Seriously...The ONLY possible way to completely avoid all the fighting, violence, death and destruction of this system collapsing (and there is no question it is collapsing) would be to make it financially worthwhile for people to SHARE the jobs we would democratically agree we NEED to have done and work much LESS...it's the only thing that could guarantee that peoples NEEDS never stop being met while at the same time completely putting an end to this insane infinite growth system on a finite planet.
It was a process to get where we are and it will be another process going back to say..playing music together and cooking together. Good luck to everyone out there🌎☀️💙
Talk to your neighbors, yes. But mostly listen to them. The people living on your block are the only ones who will be able help as the system unravels. Good luck to us all.
Great interview! I especially like the Left/eco-Libertarian discussion, as I'm an ex-Green who went through the looking glass during the pandemonium, don't recognise my old Green buddies anymore, but am not always comfortable with the values of the Freedom-loving Right.
Yep, I'm absolutely there with you. (Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and all that!). No system or solution is perfect - and if being a Guardian reader and supporting XR and/or environmental justice organisations leads you on to theoretically better ways forward then that's really important. NB: note to Jem, I wouldn't have come across him and his work had it not been a link from an XR local group!
I’ve read the book and did not really come across any realistic answers about how address the situation. Run away and join a commune seemed to be the only solution suggested which doesn’t seem possible for most. Maybe I need to read it again ? When you consider how long it’s taken to come to any agreement on where we are going and then look at how little of the root causes have been addressed then maybe Jem’s right. 😟
Permaculture. Transition Towns. Geoff Lawton. Bill Mollison. One straw revolution. Your welcome ❤ Ps. I'm still not suggesting collapse can be avoided, I don't think it can.
No. We need to design for recycling, and deliver what everyone reasonably needs. That is doable, but not within a market based paradigm where the goal is profit. We need to accept planetary boundaries, and work within them. Technological solutions are both possible and necessary, and they are very unlikely to emerge as the result of market incentives. The problem space is actually deeply more complex than this discussion points to. Cooperation is fundamental to the survival of complexity, and so is freedom (within responsible bounds). Than means acceptance and respect for diversity. Eternal growth is not an option, but universal poverty isn't a survivable option either. Diversity is required at every level, and everyone has to have what they consider sufficient to do whatever they reasonably choose. And clearly we cannot all own planes and superyachts. But we can all have secure food, good communication and healthcare, reasonable travel, interesting things to do.
here is my prescription. Start with yourself. Make yourself sustainable by taking responsibility for yourself and placing all of your life-support systems under your ownership and control. That way you cannot be controlled by outside providers. If you can't do it all, partner with others who are trying to do the same thing trading your surpluses for the subsistence life-support resources that you lack. Continue to work on achieving self-sufficiency. Then work on your family, close friends and neighbors doing the same. Consider the subsistence life-support needs of this group as an entity. Create mutual aid networks with other such entities. Continue to spiral outwards in a similar manner, including extended family, and coworkers, and more neighbors, then your neighborhood and community, your town, your city, your county, your state, your region, your country, the world, the solar system...the universe, each time stopping to consider the subsistence life-support needs of each level of aggregation. THAT is my approach. It works and it is scalable to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Let's do it. Let's start today!
I love this as an idea. In reality, I believe it to be far more tricky - but I suspect that's majorly because we have all become so used to one-click easy answers to anything we don't have an immediate answer for ourselves. I think there's a lot of growing and learning we all need to do - and time is not on our side... But we've all got to start somewhere :)
@@gillywillybythesea The primary problem as I see it is two-fold and interrelated. First we have all been made to be dependent upon big business and big government for our subsistence. Second, we have all been made to look to big government and big business for solutions to our problems. The solution is for individuals and communities to take responsibility for and ownership of our subsistence away from big business and big government (rendering them useless, redundant and powerless) and start taking action ourselves. The reason that we are "running out of time" is that we are NOT doing so. We ALREADY have the power, we are just not using it. My prescription creates the required transformation and transition by creating a Shadow Democratic mutual aid network that gradually weens people off their dependency and reestablishes mutual interdependency. No violence or shots need be fired. That cannot be said if we wait until people are desperate and the inevitable crisis occurs. That will likely lead to totalitarianism. So that's our choice. Do something now or hand our children the problem and bequeath them a totalitarian dystopian future.
