@jemmre you have a simplistic "this is how it is" attitude. There is no right/wrong when it comes to questions. I would suggest an intellectual pursuit of the dualities in all things thinkable. People often do not know what is best for them. Working in value for nature in our economic situation is a very good temporary realistic approach for our current economic situation. Change takes time. Don't overestimate what 'real people' know and keep learning.
I've always thought about how to bring economics into conservation, but it seems to me that on the individual business level there isn't any incentive to do so. Yes on the grand scale it's much easier to see the cost / benefit, but it needs to be implemented on the individual scale and I still don't know how that can work and... it must work on this level if it's going to work at all.
I think we need to expand zoo's endangered species programs and loosen the restrictions on private citizens keeping them. There was a rancher in Texas who got shut down for importing a herd of endangered gazelles, he bred them to three times the number he brought in but still got shut down, how does that help the gazelle? The Golden Toad was recently discovered and within 5 years has gone missing presumed extinct, they discovered it in a pond with over 500 adults, but left them all!
When the market, a blind an unwieldy behemoth, has not been given the true cost of things it is no wonder when it fails to act with our best interests 'in mind'. While we can propose unrealistic utopian solutions, I believe the first reasonable action we should take to resolve this is to fix the current system. Until we do that, I have little confidence that we can progress to a superior model. Valuing natural capital sounds like a good start. Fantastic talk; well put and thought invoking.
I hope people are finnaly going to have the insight that we need nature and if we don't support it, we all will die! We need nature, nature doesn't need us! Remember that!
It wasn't an ethical choice to chose no coral reefs, it was unethical. Love this talk though, very needed even back then, now in 2023 it's more relevant and needed than ever. This year's El Nino summer is going to beat us up, and we will wish we had done something way sooner.
RED+ and PES, the industry of carbon pricing, have the motivation to avert climate disaster whilst avoiding 'lifestyle' adjustments, that is, without wealth distribution.. The more that strategies for conservation compensation are conceived as 'markets', the more difficult it will be to achieve conservation. These schemes are a license for industry to keep polluting, and find a carbon offset in the 3rd world at a low price. This locks in 3rd world populations. RED and PES only benefit middle class landowners in developing countries and lead to displacement of indigenous and smallholder communities. There is no follow up of what is done with land after paying them, and many landowners don't now conserve until they are paid. What is needed is a synergy of climate mitigation, agriculture, and rural livelihoods with care and love for nature and traditional communities.
This is a powerful idea, but it's been fully fleshed out by free-market ("Austrian") economists and writers. The most natural and just way to valuate natural resources is simply to allow people and private organizations to buy and sell them freely.
well, this is a proper analysis of costs associated with possible deforestation and unsustainable damage to the eco system. And that for a change is a valid argument, in contrast to most of the "omg ze poor polar bears.." kind of crap. Climate change is real and happening, its not the end of the worlds, and it will create both problems for some as well as benefits to others. Putting a correct pricetag on that is essential to figure out to what to do where first.
@WhatAxBrit Stop that. The intro isn't too loud any more. You're wasting a top comment slot that could be better filled by the usual interesting opinions and expressions of awe these videos draw.
as much as I don't like the idea of a "price" on nature, a value a bit different. It's nice to see very quickly what it's worth in some quantifiable means. It it leads nicely to "why is it worth that much". Not a bad idea.
It appears to me that the speaker is looking at the problem in reverse. The problem globally is the violent enforcement of monetary (economic) value of land and nature.
Governments make decisions that drive economies. This is a way to create a cost/benefit analysis when making policies that that address resource based economies. This is a way to bridge environmental issues with economic issues. It's true that capitalism has brought us into the hands of global catastrophe, but the capitalist model will not simply go away. To change a system, you have to go within the system. The problem is misplaced values, in order to deal with that we have to reconsider what we value most, and to do that takes more than an intangible spiritual or emotional connection to the Earth and hoping for the best. The only way to get through to policy makers is to bring the numbers to the table. This man's work is highly valuable. It's not the be all, end all answer, but it is vital.
