am so very impressed that JD can speak WITHOUT NOTES coherently along a complex narrative for about an hour & be intellectually rigorous and captivating. one of the Great People of our times. 🙏
Jared Diamond’s research, field studies, and published ideas sparked my own curiosity and personal quest for more information about the way in which different cultures develop. ❤️🌎✌🏼
The person chopping down the last tree probably thought…”Well, this island will be dead soon anyway. I might as well get this before somebody else does.”
The person chopping the last tree didn't care when they saw decades of decline, denial and neglect. I guess they wouldn't even think about the last tree. What WILL happen in our case is that we chop all the trees because we "think" there is a next level.
42:00 most interesting moment to me-that 1/3 of the Netherlands is recovered land, below sea level; water pumped out by windmills, the need for dikes and sea walls.
The prediction that Glacier National Park would be without glaciers by 2020 Has not only come to fruition, but today glacial national park has 25 active glaciers. At the time of this speech, it only had 14.
Indeed: proof that science can be wrong when modeling future events, as experts in any field can be. Well-trained scientists then revise their hypothesis, their understanding of how things work, in light of their failures and successes at prediction. Models have improved astronomically in the past decade, thanks to advances in satellite data and computer technology, and models of everything from weather forecasts to large-scale climate trends have been coming closer and closer to what ends up happening. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories do not recognize changes in technology, learning from past mistakes, and revising hypotheses in light of new facts. Conspiracy theories tend to stamp their feet and declare that what they believed 10 years ago is still true today, no matter if evidence contradicts it. Anyway, here's a blurb from Wikipedia: "In the 1980s, the U.S. Geological Survey began a more systematic study of the remaining glaciers, which has continued to the present day. By 2010, 37 glaciers remained, but only 25 of them were at least 25 acres (0.10 km2) in area and therefore still considered active. Based on the warming trend of the early 2000s, scientists had estimated that the park's remaining glaciers would melt by 2020;[68] however, a later estimate stated that the glaciers may be gone by 2030. This glacier retreat follows a worldwide pattern that has accelerated even more since 1980."
@@paintedwings74 Science cannot construct the future. It takes vision and public will. People like Sachs are using leverage through debt created by central banks. This is fascism!
Dear speaker, I wouldn’t agree with you for Norway because if you look into their economy they still make a lot of money from selling oil which makes them a kind of gated community
Such a brilliant guy. A note. When the populations in Africa, South America, Asia begin to die from hunger & war induced by all these problems they will flee here. So their populations will impact on the rich societies. As is beginning to happen now.
Well the fact he forget to even mention the richest countries started the problems in most of the poorest countries . Never tried to help fix them made sure to keep the struggling eventually the chickens will come home to roost. For a smart man he sure does miss a lot of factors that come into play .
Well you can keep an ice cube of them in your fridge and still have the opinion they persisted. Also, each water molecule on Earth had been part of a glacier over millions of years. For the same reason you can say you are immortal and who is going to debate you? So, it's possible to be intelligent and educated and logical and still fail catastrophically at life.
"The implicit assumption...is that taking care of the environment is a drain on the economy." In the short term, that seems self-evident, so the question is: how much drain can we stand in exchange for better stewardship that produces a more harmonious (and cheaper) steady state in the long run? The reason it's important to ask this is that going back to the bronze age and renouncing technology isn't a realistic option, and yet that implicit neo-Ludditism and anti-technology sentiment is at the core of ideological environmentalism. People will NOT willingly give up cars, air travel, etc. and regress, so in order to build consensus and move forward it's not enough merely to bristle with outrage at the suggestion that there might be any other consideration than the environment per se.
There is a way. It has to do with having respect for all of life. Getting out of the concept of self: you-me, them-us. Learning consensus as a way of living with others.
@@judithmcdonald9001 That's a good idea, but it won't reach everyone. If your approach requires a complete overhaul of someone's worldview, it's not gonna work at scale. We need rational, selfish arguments for good stewardship that everyone can get behind.
