Wonderful podcast, Nate. I agree with Mr. Grantham. You are doing a great service to the world. I have learned so much that is helping me create a regenerative soil presentation that covers the many challenges we are facing and how regenerating our soil, as well as our communities will change our future. Thanks so much. I plan on hearing your 300th podcast and beyond.
"We have created a world that is hostile to life", this wise man said. That is the best summation of our current predicament that I have ever heard. It is everywhere all around us yet our global decision-makers either ignore it, deny it, capitalize on it, or obfuscate the reality to their own financial or political advantage. It truly feels like the wealthy and powerful few who have the resources to make a difference are so intoxicated with their own privilege that they have abandoned their own rational faculties. To the detriment of all.
Part and parcel of molochian natural dynamics within the source code of nature. Why should they care, they are hard deterministically in their position and the suffering, pain and misery as a result is well cosmically an illusion as the universe is indifferent to all life so why care?, none of it can ever change as its hard baked into the source code of nature itself that has self-selected that outcome indifferently.
Yes, and we are all guilty, on various levels, and degrees, by virtue of being human. Except for an exceptional minority. I'm not one of them......this in reference to your quote.
@@dermotmeuchner2416 You may be correct. It's a debate thats been going on for centuries. Many scientists now think we have no true free will. I'm inclined to agree.
I've listened to many interviews with Mr. Grantham, and this is by far the most in-depth, compelling, detailed and insightful so far. I'm middle aged, no kids. Since I was a pre-teen, I sensed that humanity was turning this planet inhospitable. This conversation at once confirmed my concerns and informed them with actual data, and provided a certain measure of hope. Thank you both and I look forward to the next 300+ interviews.
This was a really cool episode, especially because the PoV was a little different than usually. So many intellectual environments become a little too bubble-like despite no one being at fault as likeminded people obviously come together.
The beginning of Jeremy’s answer to the very first question provides a vital insight. The way that the world is set up rewards narrow, instrumental thinking, and not, generally, the more expansive perspective of which he speaks. Until that changes, we’re in trouble.
American/Western society focuses workers and individuals on being good at one or a very few things. Having more Jack of All Trades (or more freedom of thought) allows for better arrays of perspective and would reduce tunnel vision and nurture innovation, which the global predictament desperately needs.
Excellent in depth interview. Very impressive work, Nate. I appreciate the variety of guests and informed points of view as well as the quality of the conversations. A light of sobriety in the dark ocean of frivolity.
A brilliant interview - an epic journey - a delightful man. His words of wisdom at the end regarding purpose were spot on! And, Yes...1 billion + 1900s life-style consumption level.
Its interesting to me how all the arguments around resource depletion, and economic bubbles, and complexity bubbles, revolves around an unquestionable assumption. That is: how can we all continue to live our type of high consumption life in the face of a rapidly approaching seneca cliff in many pillars of our industrial society. Its as if we can't see that human beings don't need to live a high consumption life in order to be happy, healthy, and connected to a community. In fact, just about all lifestyles in the past consumed no fossil fuel, yet they were able to live healthy, happy lives. In many ways the native Americans lived healthier, happier, more spiritually satisfying lives than we do, and they had no debt, no metal tools, or even horses. They didn't have hot showes, but they adjusted. Why is it so difficult to concieve of a non-industrial or at leadt limited industrial based society where production of most things is done locally. Our ancestors lived this way, yet its inconceivable to even consider. "Its too hard" many would say, but I guess those people have never been homeless. Living in a house without automatic heating and running water is far superior to living in a tent under a bridge. The bottom line is, the days of our high consumption, just in time, lifestyle are numbered. If we don't pick a new, low cost, low consumption lifestyle, then karma will pick one for us, and it will likely be very unpleasant.
Using the same material and labor we could expand the lifecycle of products ten fold. If we quit following fashion we could add another ten fold savings. we could cut out wasteful packaging. Open lending libraries for tools, and other specialty. Lifestyle need not suffer. Learn to cook from scratch. Grow a garden. Let your lawn go to weeds. Recognize that golf isn't a game but a mental disorder....
Remove all oil related products from your life, see how difficult that is, try it yourself, it's fairly difficult. No oil based paint, no synthetic fibres, no plastics, you aren't going to have a lot left. 50% of people are alive because of fossil fuel produced fertilisers. I don't think there is a problem with providing people shelter, basic food and medical care, free and them not work, it's relatively easy living and emissions would be way down if they didn't have a way too over consume with all that time off, but then you have broken the whole economic system. If new debt doesn't get entered into with home loans etc then nobody gets any pay rises, personally I'm fine with that too. We are born into a monetary system that controls the schooling system so we become good employees, so we can get into debt making others billions, that we pay with our lives. We are taxed another 50% of our lives while we think we have freedom..
@@antonyjh1234 Thanks for the reply. I have reduced my use of oil based products by a lot. I live in an off grid cabin. I heat with my own wood, I rarely buy new industrially made things and buy used as much as possible. My ecological footprint is less than 20% of the avg north American. I buy food in bulk and make my meals from scratch. I also grow more and more of my food each year. Because I built my home on a shoestring and put up with discomfort for a while, (I lived in a tent on my land for 6months), I don't have any debt. The interesting thing is, my expenses are now less than 20% of what they were when I was in the rat race so I now only have to work 10hours a month for money. My life is much better in almost all ways. The bottom line is, life is way better when you move away from the fossil fuel based industrial economy and move towards a life where you can do more with less.