I'm usually a fan of utopist ideas, but this is so far outside what's even possible that I would argue that we all wasted valuable resources by watching this.
@jemmre but what is "intrinsic value"? people value things differently, value is subjective. prices are useful since they serve as signals coordinating production and consumption between large amounts of people.
@ritchloui By intrinsic value, i mean, the sustenance nature provides us with. Whats the true value in monetary terms of this sustenance that provides us with life? It doesn't and cannot have a value, because it is in its essence invaluable. To give a monetary value to life is to degrade it, we cannot and will never be able to put a price on nature because we cannot afford to under this economic system. Not until the economic system changes can we truly appreciate the value of nature.
Rather than converting nature into an empty value of cold hard cash, I think this kind of thinking can instead transform economics into something less sociopathic. The end result is that "economics" gradually changes into "thermodynamics".
@pedrogregorio I disagree, as more precautions would be taken to calculate and specialize in green-tech (with the smallest carbon footprint possible). There will be more job opportunities. It draws the smaller communities/poorer closer to the bigger communities/richer. At least that's my view on this, I guess we really don't know until we really implement it.
This looks like the beginnings of a Resource Based Economy. Look up The Zeitgeist Movement. Everyone involved with the Occupy Movement should watch this!!!!!!!
@MentalHygieneMusic You misunderstand. He is trying to illustrate, quite competently, that in order to save our ecosystems (and planet), we must understand them in terms of their economic impact in order to gauge where we stand. There will always be a system. How that system affects peoples lives and the planet is the issue. This is a strategy to counteract the negative effects of economics. To change it, we must change what we value, money derived from destruction or...
@pvaultinfish Have you seen Zeitgeist documentary. This is my ideal world, and it completely does away with the monetary system. This talk has some good ideas, im not against what he is saying, i just think that to suggest that we have to put a monetary value on things in order to appreciate them is the wrong way to go. We should appreciate them for the intrinsic value they give to our lives, and the the lives of other species and the ecology as a whole. Nature is not a resource, it is life.
@sweYoda2 aye, I prefer the idea of using reason and logic to manage resources, using Earthship Architecture to bridge the gap between where we are and the Venus Project would be a truly evolutionary step for mankind. Both socialism and capitalism have been failing to protect our future for some time, and putting a price on things essential to our survival is insane imo.
@jemmre but reality is complicated. even if there was universal truths, and there somehow was a consensus, interpretations of how to carry it out would vary. are you suggesting anarchy? what would your ideal world look like tomorrow?
@ThePuffyDuck - I just wanted an answer to the question. He acted like it was so obvious but then never provided any kind of answer What is causing the earth to warm? Its not debatable that the earth is currently in a warming trend and if they are 100% sure humans have nothing to do with it then what is the cause?
@abeismain Why do you avoid my question? I asked you what is causing the earth to warm if not caused by humans. The answer to that question is not "You have not looked at the opposing views" Are you going to brave and attempt to answer the question? Don't attempt to strawman my question and tell me what I have looked at and what I have not.
@hempartist420 Fair enough. Can you give me some examples of models that are better? I agree that Zeitgeist is unrealistic in our current economic and social climate, but it is an example of how the technological advances made by our civilization could be better utilized for the benefit of human and environmental wellbeing. I think demanding that people pay the true cost for environmental degradation is as unrealistic as doing away with the monetary system. What do you think?
@pedrogregorio Free market capitalism is the most brilliant, productive and widespread system, and it drives innovation. Its human nature, it alows us to compete in everything. If this is applied to other things,it could be far more effective in driving policies, as the environment will not be saved, unless there is real incentive. People can protests and cry all they want, but at the end of the day it will only be money that will come to the rescue. Greed is universal, but it can be good.