The economy is nothing compared to environmental destruction. This prattling about finance is really annoying as one of these things is quite imaginary.
Bond rating companies now include the ability of the bond seeker to address extreme events, like heat waves, forest fires, hurricanes, flooding, and tornadoes. Many cities and counties have begun addressing climate change by investing in infrastructure that would protect their community. Insurance companies care about this as well as it impacts their bottom line.
Indeed! It is really fascinating, that ONLY bad decisions of the country's or empire's elite contribute to the collapse of a country or empire. And most often, bad decisions are made by the elite when these elites - at least temporarily - can isolate themselves from the negative consequences of their fatal decisions.
cool video, but I didn't see Neil Diamond a single time! It's getting ridiculous at this point and I keep watching these hour long videos trying to find him, but he's never there. Please stop putting him in your title if he's not there.
Bad definition of succeed or fail. Success in biology and nature means survival and continuation of future generations. It does not require sky scrapers, telephones, the internet, temples. cities or even stone walls. If that was the case then humans would have died off 200,000 years ago. The only prime directive of nature that MUST be adhered to for the continuation of human life is you must EAT and REPRODUCE. Thats it. That is the only definition of "success" that counts. Everything else is an elaborate social construct built on top of those basic requirements. And all societies and cultures have different definitions of what the meaning of life is and therefore what defines "success" within the social structure over the basic definition.
While I understand where you're coming from, looking from an Anthropological point of view rather than biological like you've mentioned, eating and reproduction are not the soul focuses of the field. Rather, humanity and how humanity functions, develops, rises, and falls within our cultures is what many look at, and quite frankly Jared Diamond is a leading specialist whom many agree with and he has a plethora of work that is studied in the field.
Survival of the human race is NOT the topic. He is discussing the success and collapse of societies. When societies collapse, other societies rise up to eat and reproduce.
Nothing in his definition of "success" in the title is about skyscrapers, but continuation and preservation of their culture. Whether anthropoology or genetics or political history;that, or dead remnants in the strata, is a pretty stark contrast between success and failure.
@@RobertWGreaves Except that now we have one enormous, global, society, integrating whatever non-globalized societies are left on the planet. When this globalized society collapses, there probably won't be any other societies left to "rise up". Perhaps some hunter-gatherer societies.
Your point is a good one, but to say that different societies have different definitions is not the same as saying that one society (ours) can (or should) change its definition , or especially do so in an arbitrarily short time. To get beyond the arguing-while-the-planet-burns stage and actually attack the problems, it's necessary to bring people along to build consensus. For that, you have to recognise their definition of success and give them some assurance that, by that definition, the problems can be attacked without undermining their thriving too badly.
am so very impressed that JD can speak WITHOUT NOTES coherently along a complex narrative for about an hour & be intellectually rigorous and captivating.
one of the Great People of our times. 🙏
I read Guns, germs and steel and Collapse years ago. Just discovered this presentation and will need to read his books again, Great professor.
Jared Diamond’s research, field studies, and published ideas sparked my own curiosity and personal quest for more information about the way in which different cultures develop. ❤️🌎✌🏼
Andrew G... and you’re not merely a clever crackpot?
@@noaheinstein2369 good question, Noah. And the reply is... crickets.
The talk is great - the entire book is better and worth reading. D.A., J.D., NYC
The talk finally starts at about 5:10.
Thank you!
These university administrators-they do go on, don’t they? 🙄
on and on and on…
The person chopping down the last tree probably thought…”Well, this island will be dead soon anyway. I might as well get this before somebody else does.”
And how will cronies like sachs stop that? Authoritarianism. We see where this is going. Fauci's bioweapon is proof enough. Sick murderers!
The person chopping the last tree didn't care when they saw decades of decline, denial and neglect. I guess they wouldn't even think about the last tree.
