our Achilles’ heel. I don’t blame Eve and Adam for eating the apple. They lacked Parental Guidance as do we, and apparently this is our collective punishment. (God couldn’t be such a jerk like the Evangelicals are okay with.)
we’re fucked
WASF
En plus d'être brillant il est ceinture noire en anglais le Arthur, quelle classe cet homme !
Très bonne idée de diffuser un max...
He ridicules "survivalists," yet he never suggests what ordinary people should do to improve their chances if their governments do nothing. I don't think he should ridicule the actions of people if he is not going to offer them a better alternative than "write your congressman!" Other than that, the talk was excellent.
Organize, educate, agitate. Alone we are nothing, organized we can achieve anything
excellent ! Thanks !
Bonjour, on peut avoir la version française ? merci
TRADUCTION ANGLAISE DE LA VERSION ORIGINALE : ruclips.net/video/kLzNPEjHHb8/видео.html
Il écrit vachement bien à l'envers !
15:28 It's hard to argue the lack of evidence for *decoupling* because it IS validated by everyday experience on the small scale. Understanding how all that works out to no decoupling globally relies on following scientific papers (see for instance Tim Garrett's work, which firmly links GDP to emissions). Dynamics like Jevons' paradox, and "externalities" in a global supply chain are not widely known and accounted for.
What succesful exemple of decoupled growth is validated on a small scale ? People are led to believe believe that the "virtual economy" is really virtual. It creates growth, but it needs metal extraction and it needs energy.
The 2 examples I hear often are, increase quality of production and increase amount of services in order to fuel growth without increase resource consumption. While on the face of it sounds credible, it amounts to wringing out a damp towel. Premium products rely on the fact there is a scale of qualities to create supply and demand. If every product was a premium product well what would happen to those that cannot afford it? There is also a quality ceiling before it basically becomes over engineered which is then a waste of resources. The idea that we can saturate economies with services aswell is wrong, wealth is created via resource extraction and processing, services just serve to move the excess wealth created around within an economy and as quite rightly stated, most services still require ‘goods’
Simplicity is not only necessary but inevitable. We are not going to be able to keep living the modern indulgence. Agriculture and cities must be abandoned if we are to survive.
People who live in cities actually consume less resources and co2 than people in rural areas. This is due to efficiency of using less land, living within walking distance of everything, multi unit buildings lose less heat, and running utilities to dense areas are more efficient. Also, less square feet of paved road per person in cities.
Statistically speaking, suburbs and rich neighborhoods are by far the most indulgent and wasteful.
Agriculture also isn’t bad necessarily, but the industrial, mechanized, mono crop agriculture that is. Take a look at Cuba’s urban sustainable agriculture. It doesn’t use fertilizers and is very space and water efficient, it’s just much more labour intensive due to a lack of mechanization. But it’s a great model to follow, especially in poorer countries in the global south.
@@sizor3ds I dig Cuba’s solutions. They ate examples of what i mean by simplicity. Urban areas are producing rather than just consuming like in the U.S. and Europe. Although personal transport in cities is more efficient resource support requires massive transport infrastructure much more so than rural areas. The land use issue is deceiving for cities in this way.
The ecology is a system that works within certain perimeters. Trying to force it into a capitalist economy efficiency model isn’t working and never will. Humans have to live within the ecology we depend on instead of next to it otherwise the destruction of the web of life will continue
C'est toujours bien tourné, instructif, conscientisant, modéré et maintenant traduit.
En un mot, indispensable.
Mais seulement 28000 abonnés ( oui ce n'est pas si mal...mais si peu).
Si peu au regard du bouleversement qui nous attend...d'ici 5 ans, 20 ans...en tout cas c'est déjà en pleine érosion.
Le navire "Civilisation industrialisée" est tel le Titanic; tant que nous ne déciderons pas, par milliers, à descendre en salle des machines pour changer le cap nous-mêmes, hurler et tempêter sur le pont qu'il y a un gigantesque Iceberg droit devant ne changera sans doute pas grand chose.
Etre Acteur du changement est le chemin qui mènera vers un avenir acceptable.