Sure but the fossil based economy is what provided you the access to your off grid cabin. Without it you wouldn't have got what you have and it's not a post fossil fuel option for the majority of people and if they drive more, are they really less of a footprint..? I used on average 4.07kwh of electrical energy during the July to Sept quarter, that's winter in Australia and where I am it's been comfortable and I can walk to three supermarkets easily, one major hardware store and two different shopping centres with banks etc. Now, In a gallon of diesel there is 40.12kw's and in a litre 10.6kw's, so a gallon of diesel roughly has the same amount of energy as ten days of my electrical energy, I can stay home in the comfort of a city, with hot and cold running water, a toilet that flushs away, when I have the air con going 24/7 like I do now summer has started it's still less than a litre of diesel a day, If you don't drive then sure but ten days of somebody living in a city, with a fridge running, a tv running every day, a computer, all of that is equal to one gallon that you might need if you live off grid. I have cut my driving down dramatically but for you to say you have moved away from the fossil fuel based industrial economy I think is incorrect, I would say your life depends on it as much as anybody else. My point is life can be very cheap, in cost and energy wise, while living in a city, I wonder though if you are putting price as your indicator instead of the value of the energy your lifestyle emits, wood is still energy, just because it's cheap doesn't negate the affect. @@braeburn2333
Your Jeremy Grantham interview might be the best ever of him anywhere, and it proves that he is much more than just a grumpy Cassandra for impending meltdowns. If the other "Finance Bros" had a scintilla of his depth and empathy, the world would be in much better shape.
He's talking about robbing Peter (the living planet) as he did, to pay bunches of Pauls (himself included - immensely) to eventually get around to paying Peter back. Does the balance sheet end up with Peter in the clear, even with the best of intentions? I highly doubt it.
To paraphrase this conversation a wee bit, I would say that it is obvious that the "well-to-do" have been "circling the wagons" around their own privilege for decades. They have been aided and abetted by a government which extolls the virtues of democracy and claims to be a nation that is "OF, FOR and BY the People", yet does the diametric opposite. The herd-like passivity of the American citizenry must be one of their proudest accomplishments.
I often wonder if democracy was ever a real thing or just a mirage to make us feel like we have a modicum of control. Athens was just as warlike as Sparta after all.
@@DavidMarcotte-xx1nw Mirage. Read The Tragedy of Industrial Civilization by William Ophuls, who Nate interviewed around a month ago. He skewers mass democracy completely.
People are products of their surroundings. You probably don't give a second thought to filling up your car with a fuel that foreign families lives have been destroyed over. It's not an attack, just a realisation that what we call normal, or well to do, is a subjective term.
Every now again I come across a treasure that enlightens and inspires. This is a real example. Thank you Nate & Jeremy a 2 hour gem that I will share widely 💎🌍🙏
This was an awesome episode, it really made a difference to me! Nate you are incredibly talented in bringing core issues to the table in a way that doesn’t shirk the hard stuff. Please keep going, technology and attitudes change, sometimes quickly 🌈🙏
Hi Nate. It would be great if you could interview David Wengrow, the co-author of "The dawn of everything" along with the late David Graeber. There is an underlying teleological notion of human history that really holds us back.
What is the "underlying teleological notion"? "Progress" is used to describe the changes in human organization....from cave man to city dweller. But what are we "progressing" toward?.......very large scale transformers of the earth's crust, who are also working on turning over their duties to the silicon-centered (not carbon-centered) AI?
@@johndavis2399 We have 'progressed' towards the evolutionary imperative of occupying all available habitat. Abundant energy has allowed us to reach our current population. For all our vaunted cleverness and reasoning, our collective actions are behavioral.
@@johndavis2399I think we are progressing towards ecological collapse. What I mean with underlying teleological notion is seeing the present as Destiny and everything that happened before as a path toward that Destiny.
Wow!! Incredible podcast. Just amazing information and perspective. And unlike alot of podcasters, Nate adds so much and even pushes back. Love the dissection of american "capitalism" and the degradation of the social contract. Indictment of financial sector (hedge funds, PE firms) and the lack of value they create is so underappreciated and undiscussed. And causes of wealth gap and inequality. It is amazing to hear a rich guy talk about this stuff! And knows about glyphosate and other chemicals and cares. Love this discussion. at about 2 hours, finally says he is optimistic! Best podcast all year.
One of the main reasons the birth-rate is falling in many countries, and especially in Asian countries is because it's too expensive for young people to have kids. Education is very expensive and kids are sent to kindy as soon as they can crawl, then they're in education , perhaps well into their 20s. If a young person can barely afford to rent a place, let alone buy one, you don't seriously think they'll be thinking about having kids. Many are stuck at home living with their parents - little to do with a toxic environment.
IMO, this is a solvable problem, if and when society decides to put a priority on it. Undoing chemically induced infertility seems like a harder problem.
So you really don’t think that rising inequality driven by techno neoliberalism and older generations sequestering fossil energy wealth isn’t a problem ? You need to think things through a bit more. BTW I agree with Nate 100% , his guest, not so much.
@@barry28907 "solvable problem" you say. Not if you are one of the young people struggling to make it in intensely competitive asian society which require 996 work week or working three jobs at same time just to get by.
It's great that Mr Grantham acknowledge part of our predicament, we need more of that. However, I don't believe on any of his solutions. Geothermals means going on the Mordor path. AI? Enlightened government? HAHAHA! Saving ourselves through our ingeniosity? Adding yet more complexity? We don't need green venture capital or philantropy, we need to SCALE DOWN, small is beautiful! Nice pushback on the subject of Debt Nate!