We have begun doing just this. We left the U.K. 2 years ago, moved to Bulgaria where we have a small house on a decent plot of fertile land. We can live on very little, our lives are greatly simplified but we still use all things modern because we can and it’s convenient. We are slowly weaning away, aiming to become more off grid and self reliant, learning old skills and ways. It’s very common for people to live like this in the poor villages where we live, foraging and gathering free resources to survive. It ain’t pretty but when the SHTF they are going to be ok where we are going to struggle! The future is definitely in community, and I hope to be able to bring people into our home that can help us with the skills and time/energy we don’t have in return for a share of what we do have and can give. I’m glad it’s not such an out there idea after all!
Thanks that was a good interview. I was just wondering yesterday why The Guardian seem to post the more radical articles, as often referred to by Paul Beckwith on his channel. I see what you are saying now is that they are just the other side of the same coin and that the only thing left to do now is build something from the ground up in any areas we feel called to, or where our interest lies.
Recent development on building the commons and communities amid collapse is "Design School for Earth Regeneration" with the development and spread of bioregional learing centres. I find these inspiring as they are entirely community / bioregional based - from the ground (land) up. Joe Brewer, the co-founder is an innovative, non-conventional thinker worth checking out.
Yes, we know Joe Brewer, but will investigate more, thanks. We're more focused on how to make commons infrastructure available to people in working-class communities. I think that's essential. Most of the world is working-class, and they don't really have ways in to the commons.
Massive human overpopulation after our ancestors jumped fro a Hunter-Gatherer clan living social structure that was egalitarian and into the sedentary grain farming nightmare of today is the basis of capitalism, predatory capitalism, and all of the other ills of modern hierarchical society. A wonderful, rarely mentioned in the MSM, book lays it all out: "Before Writing", by one of may alltime heroes, Denise Schmandt-Besserat.
It's also good to keep in mind uthe capability to recycle lithium in batteries for use again, as well as other circular/sustainable methods. Mining is not the end all and be all.
Adaptability is inversely proportional to the level of specific adaptation. Our current global civilization is a very specific adaptation, so in order to adapt some level of societal collapse is necessary. That is why the commons flourish when societies collapse. As society sheds its specific adaptations the members of the society are then free to adapt within the space left open.
True, but how do we know that the adaptation isn't going to be worse that what we currently have? We need to realize that we can create virtually anything that we can imagine. Since available resources are scarce, logically, we need to prioritize what we create to favor that which serves to enhance our sustainability, resilience, survival, diversity, capacity and the sustainability, resilience, survival, diversity and capacity of the ecosystem on which we depend. We need to develop an ecological-based and ecologically-constrained technology and economy and STOP developing and using technology that undermines human and ecological life. The best way to do this is by requiring a public statement of how a given technology is going to provide such life-affirming benefits and then directly voting for proposals rather than voting for "representatives" who inevitably allocate resources (to favor those who bribe them).
@@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702 Adaption should be fit to the requirements of survival within a local environment. Considering the speed of deterioration, you might not have time to convene the biweekly committee or carry out a vote of the majority. The "save the whole world" strategy, due to the scale involved, requires cooperation of the entire species, which has never happened in the history of mankind. Even an agreement of nations or national leaders is an extremely rare event outside of platitudes. Everybody made promises on climate change; everybody broke their promises. Keep in mind the road to Utopia always leads to Dystopia. No one has ever, in all of human history, successfully constructed a society or an economy from scratch.