Western world are fortunate enough to be able to think about solutions to over consumption. But the billions of people who aren't so fortunate, the people there just want to eat 3 meals a day or access to basic things like toilets and adjustable shower. Corporations hunger for expansion and optimized profit will always lean towards the promotion of population increase and enabling that population to have income of some sort for which they see as source of income through the exchange of products or services that mostly aren't essential. I like capitalism and I've benefitted from it as many have. But I think it needs to be capped. I don't see communism or socialism as sustainable as humans are not all equal in productivity, ability and talent. Those who can produce or add more value will want to be compensated more than those who do not, this is a fundamental human mechanism and need. Thus a capped capitalism may be a long term solution. Also legislated limit in having children and also enforcing a permit of some sort so only those who are fit parents and have the financial setup to raise a child can.
But since everyone is obsessed about freedom... It's going to be a tough sell.
Yup. He hits the nail on the head here. Let's hope things change real fast because we are running out of time to cushion the collapse. The ecosystems of the world are already in freefall. We have to wake up before it's too late.
I pray that we are able to stop the collapse from destroying us
Praying might be the best you can do for that purpose
The inevitable collapse will hurt those most who have the most to lose in this fake money worshipping system. Those who already know how to get by with little will be least affected. I say push it 'till the wheels fall off and let's get back to how things should be.
I couldn't last passed 3 minutes because of the audio. I'd have preferred subtitles. After that dubbing. But dubbing on top of the original French. It's impossible to listen to. Very sad.
Not sure if it was added after your comment, but I watched with subtitles.
En français dans le texte ??
Arthur Keller va falloir remettre à jour la courbe 4.
Ce mec est le must de la pédagogie sur le sujet.
Okay, I quit. I tried to make it 3 minutes in but the audio is just terrible.
Malheureusement, je ne comprends pas l'anglais. Est-ce possible de mettre des sous-titres ?
TRADUCTION ANGLAISE DE LA VERSION ORIGINALE : ruclips.net/video/kLzNPEjHHb8/видео.html
c est super qu il est une version anglaise je pense qu en france on parle pas mal d effondrement mais aux final pas assez a l etranger!
Il y a le 'Crash Course' de Chris Martenson, Richard Heinberg du postcarbon institute, James H.Kunstler et bien d'autres... Mais il reste de la place pour Arthur !
An issue with this is hand waving. Modern society is incredibly complex and inter-related. With respect to different aspects, we are probably faced with different short term scenarios, and different locations as far as where we are currently with respect to the limit curves. For the arguments to have a chance at being persuasive, to me, they need to be quantified into an ensemble of simulations, and various possible ways to aggregate the different aspects into some overall societal quality.
It's system dynamics, of course it's simplified but it doesn't mean it's not relevant. Of course the collapse will unfold differently and at different speed depending on where you live in the world, but regardless the global trend is correct so you know what to expect in a near future. Besides, what you're asking for would be incredibly complex (if not impossible) to properly simulate, and wouldn't add much relevant information.
@@VFatalis So in other words, I should just accept the hand waving? Because attempting to get rid of it wouldn't add much?
blah blah blah. pure intellectual denialism/argumentation
c'est la meme video qu'il y a 3 semaines..???
Yep mais en anglais :)
Demography vs. Economy : GREED?
Someone is not pessimistic?
“It is likely that climate change will exacerbate food insecurity in many parts of the world, especially in the developing tropics, but even under the worst-case scenarios (e.g.10-20% yield declines of staple crops, combined with gross income inequality, political instability, and continued high population growth rates), it is hard to conceive how the death toll would exceed tens of millions or, at most, the low hundreds of millions. Of course, a potential death toll of tens of millions is gravely alarming and should be treated with great moral urgency. But I do not believe it is helpful to grossly exaggerate the predictions that have been made.
It should also be noted that:
(1) Many temperate regions will likely see increased crop yields under future climate, due to warmer temperatures and the CO2 fertilization effect. Depending on the extent of global trade and cooperation, these yield increases could help to partially ameliorate decreases experienced elsewhere. Many agricultural impact projections don’t include the CO2 fertilization effect, due to uncertainty, but in reality this effect will probably help soften the blow of climate change to some extent. (For example, global wheat production may be more likely to increase than decrease; Liu et al. 2018 Global Change Biology1.)