I disagree that a carbon tax is necessary. I think rationing is better. Why? Because the rich can pay the tax and continue to consume, while the poor can't pay the tax unless the Gov. gives them some sort of UBI so they have more money. I'm not sure how rationing would impact the production part of the system, though. Rationing makes all the money of the billionaires useless. Dr. Steve Keen got there a year before me.
You think the rich, the ones whom make the rules, are going to enact policies that level them to us repulsive peasants? Absolutely no chance. They’ve mastered propaganda, and the vast majority don’t care enough about science/our global predicament to care enough anyway. Everyone has their own interests/struggles, and with such a plethora of short form media to consume it’s extremely difficult to blame them in being misled) to research what actual scientists are showing us. People sometimes ask if you think we are heading towards ‘1984’ or ‘brave new world’, my answer to that now is we’re living in the brave new world(ish) atm, but are heading towards 1984. Explanation: everyones so easily led by their social media, fascism seems to be the narrative the media owners (and their elite circles) are trying to indoctrinate the masses with currently. We’re in a post truth era already. Rapidly worsening. Double speak and trickery when answering questions, intentionally misleading followers with no recourse when caught. The slippery slope is getting slippier and steeper at an alarming rate. Tech is getting to near indistinguishable levels of realism with cgi, faking any human say what they want. I’ve noticed an uptick in old videos/photos used to push a narrative in supposedly current events. Everything is moving so fast that when these agencies are called out, nobody cares because it’s so rampant and nothing gets done anyway, why bother? Or the agency caught us in line with their personal ideology so they think the people highlighting the trickery is fake news/the enemy. Had a couple beers, probably completely wrong and rambly, just fancied venting.
You are correct that rationing based on need is proven better by history. We didn't tax compliance during the second world war we simply rationed the limited supply based on need. We did this because the government knew rationing based on wealth would cause political backlash to the war they couldn't afford. The same is true with the current crisis. But this guy is a member of the wealthy class that wants to keep it a wealth based system which works for him and his class.
I agree there is no point in taxation because it always goes back to the rich in different subsidies. We should end all subsidies and start letting the free market rule
I have been following Mr Grantham for more than 15 years. Huge fan of his work and thinking. I am quite disappointed by some of his comments (and omissions) in this conversation though: -Massive amount of global debt has no impact / is not a problem. No clear explanation of why that’s the case ? No appetite to educate you Nate or the viewers on the subject. -No discussion about the recent issues with offshore wind, for which Jeremy has been an advocate for many years. -No mention on the potential role of Nuclear in greening the economy -Share buybacks are toxic and should be banned while dividends are fine.. Cliff Asness would go mental there.. -Praising the US venture space while criticizing US capitalism. American capitalism is far from perfect but isn't it the main reason for the US attracting so much talent and doing so well in innovation/technology ? -what would you do with a magic wand: “have the global population become 1 billion”... So basically getting rid of 7 billion of the least productive/ingenious/relevant people in the world? Worth a watch anyway ! And thank you very much Nate for the amazing work you are doing with your podcast ! 1000 episodes is within reach :)
I know a simple way to make corporations act responsibility. License all upper management in the same way engineers or doctors are licensed. If the company breaks laws, or acts unethically then the managers (CEO, CFO etc) will lose their license and career. This would protect shareholders too. You might call it the shareholder protection act.
@@chookbuffy Yes, very true. Thanks for the reply. I got this idea after listening to plumbers over the years. If you ask a plumber to violate the codes, they will yell at you:"I can't do THAT, I would lose my plumbing license. ". I thought to myself, I wish politicians and corporate executives would stick to the law (especially the constitution) the way plumbers stick to plumbing codes.
Good idea though despite my snark remark Basically we need new corporate governance. Whilst my own shop/farm business is very small we are looking to form a collective with other like minded businesses around us. How we can fight the system (and not each other) will be the test
Or it would kinda be like it is now with licenses where it just becomes a good ol boy club and the people they like get licenses and the people they don't like don't.
I think most people have no choice but to just survive and play along in the only game they're handed financially and so this seems to all rest on the morals and selfishlessness of the rich to want to make change with THEIR money for the sake of others. Jeremy himself said that he only serves HIS family and friends and he is one of only a handful of billionaires willing to contribute anything at all. I just don't see any change for the better on the horizon until the playing field is somehow leveled to the point that money itself plays no role. Can we all agree that we've passed the point of realization that money itself absolutely needs to be scrutinized as literally "the root of all evil" rather than the idol of self "success"? Society worships the very people who through their lifestyle do the most damage across the board to earth and ALL of it's inhabitants.
FIAT CURRENCY is the "root of all evil" 👇Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money www.fgmr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Howard-Buffett-explains-sound-money-4-May-1948.pdf
Eisenhower had a 91% income marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Pretty sure Eisenhower isn't fingered as a commie by the fascist right wingers. But using the tax money of the rich to fund the military is totally different than funding tree-huggers.
I like how Nate mentions “esprit de corps” with regard to horniness, polite conversation reaches new limits! Animals don’t breed in captivity, that’s what’s happening to humanity. Population decline is the single most hopeful development in our time. The only problem (and it is the only problem) is the lack of imagination by economists to see this and use this trend to get creative for a more just society.
Another TGS episode that is a great public service, and Grantham is impressive in many ways. But I'm disappointed to see someone with so much money, experience, intellect and influence espouse ideas that are utterly incompatible with the latest climate systems science. The revelations by Hansen, Simons et al 6 months ago (peer reviewed and published just last month) render Grantham's plans for 2050/2100/2200 irrelevant. I was in the cleantech investment camp too ten years ago. Now I see it as hopium. If +5C is baked in, "We're running out of time" is a less than honest summary. "We ran out of time" is more like it, and encouraging society to double down on "green" startups and VC investment meets my definition of insanity.