What WILL happen in our case is that we chop all the trees because we "think" there is a next level.
42:00 most interesting moment to me-that 1/3 of the Netherlands is recovered land, below sea level; water pumped out by windmills, the need for dikes and sea walls.
The best society is no society
The prediction that Glacier National Park would be without glaciers by 2020 Has not only come to fruition, but today glacial national park has 25 active glaciers. At the time of this speech, it only had 14.
Indeed: proof that science can be wrong when modeling future events, as experts in any field can be. Well-trained scientists then revise their hypothesis, their understanding of how things work, in light of their failures and successes at prediction. Models have improved astronomically in the past decade, thanks to advances in satellite data and computer technology, and models of everything from weather forecasts to large-scale climate trends have been coming closer and closer to what ends up happening.
Unfortunately, conspiracy theories do not recognize changes in technology, learning from past mistakes, and revising hypotheses in light of new facts. Conspiracy theories tend to stamp their feet and declare that what they believed 10 years ago is still true today, no matter if evidence contradicts it. Anyway, here's a blurb from Wikipedia:
"In the 1980s, the U.S. Geological Survey began a more systematic study of the remaining glaciers, which has continued to the present day. By 2010, 37 glaciers remained, but only 25 of them were at least 25 acres (0.10 km2) in area and therefore still considered active. Based on the warming trend of the early 2000s, scientists had estimated that the park's remaining glaciers would melt by 2020;[68] however, a later estimate stated that the glaciers may be gone by 2030. This glacier retreat follows a worldwide pattern that has accelerated even more since 1980."
@@paintedwings74 Science cannot construct the future. It takes vision and public will. People like Sachs are using leverage through debt created by central banks. This is fascism!
33:43: Most memorable three quotes from the entire lecture.
Gated communities are blinders.
Yes, thanks.
That question-and-answer session was interesting.
Nice how small changes lead to big mistakes 🤔
Das beste Buch überhaupt.
Nur will Niemand die Wahrheit hören.
Gruß Stephan
Dear speaker, I wouldn’t agree with you for Norway because if you look into their economy they still make a lot of money from selling oil which makes them a kind of gated community
Yes and they are at a latitude the will suffer the least and a terrain that means rising seas won’t matter. Oslo and bergen may be in trouble though
Such a brilliant guy. A note. When the populations in Africa, South America, Asia begin to die from hunger & war induced by all these problems they will flee here. So their populations will impact on the rich societies. As is beginning to happen now.
Well the fact he forget to even mention the richest countries started the problems in most of the poorest countries . Never tried to help fix them made sure to keep the struggling eventually the chickens will come home to roost. For a smart man he sure does miss a lot of factors that come into play .
The perfect storm for collapse: 1. Policy & Governance, 2. War & Conflict, 3. Friends & Trade, 4. Abuse/Mismanagement of Resource, 5. Ecological/Climate Change.
This is knowledge
50:45
RIP 2020 C.E.
3 signs your society is in trouble: temple building, deforestation, money printing.
Is the temple building bit an archetype for magical thinking and disempowering an individual?
@@dspaceoflove hiding from reality
Video starts at 5:20
Well, the glaciers are still in Glacier National Park, so that's a positive.
Yes, but many are small cirque glaciers - catchments
Well you can keep an ice cube of them in your fridge and still have the opinion they persisted.
Also, each water molecule on Earth had been part of a glacier over millions of years. For the same reason you can say you are immortal and who is going to debate you?
So, it's possible to be intelligent and educated and logical and still fail catastrophically at life.
"The implicit assumption...is that taking care of the environment is a drain on the economy."
In the short term, that seems self-evident, so the question is: how much drain can we stand in exchange for better stewardship that produces a more harmonious (and cheaper) steady state in the long run?
The reason it's important to ask this is that going back to the bronze age and renouncing technology isn't a realistic option, and yet that implicit neo-Ludditism and anti-technology sentiment is at the core of ideological environmentalism.
