Completely. The interviewer just could not grasp that in the midst of a crisis you respond to your visceral emotions we do not decide to engage in a cogent argument with the fire brigade about whether or not to put out the fire in your home, or the paramedic to stem your spurting blood!!
Hallam is a sophisticated thinker. He is absolutely spot on wrt the scientific facts on the ground which Robinson does not understand and decides not to sufficiently care about. This lack of scientific education at this place of the BBC is astonishing and its effects are lethal.
If we all stop oil tomorrow and do all the things this is ne individual demands he would just blame everyone for some other thing .. he wants the world to suffer and die just to say he's right it's pathetic the law of attraction
The lack of gravity in the voice of the interviewer makes me feel that he's treating this like an interview about a conspiracy theory. It's insane. The interviewer has to know something about the subject and connect in an emotional human way. We need a climate scientist like Peter Kalmus taking the position of interviewer on the BBC, not one of the spokespeople, knowingly or not, who has been taught and trained from pre-school years to act in a predictable manner. If the interviewer had at sometime broken out of the mold of his directed training, he would not now be doing this job at the BBC (as Noam Chomsky has pointed out in a previous interview with a household name on the BBC akin to Nick Robinson). He has the job because he's a 'safe mouthpiece' for the established elites. To a large extent this reminds me of the Hardtalk intervew with Stephen Sackur that Roger Hallam did in 2019.
the senior Westminster journalists who end up as political editors of the BBC etc. are trained to treat the Westminster psychodrama as real politics, not whatever happens out there in the real world, which is just backdrop to them
The previous interview by a household name with Noam Comsky was of course Andrew Marr,who subsequently left the BBC as he felt he wasn't at liberty to express his own views rather than those, I'm guessing, of the producer who was whispering /shouting in his ear through every interview, and who now (Andrew Marr that is,)expresses his own views, which, to be honest, I haven't heard many of , due to my lack of interest, but those I have heard are pretty MoR by modern MSM standards, i.e. akin to someone on the right of the Labour party, or maybe the Lib Dems. It seems too much to ask of anyone that has worked for the BBC that they ever agree with, or even engage with, in any seriousness, any point of view that is radical, progressive or in any sense threatens to bring some enlightenment to the vast majority of their audence.
You don't need to be a Flat Earther to know when a Flat Earther has no evidence, nor is interviewing them anything but entertainment and some interesting psychological studies.
I heard about climate change for the first time in 1988 when James Hanson made his warning to congress in the USA and nothing was done about it. Roger Hallam is right and we have very little time.
Amazing how the interviewer 100%help proof Hallam‘s point exactly. Robinson is advocating a method we have been very unsuccessfully 24:18 tried in the last 50years : beeing nice and lying about the reality of climate collapse.
Without emotional engagement no political protest movement can function. Roger asks the public to emotionally take the collapse of Industrial Civilisation seriously. To just frame an intellectual story about the human existential crisis is to normalise it and make it part of the problem.
Women dominate voting and that is what they want. If a politician talks about overpopulation, they do not get elected. Old ladies hate population talk for obvious reasons, their survival depends on the denial.
This quibbling in the face of extinction is one of the stages of grief. Obstinate denial may just be a phase people have to go through, but it won’t save us.
A question that allways crosses my mind when I see interviews from you: Did you get in vontact with the teachings of Jiddhu Krishnamurti? I often see such an alertness and readyness to brake the thinking-boxes of the people you talk to. Plus such phrases as "all the rest of it" wich feel like hammered into my brain by so many speaches. This way of thinking is what fascinates me about you the most. Thanks a lot for all you do.
I'm glad I started watching this channel because it clears up the argument for me. At it's core, it is the moral question. Do we as humans have a responsibility to each other as humans? My answer is no. If a poor person dies because I didn't save them then I did no wrong. I never had a responsibility to them in the first place. I want to live in a society we all contribute to. I will not live in one where we are all responsibile for each other. Im a good person and I dont care about. Being a good person doesn't require caring about all people.
This shows how people differ, and to what extent they are able to adapt to factual information and engage completely with facts. It also shows an inability to extrapolate and visualise what a horrible future we're on a trajectory to create. Laughing it up or smirking, whilst in the full journalistic knowledge that crops (our food source) are failing around the world, that floods are destroying communities & infrastructure, and human displacement & human life is being lost at scale already, is sociopathic if not psychopathic. How else could you describe it!?