This is the best comment so far. The rest are hopium addicts looking for their next fix. I think Nate is sipping on hopium lately with most of his guests.
Agreed, he's in the GreenTech quadrant of Holmgren's Energy Descent scenarios. Nate tried to lean on him a bit but was too deferential imo. Especially on the debt as claim on future income and resources.
If it's only 5c plus we're getting.. ALL IPCC RCP pathways include large scale Carbon Removal as a prime means of "solving" climate change. David King has explained a lot about that - even if Sir King is a hopeful when it comes to solving the issue. However, there's no way we can remove the waste product CO2 in a cheap way. It will cost billions, while it doesn't do noting about emissions and doesn't do climate change going haywire. Most likely, as Simons' research points out that sulphur is effective as a way to decrease temperatures (as temps went up after shipping stopped emitting the stuff resulting in decrease of reflective clouds), most likely, China will start projects to inject cloud causing substances in the atmosphere. China is the major power that will feel the greatest effects of climate change first, and it's pretty autocrat, able to just do things it wants to do. Its manipulation of rain showers around the 2008 Olympics are well known.
Nate can I suggest that you host a person called Sheldon Solomon? He's an experimental existential psychologist. His thinking has strong intersectionality with human induced climate change. Consumption, having to always be the best at everything, constantly having to achieve and all of this as we become more isolated, more mentally and physically unwell, more unhappy. Mindless meat puppets he calls us :). I think he speaks to the very reason we can't turn this around. He would make an amazing guest in your podcast !!!!!
why does everyone want "cheap" energy??? that will just mean more of the same! what we need is Expensive Clean energy to "force" us into a sustainable lifestyle.
Because "cheep" is easier to adopt and has less consequences for the impoverished citizens. "Expensive" solutions will just cause stationary momentum and/or consequences for the most vulnerable citizens first.
1:19:49 This is the critical foundation to any form of non-authoritarian community, peolpe who act with awareness, respect and honor do not need countless rules and punishment to enforce decent behaviour. I try to not unncessarily make someone elses time on this planet worse primarily out of self respect because i need to be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror
I like what you said but perhaps an amendment is now becoming necessary. To be a good human has often been defined by how we treat other humans. It is gross hypocrisy to not include all beings and the environment that supports them. By that standard all, absolutely all modern consuming humans have no possibility of not failing that mirror test.
Thanks for this Nate and Jeremy - lots of juice in this one. I am a retired architect , having spen the latter 20 years in green building and teaching part time. I became aware of the emerging field of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and believe it to be a very powerful tool to help us tread more softly on mother earth. I hope you will consider interviewing some of the experts in this field to examine the LCA landscape.
I agree. This is one of the essential tools that is missing from public discourse on the poly crisis. LCA includes environmental, social and economic considerations. People are talking about Photovoltaics as a major part of the solution. One recent report here concluded that Rooftop Solar could produce 245TWh here in Australia. That would require 500,000,000 Solar PVS panels generating at full capacity for 14% of the year and would require massive storage, if it is assumed that each PV is rated at 350W. The problem with this idea is that PVs have a life of 25 tears and that would require the replacing of 20 million PVs each year ad infinitum. A LCA ON Solar PVs would have to work out the full environmental impact of disposing of 20,000,000 Solar PVs per year and that is just for Australia. THIS IS SIMPLY ENVIRONMENTAL VANDALISM THAT WILL NOT SOLVE OUR PROBKEMD. IT WILL MAKE THEM WORSE.
I thought he was instead suggesting that a cultural transition to a different model was necessary before we could operate sustainably, but this is not in the offering for the near term, not that perpetual growth / infinite growth was a good thing.
@@greenftechn What other model, there isnt one.. There is capitalism and there is not capitalism, sustainable/green policy is just capitalism re-badged (see cop 28 for details) Grantham doesn't even know what he's peddling
Jeremy Grantham's contention that debt (including the debt financing of infrastructure projects) doesn't amount to a claim on future resources was so unexpected and ridiculous. He stated it almost like an article of faith, then refused to explain why he thinks it's true.
It's funny that Jeremy goes for 2 hours about the need for a minimalistic lifestyle, then as soon as the "What about the financial sector greed?" question is dropped, he explicitly ducked the answer. He's in the industry. And deep inside, he knows. We will not make it. We're just too greedy. Humans will burn every drop of oil that can be grabbed from the Earth. And we'll deal with the climate consequences the same way we deal with all other issues in life: reactively. Not proactively.
Nate and Jeremy, thank you for an incredible discussion on such a huge variety of topics, especially the observation about the impact of the extraction and usage of resources not built in to the cost. Like the cost of disposing off the waste from fossil fuels, computers, cell phones or cars not being built into the price of the car. Of course, the biggest problem with this is that we would take that money and just blow it up on something else. Maybe approaching it in a psychological way might help. We all seem to love competition. The current competition is on how to increase per capita consumption worldwide. If we can change this to per capita usage of resources efficiently, then we might get somewhere. For example, over 95% of the energy of most car rides in the US is wasted is transporting the weight of the car. Countries that are putting resources into public transportation infrastructure will eventually do better, because they are reducing this 95% waste by the use of busses and trains. The key is to try to measure the amount of waste we produce individually, and to try to keep reducing this on an individual basis. I don't know if we will ever do this. I think there is a rosier chance of the Browns winning 5 consecutive Super Bowls than of us getting there.