People will NOT willingly give up cars, air travel, etc. and regress, so in order to build consensus and move forward it's not enough merely to bristle with outrage at the suggestion that there might be any other consideration than the environment per se.
There is a way. It has to do with having respect for all of life. Getting out of the concept of self: you-me, them-us. Learning consensus as a way of living with others.
@@judithmcdonald9001 That's a good idea, but it won't reach everyone. If your approach requires a complete overhaul of someone's worldview, it's not gonna work at scale. We need rational, selfish arguments for good stewardship that everyone can get behind.
United we stand, divided we fall. We need to return to our roots and re-establish our collaboration skills.
geography ftw! - a geographer
The economy is nothing compared to environmental destruction. This prattling about finance is really annoying as one of these things is quite imaginary.
They are both fantasies and inferential.
Bond rating companies now include the ability of the bond seeker to address extreme events, like heat waves, forest fires, hurricanes, flooding, and tornadoes. Many cities and counties have begun addressing climate change by investing in infrastructure that would protect their community. Insurance companies care about this as well as it impacts their bottom line.
Much to my amusement this didn't age well AT ALL.
Starting from 38:21 and for the next 2-3 minutes there is a very important diagnosis
th-cam.com/video/KYegWOTFqGI/w-d-xo.html
Indeed! It is really fascinating, that ONLY bad decisions of the country's or empire's elite contribute to the collapse of a country or empire. And most often, bad decisions are made by the elite when these elites - at least temporarily - can isolate themselves from the negative consequences of their fatal decisions.
Yeah. Exactly that. And the problem is, that elite often try to tell the opposite story. We just need to spread this knowledge.
@@pabeloo Exactly!
@@pawel.wesolowski Thx!
cool video, but I didn't see Neil Diamond a single time! It's getting ridiculous at this point and I keep watching these hour long videos trying to find him, but he's never there. Please stop putting him in your title if he's not there.
Bad definition of succeed or fail. Success in biology and nature means survival and continuation of future generations. It does not require sky scrapers, telephones, the internet, temples. cities or even stone walls. If that was the case then humans would have died off 200,000 years ago. The only prime directive of nature that MUST be adhered to for the continuation of human life is you must EAT and REPRODUCE. Thats it. That is the only definition of "success" that counts. Everything else is an elaborate social construct built on top of those basic requirements. And all societies and cultures have different definitions of what the meaning of life is and therefore what defines "success" within the social structure over the basic definition.
While I understand where you're coming from, looking from an Anthropological point of view rather than biological like you've mentioned, eating and reproduction are not the soul focuses of the field. Rather, humanity and how humanity functions, develops, rises, and falls within our cultures is what many look at, and quite frankly Jared Diamond is a leading specialist whom many agree with and he has a plethora of work that is studied in the field.
Survival of the human race is NOT the topic. He is discussing the success and collapse of societies. When societies collapse, other societies rise up to eat and reproduce.
Nothing in his definition of "success" in the title is about skyscrapers, but continuation and preservation of their culture. Whether anthropoology or genetics or political history;that, or dead remnants in the strata, is a pretty stark contrast between success and failure.
@@RobertWGreaves
Except that now we have one enormous, global, society, integrating whatever non-globalized societies are left on the planet. When this globalized society collapses, there probably won't be any other societies left to "rise up". Perhaps some hunter-gatherer societies.
Your point is a good one, but to say that different societies have different definitions is not the same as saying that one society (ours) can (or should) change its definition , or especially do so in an arbitrarily short time. To get beyond the arguing-while-the-planet-burns stage and actually attack the problems, it's necessary to bring people along to build consensus. For that, you have to recognise their definition of success and give them some assurance that, by that definition, the problems can be attacked without undermining their thriving too badly.
Sustainable Collective Disaster Re Capitalization
sohsaijitee
worst sound on Earth !!!!! 🤐🤔🤫