@@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702 There’s one other element to survival, and that is diversity. When environments change, monocultures tend to go extinct due to a lack of sufficient variation in the population to find adaptations to explore. Not all adaptations will be successful. Essentially, monocultures run out of possible adaptations before they find one that works. Therefore, to improve the chance for some survival, you want to encourage diversity in traits, behavior, and solutions. You don’t want to force everyone to use the same solution or the same adaptation, but you also want to cut any support for clearly failing adaptations when it is clear they are failing. The more things we try, the more likely we’ll find something that increases our chances for survival-at least on the species level.
@@kimwelch4652 I'm not arguing for a top down approach, in fact, in all my posts, I have argued for a bottom up approach and adoption of beneficial approaches by adjacent groups through the diffusion of ideas. Such a process is natural and is the way human societies have traditionally worked -- monkey see, monkey do. I simply want to avoid the recreation of destructive unsustainable political and economic structures and technologies following a collapse. We have to LEARN from our mistakes, not repeat them. If history is our guide, when a society collapses, the rich take the money and run and set up shop elsewhere and DO THE SAME unsustainable stuff AGAIN! This time, rather than a local or regional collapse, the collapse will be global with nowhere to run. Even so, they will try. We just need to prepare now to put in place a better more sustainable system than what we currently have, otherwise, more likely than not, it will be less equitable, more draconian and less sustainable than what we currently have. Referendums and direct democracy on policies can work on the local level. I advise creating a Shadow government to vote by referendum alongside the official government. People can discuss and vote on the issues and then we will have something in place to offer as an alternative when the crisis strikes.
@@kimwelch4652 I agree and a diversity of approaches originating at the local level is exactly what I am advocating for. No one is forcing anybody to do anything. I was merely urging a prudent proactive precautionary approach be taken. Despite what many Americans currently believe, Liberty is NOT the freedom to do whatever one desires and wants (regardless of the harm that it causes to other humans and to our ecologically-based life-support systems). Rather it is the responsibility to act in a manner that not only does no harm but actually provides net benefits to society and to it's life-support systems. Liberty is the freedom to do what we OUGHT, to act in accordance with our conscience to do the right, moral and ethical thing. THAT is the only "freedom" that humans have. So before I authorize a dime of funding or a gram of resources, those requesting it ought to have to state and justify how what they are proposing is anticipated to occur, what these net benefits will be and to whom they will accrue. They should be competing with other proposals for funding. The affected citizen residents of the jurisdiction should then decide what proposals get funded. Funded proposals will be those that are anticipated to result in the greatest net benefits for the jurisdictional citizen residents. Then we can track them and adjust or terminate our support accordingly. This is not unreasonable.
But how do you make mobility and transport more sustainable and democratic without strong governments? You can't build and expand public transport without a strong government and expect to get a workable system that actually serves peoples' needs.
governments aren't going to build a sustainable, democratic transport system or any other system. If I had one wish, it would be that switched-on people would give up on govts to do anything useful. How many COP meetings would it take, for everyone to realise that states are in the pockets of corporations, and continue to subsidise the oil industry. There are people building co-operative public transport systems - th-cam.com/video/Xbm7RNwCFhw/w-d-xo.html, and we are working with specialists designing commons structures for every sector of the economy, including transport.
We need to realize that big oil and other big businesses CREATED globalized jobs and globalized travel so that they REQUIRE the use of fossil fuels so the THEY could sell more oil and make more money! Pick a job that does not require the use of fossil fuels. I'm a writer. I don't have to travel if I don't want to. Roll up your sleeves and get involved with improving your LOCAL neighborhood and LOCAL community. Walk, run, ride a bicycle (buy or build a velomobile), use more boats, dirigibles etc. I used to own and ride horses.
Honestly, I think it's likely that the current number of individually owned vehicles will have to go down, by sheer inability to afford them if nothing else. Walking will come back, bikes when possible. Basic motorbikes will possibly be the new luxury transport. Everyone will be "opting out" basically- too busy dealing with storm damage, finding food sources, dealing with the newest local disease... not much time or option for shopping. Farmers might become the new celebrities, only as famous as county lines reach maybe, but still. Work for a couple of hours, go home with a box of food. I think some of their point is that areas of a few thousand-ish people might be the new "normal" independent governing body taking care of themselves without leaving their areas much. We'll have one country, but won't likely interact much across distance.