Wow! Yet another AMAZING talk. Stretched my mind, made me smile, inspired me. And I suspect the same was felt by NH? 1,000 TGS episodes, you can do it! And we are here with you on the journey. Thank you for celebrating purpose and keeping me inspired!
Amazing discussion. So much to unpack from what was said. Please do a 10 part series on that whole "getting the population down to 1-to-2.5 billion" thing... It's looking more and more like a managed nightmare in our world and on the planet. Crisis cults are everywhere and it seems like flames are being fanned from all directions. Please don't stop, Nate!
Grantham presents as a warm hearted humanist grampa figure, but that malthusian side of him was pretty eye opening to me. Really enjoyed the interview Nate, have listened to it several times commuting.
Unfortunately, modern Capitalism runs wild and free, on the "ideology of the cancer cell". The difference between Mr. Grantham, and many other very smart people on Wall Street, is his value system. Too bad his is so uncommon. When I traded stocks I found it super easy to get carried away with greed, even though I shared his values. Temptation is a powerful thing, and we see where we're all headed because of it. I look back with regret with how intensely it captured me. Update.....I think it was Edward Abbey who I quoted.
He's a techno-solutionist who can't absorb the fact that debt financing represents a claim on future energy, or that civilization is itself a heat engine that's in the process of raising the climate to levels that won't be able to continue to sustain modern industrial society. He might be a little more enlightened than the other capitalists you mention, but not a lot.
Nate is at University of Minnesota that does huge Monsanto "research" - I single-handedly protested Monsanto at the "State of the University" Presidential address attended by the University Professors. That was in 1999. Genetic engineering protest disrupts address by Josh Linehan Published October 6, 1999 As University President Mark Yudof highlighted a year of progress in his State of the University address last Thursday, an outspoken student took a view contrary to the president’s and publicly voiced his discontent. During the question and answer portion of the address, graduate student Drew Hempel questioned Yudof directly about the University’s involvement in genetic engineering. Hempel said the University is out of line in continuing research into genetic engineering of crops without full knowledge of the problems and benefits it might bring. Hempel also distributed about 40 copies of the “Dis-orientation Report,” a self-published paper alleging University abuse of power and funding. “I disagree with your premise, and I disagree with your conclusion,” Yudof said then. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Gary Muehlbauer, a wheat and barley molecular biologist who works as a genetic engineer for the University, said the University is an acknowledged leader in the field. While he thinks care must be exercised in the area of genetic engineering, he does not support postponing research in the field. “I think in certain cases genetic engineering can be very useful. We do have to take some time and decide where it will help and where it will hurt,” Muehlbauer said. The British Medical Association recently called for a moratorium on genetically engineered crops, which Hempel highlighted by carrying a sign advertising the decision. “Over 237 countries have called for a ban on genetic engineering, but, for some reason, the University has taken it upon itself to be a leader in the field,” Hempel said. Research persists at the University - as opposed to most European countries, where the practice has been halted - because of large private donations by corporations, Hempel said. In September, the University received a $10 million gift from Cargill for a microbial and plant genomics facility. “Basically, public universities have become extensions of large corporations. They donate $50 million biotech centers so they can get free research and then wait for the patents. They can’t stop without giving the money back,” Hempel said. “The University is a public, nonprofit organization. It should be democratic and operate toward the public good. This hasn’t happened in this case.” Harvey Sarles, a professor in cultural studies and comparative literature who attended the address, said that while he disagreed with Hempel’s methods to attract attention, he did agree with some of his message. “There is room for criticism of genetically engineered foods. Europeans, in particular, are rejecting the idea and refusing to buy our genetically engineered crops,” Sarles said. Sarles agreed that the University should slow down its research until the positives and negatives of the process and its product can be sorted out. “It involves quite a lot of money,” Sarles said. “I’m not sure we shouldn’t go ahead, but there needs to be more discussion on the subject. If protesting the address leads to that, then I guess a goal was accomplished.” Talk is cheap - if people do protesting they're not gonna be a billionaire or even a professor. hahahaha.
Thanks one of the best interview and guest ive seen not to say any are bad ive enjoyed most even if the content wasnt good news . But good information never the less . Thumbs up
Great postcast, thanks Nate. I like to say The Odyssey, by Homer, together with the Iliad, are the basis of Western literature and as such show us men and gods, adventures but fundamentally the human soul of the heroes. In BkXIII:256-310 Athene reveals herself, from The Odyssey (Athena is the one who accompanies and helps Odysseus throughout his journey) Odysseus, king of Ithaca, meets Athena, he shows himself as a young shepherd and asks Odysseus where he comes from, Odysseus tells him a lying adventure. She laughs and reveals herself to be the goddess Athena, the bright-eyed goddess, Athena, smiled at his words and, touching him with her hand, altered her form into that of a tall, beautiful woman, skilled in all the glorious arts. And she addressed him with winged words: “Even if a god found you, he would have to be cunning and cunning to outsmart you. A resolute man, subtle in advice, never tired of intrigue and fraud, even in your own country you will always be full of the cunning and lies that you love so much."
I do tithe to my yard-we put in a six acre tall grass prairie, and are changing the rest of our 9.3 acre property into a pesticide,Herbicide, synthetic fertilizer free place into a native plants natural area. Growing insects feed the flora and fauna. I share my projects to the master gardening community and whoever sees and asks about my project. Yvonne in Oklahoma
When government is slow to respond, then the individual effort may impact other individuals to join the effort and grassroots efforts can make a huge change person to person to community….
