I've been following Nate since his days at The Oil Drum. His presentations on the human predicament / superorganism are excellent, but as he himself says - a lot of material to absorb at one time. Julien, you have done a superb job of eliciting Nate's knowledge through your questions. I will be recommending this podcast widely.
Are you familiar with 'The Window of Viability"? It's a theory that says any system can only exist as long as it operates within a certain balance of efficiency on the one side of the window and resilience on the other. If you push the system too hard towards one of these two poles, it breaks. We have been pushing our system way too hard towards 'efficiency' by extracting and consuming our planet's natural resources at an exponential rate and as a result the window of vialiabilty of our system is closing fast.
I'm a grandmother, and my kids in their 30s and all their friends are much more into experiences than buying 'stuff'. They travel to foreign countries rarely (mostly because they don't have much surplus money), and do things like walking to a bothy in Scotland or hire a shepherds hut in the woods for a romantic weekend.
You realize of course that such experiences were unimaginable for people of my generation because such experiences were expensive. Let's not pretend like jetting off to Europe to stay in hostels and walk in the woods is any less materialistic than buying a fast car. It's superfluous consumption no better or worse or more noble than any other. I've done both.
Do you even understand the utter privilege that your kids experience compared to others? The simple fact that they CAN do these things when millions of other are begging for food and water seems to escape you.
Energy is the basis, the foundation of our contemporary civilization. So, our collective priority must be to produce/ over produce and then share energy. Carbon free energy by the people for the people. A new currency.
Nate, your message is so crucial. Since you are in WI/MN area, is there any chance you would do a lecture at WSU or UW-L. If this needs to start as small and grassroots effort, wouldn't it be great to have a pilot program of sorts in a more rural area, and branch out from there? Do you ever have informal public lectures? Say at somewhere like The Varsity?
Merci pour les entretiens... je pense que l'accent, lors du diagnostique, doit etre mis sur la cupidité de certains , on sait que le 1% riches émettent le double de CO2 que la moitié la plus pauvre. Redistribuons la richesse correctement et reprennons notre destin en main
that guy has the whole story!!! no one in the climate change field has all that!! and people just don't understand even what a human being is! we are animals- dependent on other animals/plants- which are all being threatened by our pollution/exploitation! our educational system just doesn't cover the environment ! the only way to shift the economy is via a carbon tax coupled with a wealth tax. we also need to fund the UN so it can become a strong leader in the topic.
A carbon tax & wealth tax would only entangle humanity in the most corrupted and toxic systems we have invented. It will accelerate deep disempowerment and disenfranchisement. You are underestimating how toxic political systems are, and the toxicity stems from a punishment and control-oriented disposition. We need solutions that are focused on what we WANT to do and CREATE, not solutions that are destructive and focused on what we want to DESTROY or GET RID OF. We need solutions that restore self-determination, rather than attacking it. If you damage a person's quality of life and self-determination, they will be rendered incapable of actually making the changes we need. Look at off-grid hippie & intentional communities. Look at people who are very resource-frugal. They live this way by choice, and do it extremely well. Because their empowerment is symbiotic to these changes. Punishing people renders them trapped in urbanized, modernized poverty. They become even more wasteful because they are drowning.
@@markschuette3770 Yes, that is a more sensible perspective & way of measuring it. Determining what kind of scientific discipline is the most useful for identifying what's happening & solving problems. A friend of mine left local politics and is instead focusing on solving the housing crisis by starting a SaS company that helps renters & landlords verify each other, and build positive history. A market solution that does not get destroyed by being in the belly of the beast (politics).
@@anewagora BUT no economy or society can survive without a strong government- so the solution is to mesh both via a great science based educational system- which the usa does not have. these last 2 comments i made to you are just describing my first statement into 2 parts.
I've read recently that this report: "Major Future Economic Challenges" by Olivier Blanchard and Jean Tirole has finally unlocked these topics, they are openly speaking about need to reduce consumption. Unfortunately, I don't have time to read it deeply.
39:40 intéressant la notion d'homéostasie, je viens enfin de comprendre pourquoi la perspective de l'effondrement ne passe pas chez mes amis alors que pour ma part je n'ai eu aucun mal à l'accepter... Simplement parce que je (me) suis convaincu qu'il n'y avait rien à faire et qu'on était foutus quoiqu'il arrive.
Given what has to happen for humanity to address the issue of energy use, it won’t happen. We should be discussing how civilization will collapse and how we can preserve some of it across the "collapse / rebuild" gap (assuming enough humans make it across the gap to build something on the other side). If these were biblical times, Noah would be building an ark. Humanity needs an updated ark to get us across the gap. Otherwise, it’s just gonna be, "Planet of the Apes"
I've been catching hell building an arc for the last 20 years, now I'm more driven by the need to make sure that there's no chance of an arc being viable to ever recreate with my arc, ancestors or descendants, a situation that has such a lack of consideration or regard with intentions to hide truths and take liberties and resources and use them in a way that is so against everything endured to create them. I can't even comprehend how anyone thinks it's even a little bit okay
A pity that the discussions didn't address obscene corporate greed. Some talk of "giving back" to help the poor back onto their feet but not much about endemic extreme wealth imbalance nor building a fairer, more equal, society. Is it because of the US historic paranoia about tyrannical Communism that democratic Socialism gets such a bad press and is perceived as a fictional threat to freedoms ?