(2) Food production and distribution is greatly dependent on policy; it is not an inexorable biophysical process. It is within our current capabilities to produce and distribute enough food for the 10 billion people who will likely be alive in 2100, if we reduce wastage, eat more plant-based foods, increase the efficiency of production, and ensure more equitable distribution. Climate disruptions will make this more challenging, but by no means impossible.”
'For example, over the historical period of global warming, technological advancements have increased yields by 100-200% in spite of any negative impact of climate change. Even if this yield trend were to reverse, the total production of calories might not be affected if economic forces cause more land to be used for agriculture. In other words, if yields were to be reduced by 10% that does not translate directly into 10% less food available. It is likely that the reduction in yield would stimulate increased land use for agriculture. In this example, if 10% more land were used for agriculture, total production would remain unaffected.
All these factors would need to be reckoned with before one could make any credible projection of reduced food production in the future, much less a projection as outlandish as “…starvation of 6 billion people”.'
climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/
This assumes a simple and calm reaction to the problems of food shortages, as if there will not be unrest and irrational or destructively selfish acts by people. It is similar to the monetary economy, a small contraction can cause a big reaction which exacerbates things many times over. If in a democracy a government moves to restrict food in any serious way, people will likely remove them at the next election, if they force it, you would get unrest and conflict. If it was as simple as reacting in a logical concerted manner to the problem, why have we been unable to do this with climate change or ecological destruction?
Also the increases in yields are by no means linear, most of that is from a few technologies, nitrogen fertilisation for example. To plot a progression based on the handful of technologies this increase relies on as if it can be relied upon, that in future we will see similar increases in the same timescale as previously is absurd, to map such a progression in any other matter, with any level of confidence you would need thousands of data points.
4th scenario with higher curve will not be possible if there is even one China alike country that wants to consume/pollute as much as possible to achieve extra GDP growth.
China destroys nature a lot, but they might be better prepared to face these future challenges than the West, because they plan for the future (hydrogen trucks, renewables, thorium reactors etc)... The only country which did the right thing, which stopped growing (because of the oil Embargo) and which mastered population control, sustainable ressource use and non industrial farming is Cuba. People in the West say that their system "doesn' t work', (because it is not based on growth and consumer society) but actually ,they could continue living like they do for a million years if they were left alone.. For the Globalized West, we are not even sure that it could survive the next 30 years. In another model, scandinavians and Japanese might surprise us in the future.. The global Empire will collapse, but there will be islands of environment friendly sustainable technological societies. (Just like in Asimov's Foundation)
@@fathomingtheglobalocean6797 You realize that all those things are CCP propaganda? They need to import massive amount of raw resources just to keep going.
@@chriskoort5717 you realize what you’re saying is Western Propaganda right? Most of the goods manufactured in China are for the western market. We export our jobs and manufacturing abroad but still consumer the same products. We just export our carbon emissions to China. Those excess emissions are OUR emissions. We just hope that by exporting them we can blame other countries for it
WASF
c est pas en Français .......NEXT ! lol
Pouvez mettre un sous sous-titrage en français.. .. s i vius plaît.. j'entends bien parler derrière vous mais c est inaudible.. je vous remercie
Long et besogneux...français. On consomme et on produit du stock au lieu de consommer et produire du flux...
L
We already know how to increase biocapacity with things like permaculture and regenerative agriculture. We are also increasing our general resource capacity by creating new technologies such as solar and wind energy. These allow us to tap into resources that weren't previously available to us and raise our resource capacity. None of these are prevalent because we are not at the point where they are necessary, but once that time comes, which could be very soon, then we will be forced to adopt these strategies. I do not believe a complete collapse is likely. There will likely be hard times, but we will be able to learn our lesson and eventually start to repair what we have damaged.