I posted a frame from the video on FB. My older cousin biologist Dr Keith Brent OBE comments: "Yes the insect drop is a big worry. How does it happen. Is it insecticides, traffic fumes, CO2, disease pathogens ? Are all insects equally vulnerable ? Does it vary between regions ? We urgently need to know much more in order to stop it." Personally I doubt traffic fumes, unless nitric oxide, but can read 'other pollutants'.
I don't question the genuine interest of both these gentlemen in energy realities & the environmental catastrophe - and appreciate Mr Grantham's knowledge & thoughtfulness - but he is one of the sector of people who have contributed the most to the collapse of the biosphere, not only with their childish greed but with careful, consistent & successful efforts to fully subordinate governments all over the world to the power of the super-wealthy, super sociopaths. This process has *guaranteed* that there would never be any effective work to prevent climate change. Grantham professes shock at the lack of concern of the finance set about environment. If that shock is genuine, he must be a very poor judge of character. In any case what shocks me is how people like him assume that there will be a reasonably functional society in 20 years.
I still haven’t changed my view that the best option is to increase all my consumption while I still can and be as wasteful as possible now before they don’t let me.
While there is some short-term self-optimising logic to it, it doesnt seem to fit into a 'good ancestor' narrative. Future me might regret it if I took this approach. All the same, I think I understand where you are coming from.
Very interesting podcast. The argument about the relationship between population and debt changes depending on which paradigm you embrace. I suspect JG is still assuming status quo in the structure of the global economy works well into 2100. Young people pay into pensions for the aging population. That’s a big assumption around investment and again, the same, uninspired approach to how the global economy might work in 70 years and beyond. I’m somewhat skeptical. We are more than likely to form economies that fit more into local contexts.
I would really appreciate it if you would preface these interviews by allowing your guests a short few minutes to describe their normal everyday lifestyle so that we can perhaps decide whether or not to listen to them lecture on how to solve the world's problems. This is not to be cynical, you must admit that it's a valid request
Fill in the blanks, just the normal things people with a 100 000000+ do, breath, eat, drink , shit and sleep.... and ponder about bubbles, which BTW is likely very interesting..
This has been very inspiring to me as someone who's just turned 70 I like to think that my best years are still ahead and I'm going to roll up my sleeves and get doing stuff, maybe even start a RU-vid channel on how to convert your gas car to electric
About the debt thing. I think the correct analysis is, debt is not a claim on future energy. The INTEREST however is (which is of course caused by the debt).
There are few things more satisfying than writing down an equation that no-one has seen before, and it is easy to devote one's time to working out its finer technical consequences. But the world is mostly too complex and interactive, as well as dynamic on many time scales, to comprehend in that way. As a topical example, there is still an argument over whether warming is primarily anthropogenic or driven by natural cycles - 70-250 years have been mentioned. Even statistical significance as a criterion has been under attack. The trick, maybe, will be to find a way of containing that complexity robustly without depending on evidence whose generality or narrowness of scope renders it brittle.
I was going to say we can solve climate change without AI, but lack the willingness to collaborate at the level needed to do that. Also it's possible that AI finds a solution and not enough people are willing to follow through on that plan. But then I realized I don't know what it means to solve that problem. What counts as a "solution"? Not keeping the rise over pre-industrial levels below 1.5 C , that ship has sailed. Not keeping people and species from dying out, because we've had species loss and millions of humans have died prematurely from the heat alone. If humans survive but we still trash the environment, will that be seen as a solution?
I read that book. Have you read Professor David F. Noble's books? He didn't get MIT tenure since he exposed their machine scams. His book "The Religion of Technology" is a classic.
Purpose: To confront and speak the truth, while never having my spirit broken. Never become a slave to an unjust and destructive society. To protect Gaia, her biotic communities and Her dedicated people. To reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world. To prevent needless death. To find a way, or make a way to end this Ecocidal slaughter. To apply pressure toward justice for the Earth.
@Nate Hagens - please can you do a frankly expanding on the brief debt and 'moving income through time' conversation @38mins. As always, found this hugely insightful and enlightening. Jeremy's angle seemed interesting, so I wonder if you could do an explainer for those of us who don't have a finance background?! Many thanks.
Yeah debt - I'm more on Grantham side of things. European nations through history, have encountered numerous debt problems, mostly thru war, sometimes by extravaganza from kings and popes who thought they could rule everything including themselves not having to pay off. All through time these debt loads have settled, and rare are the occasions that over 50% was actually paid back. It didn't even need to result in the indebted nation falling from power. You'd need to invite an expert on how the debts caused by Napoleon's wars were settled. Both winners and losers went on to rule the 19 century and become colonial empires. Of course, that also was the age of Industrial Revolution with energy use increasing by the year, but the point is, those debts weren't really resolved. I'm pretty sure, those billions of national debt of Western countries are going to be rearranged in some way, even if some (Europe mostly) will not come out on top after, whereas those endowed with resources, like US, Canada, Russia, some in the global South and of course, China, will just go on their business - at least, as long as resources can sustain a decent level of economi. When things go for decline and climate problems build up, better take cover, but at that point, debt will be a minor concern . Resource constraints themselves, power over resources and war, will be central, as they always have. As Helen Thompson eluded about Hitler, he didn't fight Russia für Lebensraum, but to get his hands on oil around the Caspian, and get close to middle east resources and trade routes.
Here’s a difficult but needed perspective. The problem IS the “economy”. The economy is a machine that concentrates energy and resources and efficiently consumes them. It can’t do it’s opposite (restoration ). A parallel “economy” is required that is specialized to restore in equal measure. This is the work of Dr Delton Chen and the resulting recommendation is Carbon Quantitative Easing and the Global Carbon Reward. It’s a new perspective on the future of humanity and our ability to steward the future of the Living Planet.