It's simply because we can't talk about everything in one hour, and inequality is not a topic you talk about in a few minutes. I agree that this is Central to understanding the world dynamics, it's central in how our system work of course.
Here is a recent video unpacking the cultural myths that are constraints towards better decisions/pathways - along with 15 categories of interventions and wild ideas. Some of questions raised in comments are addressed here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qYeZwUVx5MY.html
"Pour voir les sous-titres en français vous pouvez d'abord activer les sous-titre en cliquant sur l’icône correspondant en bas de la vidéo puis dans les paramètres/sous-titres/traduire automatiquement/FR" -> sauf que la traduction automatique, c'est de la m... si vous voulez un vrai sous-titrage pro, c'est mon métier, mais ça a un coût ;) au passage, merci pour votre podcast
its always a constant fight to maintain justice. but if people ignore the future/science/fairness- they must be defeated and ousted. thats the beauty of democracy it puts in place candidates that have the better solutions- but this one party i'm talking about is more concerned with the present and not the future/next generation. and i assume they are just not listening to the science by choice- but if they have had a poor education (for instance not knowing that humans are animals) they don't know that they are wrong.
High status is looked down on in the primary human cultures such as those of the Kalahari and the Hadza of Tanzania which still exist. So status grabbing is a product of culture not nature
Disagree, many species have a hierarchical social status structure, no money or resources at stake. And the entire great ape family, that we’re the most common member of, are fairly brutal about establishing who’s in charge. Chimpanzees and gorillas will kill their own just to prove the point.
Pour voir les sous-titres en français vous pouvez d'abord activer les sous-titre en cliquant sur l’icône correspondant en bas de la vidéo, puis dans les paramètres/sous-titres/traduire automatiquement/FR
Pour voir les sous-titres en français vous pouvez d'abord activer les sous-titre en cliquant sur l’icône correspondant en bas de la vidéo puis dans les paramètres/sous-titres/traduire automatiquement/FR
This guy is extremely smart. Great ideas, only problem is people are very lazy , they’re so used to having everything done for them , everything provided for them. That’s where the anarchy will start, in fact I think it’s already begun… unfortunately.
Nate Hagens is great. But trying to influence leaders to reform and "bend not break" will not work I am afraid. Entire society, from individual to corporations are screaming for "better life" - i.e. exponential growth in use of energy and resources. That cannot change until collapse. I am afraid Nate's efforts will be futile.
Agreed. But the desire for a better life is beside, or in addition to the point. No human will willingly sacrifice any part of their own material advantage, simple human nature. As collapse progresses the lower classes will be increasingly sacrificed so the upper class can maintain it’s own material advantage. Already well underway.
Nuclear has serious problem too. It supplies only fraction of world electrical needs, and needs decades of planning to scale up. Uranium is very limited resource, and if world ran only on Uranium reactors it will use up all available uranium in a decade or less. Breeder reactors promise to extend that fuel, but how many breeder reactors are functional? Thorium may be better, but it's already too late to scale up Thorium reactors. Fusion is way way out maybe never. There are no viable fusion reactors as of yet and may never be viable.
@@springer-qb4dv my understanding is that there is more uranium being found than was initially thought. Furthermore, I also understand that we can extract uranium from salt water. As you suggested, we can reprocess spent fuel to extract the remaining fissile uranium and plutonium to further extend the fuel. Then we can breed more plutonium from the non-fissile isotope of uranium along with thorium. So yes, it isn’t absolutely simple and it will require a diversity of reactor types and a proper fuel industry but at the end of all of that development, you have a nuclear powered civilization that can grow and thrive for thousands of years.
Fantastic podcast endeavoring to solve our huge problems of human greed and thoughtlessness, hopefully we can turn the ship around and live happily with beautiful mother nature itself, not against her. However as well as you I'm not so optimistic. The old Hippies of the 1960s talked about the exact same thing more than 50 years ago including putting an economic price on resources but the capitalist growth juggernaut now has one thousand times the momentum of then. Lets hope for the best, it needs huge world political leadership, courage and change which also surely includes reducing human numbers to a sustainable level and vast reforestation. Come on everyone, lets do it for our children's sake, but to see how Greta Thunberg is demonised gives me little hope.
Nate, you should start seeing reality: that most people will prefer to die rich than adapt to scarcity. And of course, no discussion about overpopulation, why are you afraid to say the truth?
political government is separation from God's leadership, which provides substantive choice needed for organizing peoples and nations into God's free will kingdom
It is okay but he seems only interested in human futures and ignores the 70% of mammals lost in 40 years and all the others species lost and destroyed. Seems a very middle America view, which I guess it is