For what it's worth, the Canadian Club of Rome intend to write to all Clubs, who in turn will write to all science academies. The academies will be urged to approach all governments and impose a mandate on further subsidies, exploration and drilling.
IMO The blind greed of the few is the problem . Greed selfishness and jealousy changes people's view of the world , for example living in a tent in London is a lifestyle choice ......
As an ex-Leninist, I always felt I was morally in the same room as anti-statists (who generally called themselves anarchist and libertarian). There's something to be said for a good wage and pension. I think that Lenin was in awe of Kropotkin. I'm comfortable with the last Archbishop of Canterbury nowadays.
Hope? To quote A E Housman, "hope lies to mortals and most believe her...." The world needs concerted action by humanity but I don't think it's going to get it.
I'd like to speak to you about what I can do to help allocate power/agency toward this issue in a broad sense. I'm extremely curious about your perspective. A huge amount of this is support systems. I have less time to allocate to these issues because I have to make sure next month I can still also focus on these issues. It's weirdly mid-long term, and that interacts with out systems of growth which wastes our efforts on things that are creating more problems. I've not carefully chosen my words as much as you as I think it limits the sharing of conception. That had caused me to alienate maybe 2/5 of the people I've interacted with. Carefully chosing your words is interesting but limited because we have Type 1 and 2 thinking. I know you're probably thinking "That's nonsense and not important, take direct action" but counterpoint: we want to optimize the amount of agency dedicated toward this issue front loading as much as possible but also ensuring that agency remains allocated there for as long as it needs for our survival. We have to consider the depth of ourselves and those around us as systems and that means talking about bullshit sometimes, I've seen a billion interviews from you but saying the same thing over and over genuinely has diminishing returns. The conception of your "audience" has evolved and the depth must with it. As much as this is a horrible emergency we need that depth to address the issue long term. Also: not from UK, this is a world issue Also: we must act in good faith, we can't let our "statements" to the world be misheard, regardless of our reasons for making them. We have to fight in earnest to not just be heard but be understood
you can't "persuade people by a cogent argument", the science says that's not what happens. having a nice chat about abrupt climate change is the placebo.
The shows host is incapable of understanding. He cant acknowledge the science or any perspective. No facts count, no emotions hes a complete nullity. We are all going to die because of this type
The fact is, many, most people will never understand what is happening. Ever, even as they succumb to starvation or wet bulb or whatever it is. That's, I think what Roger is trying to get at. We can't rely on smug arguments and coaxing.
The world needs Hallam right now. He’s pulling the alarm bell and cutting through the bs to the main issue at hand and how we should all feel about it right now
Watching this depressed me for ages. It seems like liberal centrist dads have a lot more of a problem with engaging with this than old-school Conservatives. I have heard both Michael Heseltine and John Major say it is totally morally unacceptable to sit back and watch billons strave to death, but no other politicians. I wouldn't have expected that at 19, but I suppose I can understand now. A telly program getting Nick to connect emotionally would be really powerful, I wonder if he would ever do it. But just I terms of his job, it's really odd he didn't seem to think the interview would go this way, given its typical Roger style.
Go Roger! Absolutely it. I wish you had been able to reach the public 20 years ago. I believe in you and I am going to keep on campaigning with you. Deepest love ❤
"If you scare the pants of people, that is not going to work"......Just leave people in with their dreams and distraction, leading to disconnection, that is going to work???
Wow...this one's heavily edited, isn't it? That cut after you've told him that he'll go to court for treason is an interesting one. Would you mind telling us which part of his reaction we don't see here? Thanks so much for everything from Berlin, dearest Roger!
This is the BBC’s refusal to emotionally engage with the truth in a nutshell.
It is a direct result of mass formation.
Completely. The interviewer just could not grasp that in the midst of a crisis you respond to your visceral emotions we do not decide to engage in a cogent argument with the fire brigade about whether or not to put out the fire in your home, or the paramedic to stem your spurting blood!!
Oh my god Nick Robinson’s smugness over this issue makes me sick but he proves exactly Hallam’s point about the political/media establishment.
The BBC smug? Surely not.😂
MANY THANKS AGAIN ROGER🙏🏻... It's a moral fight/human obligation, simple...🧡💚
Hallam is a sophisticated thinker. He is absolutely spot on wrt the scientific facts on the ground which Robinson does not understand and decides not to sufficiently care about. This lack of scientific education at this place of the BBC is astonishing and its effects are lethal.
Roger is facing up to reality.the interviewer doesn't have the guts to do the same
Roger is not facing up to reality too, that there are 7 billion too many fire pests.