@lllraverslll You're solution has not only not been tried billions of times every day for just about every problem imaginable, and failed miserably for this particular problem, but also relies on people agreeing with you what is right or wrong. I seriously doubt people depleting the environment pent their fingers and go "YES YES EVIL MUAHAHAH!". Given that the economy is the driving force behind the depletion of natural resources it only makes sense that the valuing system be monetary.
Why click on this video then? This is specifically geared towards those with an interest/stake in the topic. If you found it boring, it's not meant for you.
Good to know you dont understand that information is valuable not matter what topic it is, or who is giving it to you. The lack of interest that new generations show for knowledge is what will doom our future. Kids say: "This is crap, I don´t need to know about natural capital. I´m going to be a doctor or an engineer" Every letter in any book, any word comming out from a studied person´s mouth (Teacher, lawyer, scientist, anthropologist, etc.) that wants to transmit knowledge, is worth to be heard and saved in your head. In this case, this "boring" guy is teaching you how important is nature for us and how it´s degradation can impact economy; people don´t think of that and now he´s showing you that nature does not only have sentimental value or value for the animal species that live ther, but, he is showing you that if it disappears it can bring down all our economical system. Becasue our economy belongs (in some kind of direct way)to this ecosystem in which we live. I´m 21 y/o, I know, not that old; but I have seen that everything they teach you in school, ANYTHING, can be applicated in real life. Also, every word which my teacher spoke is also critical for the future. Don´t see things as boring. I´m also doing my college homework right now, and believe me... I know I will use it in a conversation with someone or in a future thesis. Have a nice day Danielle O´Neal, and remember,every word (written or spoken)counts.
Welcome to the human population crisis the unacknowledged taboo subject that is driving the environmental problems we face. We are 4 billion above the carrying capacity for the human race and still growing. Capitalist economics the driving force of the modern world calls for endless growth to be sustainable at the expense of the environment which is unsustainable. If we are to continue down the path of unchecked growth we need to come up with a better system or face a massive collapse later.
YES! Human overpopulation is THE one single causal agent and until it's properly addressed, no amount of solutions will work; they are not addressing the cause!!
Capitalist economic calculation, resource extraction, production and consumption got us into this situation of environmental degradation, so to use more of the same logic is scary. People know the true value of the the resources that sustain their lives. Real people know nature is invaluable and can not be economically quantified. Only the rich and those psychologically disconnected from the earth would want to put a value on nature. Some times i wonder what planet Capitailists come from?
Hmmm... Mr. Sukhdev is trying to apply our invented score called money to real resources, but what we really need to do is recognize that by valuing our money, it distracts us away from what really matters in our lives and our societies. It's all well and good to invent a way to account for envirnmental losses, but Puma, for example, is not really losing millions of dollars every year. Nature does not literally tax them for the harm they do. So nothing is likely to ever come of this attempted s
@ACANOFSODA Fair enough, you aren't new to RU-vid then. Instead, it seems that you have yet to realize how reality works. Whining and complaining on RU-vid as you and the other fellow are doing, is useless. I simply pointed out this fact when he claimed Global Warming is nonsense and I called him out on the fact that he has most likely NEVER talked to a real scientist, much less looked at the actual data face to face.
He's trying to reverse the effect by using greed and common sense to aid in us to understand how we use the environment, put a value on it, and sell it so that we can economically strive? Our capitalistic world shouldn't hold weight on earth. This guy's "dream" would result in a nightmare. The rich would prosper and the poor will be even poorer.
@jemmre The dude who made the Zeitgeist movies didn't even bother to do basic research (not even a quick google search) for all the topics he covered before spouting out a bunch of CRAP, supported by ZERO evidence (citing barely any credible sources at all in all of those vids) half of which is easily refutable by wikipedia. With such blatant incompetence, why would you trust his ideas in important things like socio-economic restructuring?
@FatalAnimal He is a joke. He really doesn't know anything about Climate science. He's the average ignorant person who goes on websites, reading information that probably isn't factual, and then coming to a baseless conclusion that there is a "controversy" or that it is "debatable."