'debt' I think JGs view on actual goods, instead of the monetarist view of debt as time shifting, is the more helpful one for understanding the economy.
I remember when milk was delivered daily to our homes in glass bottles by a milkman!! It was NOT a difficult time in my life!! The plethora of the results of overshoot have been an unrecognized problem. I read Rachel Carson about fifty years ago and have been doing this retirement project since then when I was about 19.
The problem is how you disperse the income. Dispersion may be a better word than distribution, if for example we set an overall criterion such as 80:20. In theory the 'market' can micromanage dispersion, but in an AI world there appears to be no market. Is it even acceptable (stable, sustainable) to have exactly 20% rich at high income level, and 80% all at equal low income level?
I appreciated hearing Mr Grantham's systemic point of view, although when he expressed hope in a (possibly) cost neutral machine that turns corn stubble into biochar I began to feel uncertain about the depth of his logic. Although corn stubble can technically be used in situ as a biochar feedstock it is relatively low grade (but hey! If you are narrowly defining the problem why would you not look at such a so-called 'solution').. However Grantham doesn't question why the cornfield is even there (such that there is even an economy of scale to warrant the manufacture of a corn stubble biochar machine) in a world of energy constriction and lack of present human psychological ability to do the humble and already well-known work of re-generating Earth's carrying capacity.
The answer is eating garbage . The health of the developed world fell sharply with the introduction of seed oils in the early 20th century and subsequent development of the processed food industry (sugar, wheat and artificial dye in everything). Namaste 😎🦋
I literally ate garbage for 10 years in Minneapolis. I also ate tons of organic garlic and cilantro to offset the garbage - also tea tree oil!! And i bicycled 10 miles a day everyday for 10 years.
The world consumed per capita more calories than what is recommended for a healthy diet but we have record amounts of obesity and people still starving. The problem is distribution and an equitable share imo.
@@antonyjh1234 yes and a lot of empty calories that are addictive: sugar, fructose, salt, alcohol, vegetable oils... All those as "quick-carbs" spike glucose levels causing obesity. Caffeine also messes up the glucose levels - not as bad but overall yes.
Wasn't really the point. The point is we have more than enough calories produced before we start eating garbage. This is consumed calories and not produced and there is a lot of waste in production before we start reprocessing garbage@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
All of these conversations would instantly become irrelevant as soon as governments are forced to simply STOP KEEPING EVERYTHING SECRET so that everyone can know the truth and facts about everything. Once the people have all of the correct information I believe they would INSTANTLY change their ways and direction to the right path of existence and conservation. It's that simple. People need to be shown the negative effects of overconsumption and waste which is currently necessary for the capitalism machine to continue which keeps the Jeremys of the world extra comfortable.
Government transparency and the stories we tell ourselves are separate issues. The former is used to cover up crimes, the latter is a function of our cognitive biases.
This was a really good episode! Roundtable with Jeremy Grantham, Steve Keen and Gary Stevenson could be something? How do we fix a broken economic system?
How can Jeremy Grantham propose to ban synthetic chemicals when the "green venture capital" projects he proposes we sink tens of trillions of dollars into undoubtedly rely on the use of such chemicals?
It makes me more of a neo-Malthusian every day! Most people simply do not realizes how they, as individuals, contribute to the problem. In essence, we are fouling our nest...the only nest we have...we are totally dependent on Nature...our air, our water, our soil, and other natural resources!
An additional significant contribution from this episode, thank u to hear JG out at length! One issue with the ‘Magic Wand’ response; Kevin Anderson, Paul Beckwith recently in terms of his Podcast highlighting OXFAM study underlining “Obscene Inequalities Between Global Rick and Global Poor’ as ‘Root Cause of…Climate Mayhem”. 50% of the global population is responsible for 8% of emissions. 10% for 50% of the emissions…so, how about this thought exercise? Suggest reducing to 1B and greatest ‘magic’ impact so long as the reduction in population was proportional to the contribution to over all emissions…so the top 10%, middle 40% (contributing 45% to emissions) ostensibly would be wiped out as well as most of the 50% but that only contribute 8%….that is, its seems it should be by now perfectly clear, its NOT population per se, rather, the lifestyle, social and political construct since the 1800s that, yes,both enable population growth in the first place but industrial processes unsustainable from the beginning that are highly concentrated in a very small %, according to OXFAM, of the world population.
What about when Africa is almost half the world population in 80 years? You could cease all consumption for the 10% now and it would just transfer to those other 8 Billion. Isn't it better for the planet if the 10% consume so much that the 90% don't? * Africa and the poor people around the world, give them five dollars more a day and they double their consumption..
Indeed, so much waste of resources. So much careless handling of energy, materials and products by relatively few. The amount needed to alleviate poverty and harshness of life is much less than the average westerner consumes let alone the most wealthy.
The matter is the generation of carbon, my friend, what Oxfam is implying that that bottom 50% however much they’re consuming they’re only generating 8% of the carbon. That is they could even consume more and still be a fraction of the problem.
@@antonyjh1234 No because 10% over consuming has a knock on impact to the work and lifestyle options/choices of everyone below them chasing unsustainable expectations. The activities of the poorest become more destructive when a basic standard of living and education how to make less materials and energy go further isn't facilitated effectively and efficiently.