It’s not Rogers problem, it’s the world’s problem. It’s darn serious.
Or as James Hansen would say - ''...A Big Fucking Deal.''
If we all stop oil tomorrow and do all the things this is ne individual demands he would just blame everyone for some other thing .. he wants the world to suffer and die just to say he's right it's pathetic the law of attraction
@@Worldsfuckedbett you never ever talked to a person from just stopp oil or XR
This is the movie "Don't Look Up" IRL
The lack of gravity in the voice of the interviewer makes me feel that he's treating this like an interview about a conspiracy theory. It's insane. The interviewer has to know something about the subject and connect in an emotional human way. We need a climate scientist like Peter Kalmus taking the position of interviewer on the BBC, not one of the spokespeople, knowingly or not, who has been taught and trained from pre-school years to act in a predictable manner. If the interviewer had at sometime broken out of the mold of his directed training, he would not now be doing this job at the BBC (as Noam Chomsky has pointed out in a previous interview with a household name on the BBC akin to Nick Robinson). He has the job because he's a 'safe mouthpiece' for the established elites. To a large extent this reminds me of the Hardtalk intervew with Stephen Sackur that Roger Hallam did in 2019.
the senior Westminster journalists who end up as political editors of the BBC etc. are trained to treat the Westminster psychodrama as real politics, not whatever happens out there in the real world, which is just backdrop to them
The previous interview by a household name with Noam Comsky was of course Andrew Marr,who subsequently left the BBC as he felt he wasn't at liberty to express his own views rather than those, I'm guessing, of the producer who was whispering /shouting in his ear through every interview, and who now (Andrew Marr that is,)expresses his own views, which, to be honest, I haven't heard many of , due to my lack of interest, but those I have heard are pretty MoR by modern MSM standards, i.e. akin to someone on the right of the Labour party, or maybe the Lib Dems. It seems too much to ask of anyone that has worked for the BBC that they ever agree with, or even engage with, in any seriousness, any point of view that is radical, progressive or in any sense threatens to bring some enlightenment to the vast majority of their audence.
You don't need to be a Flat Earther to know when a Flat Earther has no evidence, nor is interviewing them anything but entertainment and some interesting psychological studies.
I heard about climate change for the first time in 1988 when James Hanson made his warning to congress in the USA and nothing was done about it. Roger Hallam is right and we have very little time.
Hallam is incredible in this interview. My god we all need to wake up.
Amazing how the interviewer 100%help proof Hallam‘s point exactly. Robinson is advocating a method we have been very unsuccessfully 24:18 tried in the last 50years : beeing nice and lying about the reality of climate collapse.
Cannot change trajectory while the economic system is based entirely on profit.
Without emotional engagement no political protest movement can function. Roger asks the public to emotionally take the collapse of Industrial Civilisation seriously. To just frame an intellectual story about the human existential crisis is to normalise it and make it part of the problem.
I could see this guy losing his job to A.I. in the a few years.
Damn, this was pretty good. At times you can see the interviewer having trouble rejecting emotions from underneath.
We take action because it's right, because we can live with ourselves that way, not because it will necessarily work. Roger nails it.
The disconnect and cognitive dissonance is jarring the audience too.
Live a good life. Good advice xxx
Unfortunately, the establishment now only cares about maintaining the status quo.
Women dominate voting and that is what they want. If a politician talks about overpopulation, they do not get elected. Old ladies hate population talk for obvious reasons, their survival depends on the denial.
The radio dj voice on yer man is somi to behold in this context.
This quibbling in the face of extinction is one of the stages of grief. Obstinate denial may just be a phase people have to go through, but it won’t save us.
A question that allways crosses my mind when I see interviews from you: Did you get in vontact with the teachings of Jiddhu Krishnamurti? I often see such an alertness and readyness to brake the thinking-boxes of the people you talk to. Plus such phrases as "all the rest of it" wich feel like hammered into my brain by so many speaches. This way of thinking is what fascinates me about you the most. Thanks a lot for all you do.
I'm glad I started watching this channel because it clears up the argument for me. At it's core, it is the moral question. Do we as humans have a responsibility to each other as humans? My answer is no. If a poor person dies because I didn't save them then I did no wrong. I never had a responsibility to them in the first place. I want to live in a society we all contribute to. I will not live in one where we are all responsibile for each other. Im a good person and I dont care about. Being a good person doesn't require caring about all people.