How do you envision repairing a complete collapse of the oceanic system? The extra heat being added is termed “ unstoppable” by scientists. A few yrs ago it was estimated to be on the order of the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima bombs a day. Now it’s 12 a second ( 1,036,800 a day). The heat is rising exponentially. The Pacific is predicted to be mostly dead by 2030 bc warm water doesn’t hold as much O2. The numbers are crashing. The salmon is now disappearing and mass starvations are happening in almost all areas of marine life including plankton the base of the food chain. Nothing above the base will survive when it goes away. In warm acidic waters only bacteria, jellyfish and algae will live. And that’s where we are going now. Collapse is imminent at this point. Already the bears are starving in the Canadian Rockies bc the protein didn’t arrive up the rivers. It’s all related. Look at the rise in conflicts globally, including 65 M refugees now mostly climate related conflicts. B 2050 estimates are 1 B refugees. We are way past new tech saving the oceans. I only described the heat, not even the acidity which is literally dissolving the exoskeletons of the plankton. A study by Feely et al around ten yrs ago found 53% of the Puget Sound pteropods, a winged swimming snail which is base food for herring salmon and mackerel, were “ severely dissolved. They can’t uptake the calcium to form the shells and bc we are so late in even realizing the scope of the problem, they will go away. Mass starvation is happening. Salmon are going away. People food...going away. Einstein predicted that when the oceans die, we will follow in just a few years. There is no human solution to balancing the acidity of 2/3 of the planet. We don’t have enough limestone cliffs to harvest and the carbon footprint we would create by even trying would make the problem all that much worse. And that’s just the oceans problem. Should I go on about the methane clathrates now being released and which if only 1% of them were to melt double the g.h. Warming on the planet? It’s called the clathrate bomb bc it could happen any day, a massive methane fart, and warming which...well. Dr shakova , a world methane expert, maybe the top scientist in this area, when asked what this means to humanity choked up...she couldn’t answer without that quiver in her voice. Many climate PhD experts are packing it in, finding a place to ride it out. Some feel “ a few breeding pairs might survive in the arctic. Many don’t. Australia is an example of what’s coming. What’s here. 500 million animals burned up so far...and stupid, uneducated voters STILL voting in idiots who, like you espouse we can pull thru just fine.
@@debidaniels2201 I agree. But now. What can we do then? You and I don't have any global impact so should we kill ourselves before living chaos ? Or should we find ways to live, - survive at least - to preserve our families, environnement as much as we can ?
Isn't it everyone's lifegoals to find solutions ?
Being pessimistic and inactive is being dead inside
Eep
We could produce a lot more resources now (2020+). Must farm in the oceans though. Population collapse is not inevitable.
I'd made enough £££££ to live very comfortably off 1970-1975 so stopped work. Help me out, just who is this "we" you all keep talking about?
Try holding your breath while you count your money.
My point was that 5 years hard work and you go off and do whatever you want for the rest of your life but then again perhaps you love being stuck in the Matrix😅
This show is completely out to lunch as he fails to convey and state the driving factors causing all the global problems - overpopulation, economics, religions, and highly subjective useless academic and government ideologies that are not based on applied mathematical and logical constructs, principles, and methodologies. This Grade 3 presentation is not comprehensive nor focused on the metrics needed to make any proposed solutions work.
This guy should return back to farming three-eye pink penguins and at least make some positive contribution to our global society, near term
Exponential growth does not exist forever, what actually exist are s-curves. Show me one exponential growth, that doubles in a short timeframe, of anything that does not eventually plateau and then I will start to take this seriously.
Do you suffer from attention disorder ? How to take your comment seriously if you have an attention span of 30 seconds ?.... This video mentions that what looks like an exponential is not an exponential... You could have spent 1 minute more watching this video, instead of writing this comment (which took you the same amount of time). Watch the whole video, and come back to us after that, to give your opinion.
Tell China and India and leave us alone.
How about you go tell China and India and leave us alone?
You don't seem to understand that *WE ALL DEPEND OF THIS PLANET!*
Western countries are the one with the larger footprint. One Billion very rich Americano-europeans eating monstruous amounts of of steel, soil, concrete, oil, etc.
Us = Western greed, egoism and ungratefulness. Sick world.
Who do you think they produce for ? Wow. Dull much ?
this is propaganda modern malthusian nonesense.
his explanation were a bit deeper than yours. I might choose his side
@@luniqueful enjoy being brainwashed you of low sophistication
@@mrzack888 I guess that's better than being blind of widely accepted facts
Propaganda? More like prophecy. If you think 2020 was bad, prepare for how bad 2021 will be. It's all down hill fellow human.
Youre gonna write off a 30 minute presentation and translation just so you can tout a pointless illogical comment in a few small words ? Definition of Troll and trash..