@@ericritchie6783 Yes getting a job can be a disastrous thing.. I'm joking but that's the reality and the problem. People having jobs, then earning money, then able to spend it. More money then isn't the way forward. I'm not sure how consuming more, is going to lower the level of destruction overall? Surely you are just judging third world by how it looks and not total consumption which would correlate to destruction, just that it would elsewhere, like Ghanaians produce cocoa but have never tasted chocolate...getting the finished product back to them is going to cost more environmentally.
I really believe the framing of the "climate" issue is the problem. It's framed in a way that creates division. When Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol to deal with the Ozone depletion issue, it was a specific, pollution created issue that we supported. BUT IF it had been framed differently it would have failed completely. If the scientists had pushed a global warming or global climate emergency agenda back then, the Ozone agreement would have failed, and the planet (and all of us) would have suffered. If you want to have clean air, clean water, clean soil, vibrant and healthy oceans that aren't radioactive, then let's reframe the issue as a "pollution" issue. And let's create incentives that empower decentralized approaches to this. For example, regenerative agriculture could be incentivized.
The Ozone depletion issue and the "climate issue" are quite different, despite the frequent use of the comparison in support of various arguments. Most strikingly, the ozone-depleting chemicals -- CFCs primarily -- had relatively few uses and there existed ready-to-deploy alternatives which were championed by the very producers of CFCs. Greenhouse gazes on the other hand are tied to energy conversion and to food, steel and cement production, essentially activities which are at the origin of 100% of the economy (Nate explains better than I can, how these activities only amount to a few percent of the GDP, but nevertheless support EVERY single aspect the economy). Hence the ozone issue could be and was addressed as a "pollution" issue, merely disrupting (and ultimately, stimulating!) a tiny portion the economy, whereas the climate issue is so systemic that it requires a war-like economy, with all the planning, government "take over" and general acceptance from the public this entails. How can one frame such an issue and foster the necessary public acceptance? I do not know, though I'm afraid that equating it to the ozone-depleting pollution might give people the wrong impression: that of a mild, sectorial, switch with virtually no impact on the public.
@@marcveillet2589 I think you missed the point. It has nothing to do with the Ozone example I provided. It's about what can actually happen politically, what can be achieved. If you choose to continue to splatter science upon those who have built a bunker against it, you lose, they lose, we all lose. You cannot forcefully "educate" people who believe you are a liar. Not you as a commenter, "you" as in the proponents of a large scale government solution. So my idea, is to find a way to isolate the variables, attack specific components of the problem that have broad political support, and get victories where we can. Will it be enough? That is a stupid question, because if we don't agree at all on the problem as it is now, then we will see 0% action. Just look at the treaties. Hilarious. So let's take victories where we can get them. Subsidies for regenerative agriculture would be a great start.
There isn't any "framing" that will get people past the massive reductions in standard of living which "de growth" will entail. There's no comparison with CFCs, the scale of the problem is entirely different. I think the only hope is carbon free energy coming online and the population collapse the guest is discussing.
The person on the street has to change...knowing where wealth really comes from...not from banks, not from Government, not from employers, but from our environment. It appears that the only way the problem will be resolved is by negative feedback influences...civil strife, war, poverty, and environmental degradation. These are extremely effective means of controlling further demands on the environment. Most people do not realize their individual role in this. Wars are fought by people simply wanting what other people have
Another interesting added factor to our Climate Change is volcano eruptions I just watched Wyss Yim : Volcanic eruptions and climate variability podcast by Tom Nelson 🌋🕊🌏
Another superb addition to TGS. But the idea that debt doesnt matter is easy to disprove. Without debt, we would not be living beyond our means. Imagine, back in the old days, a timber merchant going to a bank to get a loan to cut down a forest to make planks. The bank had to have that money in gold to back up the loan. With the severing of money creation from the physical world in 1871, now when a bank agrees to the loan, they are guaranteeing to give the timber merchant money they don’t have, against a guarantee from the timber merchant that they are in no position to make. Both parties are technically committing fraud. And the result is massive limitless resource extraction and living beyond our means.
Creating money out of thin air obviates the need for debt. Nowadays banks have capital requirements. They don't need gold or deposits to issue loans. Unlike a currency issuer, loans issued by banks carry with them a liability. Loans that don't get paid back are recorded as a loss against the bank's capital.
@@bumblebee9337 when banks make loans, they create the money as credit. Therefore there is now no financial limit to resource extraction, which is why we've maxed out every resource.
@@markkelly4804 There is a limit to how much banks may loan, but there are other ways to raise funds, so the sky is the limit, which is beyond the Earth's capacity to repair the damage being done. And we have to consider the scale of human activity. Half as many humans eating the planet would mean less damage, regardless of how much credit is used to fund projects. Essentially, we're consuming resources as fast as we can, but for the existence of artificial scarcity, which limits the purchasing power of people in lower income brackets.
@@antonyjh1234 A bank is not allowed to use customer deposits under normal circumstances. Bad loans come out of the bank's capital. There is talk of a 'bail in' system in case of a bank run. That is just criminal. Relative to the size of the money supply, of privately held capital, how significant is private debt? Bankruptcy laws allow for some leeway, for some to live beyond their means for a time, but that has a small impact on overall consumption. If there were less inequality, less wealth concentration, consumption would soar among the masses.
@@antonyjh1234 When a commercial bank issues a loan, it doesn't use the money from other people's accounts directly, it extends credit, creating a deposit in the borrowers account. This process creates new money within the economy. So exponential claims on limited resources, allowing us to live beyond our means. See TGS episode with Josh Farley.
Not necessarily, unfortunately its generally the same difference when habits of consumption will not be changed. Especially by the ones who consume the most given how they effect the behaviour of the rest.