This shows how people differ, and to what extent they are able to adapt to factual information and engage completely with facts. It also shows an inability to extrapolate and visualise what a horrible future we're on a trajectory to create. Laughing it up or smirking, whilst in the full journalistic knowledge that crops (our food source) are failing around the world, that floods are destroying communities & infrastructure, and human displacement & human life is being lost at scale already, is sociopathic if not psychopathic. How else could you describe it!?
For what it's worth, the Canadian Club of Rome intend to write to all Clubs, who in turn will write to all science academies. The academies will be urged to approach all governments and impose a mandate on further subsidies, exploration and drilling.
nick going full klingon there I see
4:36 The term you are looking for is OBLIQUE INTENT
Great.
IMO The blind greed of the few is the problem . Greed selfishness and jealousy changes people's view of the world , for example living in a tent in London is a lifestyle choice ......
As an ex-Leninist, I always felt I was morally in the same room as anti-statists (who generally called themselves anarchist and libertarian). There's something to be said for a good wage and pension. I think that Lenin was in awe of Kropotkin. I'm comfortable with the last Archbishop of Canterbury nowadays.
💪🏻💪🏼💪🏽💪🏾💪💪🏿
Hope? To quote A E Housman, "hope lies to mortals and most believe her...." The world needs concerted action by humanity but I don't think it's going to get it.
I'd like to speak to you about what I can do to help allocate power/agency toward this issue in a broad sense. I'm extremely curious about your perspective.
A huge amount of this is support systems. I have less time to allocate to these issues because I have to make sure next month I can still also focus on these issues. It's weirdly mid-long term, and that interacts with out systems of growth which wastes our efforts on things that are creating more problems.
I've not carefully chosen my words as much as you as I think it limits the sharing of conception. That had caused me to alienate maybe 2/5 of the people I've interacted with. Carefully chosing your words is interesting but limited because we have Type 1 and 2 thinking.
I know you're probably thinking "That's nonsense and not important, take direct action" but counterpoint: we want to optimize the amount of agency dedicated toward this issue front loading as much as possible but also ensuring that agency remains allocated there for as long as it needs for our survival. We have to consider the depth of ourselves and those around us as systems and that means talking about bullshit sometimes, I've seen a billion interviews from you but saying the same thing over and over genuinely has diminishing returns. The conception of your "audience" has evolved and the depth must with it. As much as this is a horrible emergency we need that depth to address the issue long term.
Also: not from UK, this is a world issue
Also: we must act in good faith, we can't let our "statements" to the world be misheard, regardless of our reasons for making them. We have to fight in earnest to not just be heard but be understood
you can't "persuade people by a cogent argument", the science says that's not what happens. having a nice chat about abrupt climate change is the placebo.
Roger shows Nick Robinson how he is a part of the problem.
I am glad that you didn't edit out that smug summary at the end.
Establishment is really psychopatic: Go home and take some hopium.
The shows host is incapable of understanding. He cant acknowledge the science or any perspective. No facts count, no emotions hes a complete nullity. We are all going to die because of this type
The fact is, many, most people will never understand what is happening. Ever, even as they succumb to starvation or wet bulb or whatever it is. That's, I think what Roger is trying to get at. We can't rely on smug arguments and coaxing.
The world needs Hallam right now. He’s pulling the alarm bell and cutting through the bs to the main issue at hand and how we should all feel about it right now
Watching this depressed me for ages. It seems like liberal centrist dads have a lot more of a problem with engaging with this than old-school Conservatives. I have heard both Michael Heseltine and John Major say it is totally morally unacceptable to sit back and watch billons strave to death, but no other politicians. I wouldn't have expected that at 19, but I suppose I can understand now.
A telly program getting Nick to connect emotionally would be really powerful, I wonder if he would ever do it. But just I terms of his job, it's really odd he didn't seem to think the interview would go this way, given its typical Roger style.
Or maybe the vast majority of everyone think U are brainwashed and bonkers.
Go Roger!
Absolutely it.
I wish you had been able to reach the public 20 years ago.
I believe in you and I am going to keep on campaigning with you.
Deepest love ❤
A great interview! Love how Nick listen's and shows respect to the points Roger makes and listens to him well. Well done, both!
"If you scare the pants of people, that is not going to work"......Just leave people in with their dreams and distraction, leading to disconnection, that is going to work???
Wow...this one's heavily edited, isn't it? That cut after you've told him that he'll go to court for treason is an interesting one.
Would you mind telling us which part of his reaction we don't see here?
Thanks so much for everything from Berlin, dearest Roger!