'Humanity today is like a waking dreamer, caught between the fantasies of sleep and the chaos of the real world. The mind seeks but cannot find the precise place and hour. we have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. we thrash about. We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of life! ~ E. O. Wilson.
Both good and bad in this interview. Jem raises the idea of "the commons". Back in 1968, Garrett Hardin published "The Tragedy Of The Commons". For decades afterwards economists, especially neoliberalist economists who were coming into the limelight (Thatcherism, Reaganomics, etc) disputed both the idea of a "tragedy", and of a "commons". Elinor Ostrom, who denied she was strictly speaking an economist, was finally awarded the so-called "Nobel Prize" in economics, (Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) for her "Governing the Commons" in which she outlined some communitarian solutions to "The Tragedy". Back even in the '50s and '60s, Murray Bookchin had already been discussing Anarchist ideas. A later essay by him in 1991 entitled "Libertarian Municipalism: A Politics of Direct Democracy", precedes what Jem speaks and writes about here. Theoretically, communism could have been a route to follow, but we can read about the disastrous annexation by "the centre" of say "collective farms". Stalin, and even Lenin, both wanted a central Russia, not a collective of collectives. Anarchism became eventually for Bookchin, communalism, an even less dominated community. (Communalism, the Democratic Dimension of Anarchism. theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-communalism-the-democratic-dimension-of-anarchism ) Fragmentation of a central State might be what is required for "democracy"? But, for some reason, we like to aggregate into States. Is bigger really better? (Jem mentioned "Small is Beautiful") Maybe we're assuming there's safety in numbers? I'm not clear why Jem chose to attack the most liberal (sensible) of British newspapers, the Grauniad. Even in his sphere "academic" journals are influenced to some extent. Jem might remember the "Sokal affair"? The Grauniad is certainly "better than" say the Daily Mail, or what used, in past years, to be the (sensible and reliable) Times.
Yes, I think we'll need to move away from centralised nation-states for anything remotely like a democratic system. Problem with the Graun is that it's absolutely statist / centralist. (and 'progressive' - i.e. a supporter of linear tech / economic 'progress' / growth).
Bolshivism was the realisation that democracy will not be allowed by a state in the hands of capitalism, degrowth will not be allowed for the same reason; whether one chooses to organise or believe you can "build from the bottom" revolution is as inevitable as extinction.
Look folks Marx was a materialist and an industrialist. The only thing that separates a materialistic Marxist from a materialistic capitalist is who owns and controls the “means of production (of industrial capital)”. They both support centralized industrial production. They are BOTH two sides of the same totalitarian coin. The means of production is IRRELEVANT. Only control over the “means of subsistence” is relevant. If each individual controls their own means of subsistence, we have free will, liberty and democracy. If EITHER big business OR big government controls the individual’s means of subsistence, we have slavery, tyranny and totalitarianism. It is just that simple. See my other posts for exactly how to throw off the yoke both big business and big government, make big business and big government irrelevant, unnecessary, and therefore powerless, save the ecosystem, save future generations from catastrophes and do it from the bottom up, with no help from government and WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT!
Left libertarianism is like Anarchism but with a democratic state and voluntary cooperation within and between interest organization and corporations. No perpetual revolution, but perpetual change and hopefully perpetual improvement. In my head you can patch capitalism to not be obligued to always maximize the profit, but instead maximize other factors that are valued in monetary terms by the democratic system.
You were very nearly having a conversation- don’t give up! We have a problem at the moment - let’s make sure we’re trying to slay the right dragon. My guess is that capitalism coupled with a strong ethical culture can work and has worked. Capitalism decoupled from meaningful ethics we can see is a disaster.
@@celiacresswell6909 Capitalism is simply a tool. This tool, like any other tool, can be wielded by evil or virtue. Same with politicians. It's human failure that ruins things. Thanks for showing interest. Cheers.
@@anthonymorris5084 I agree: it’s the worm in the core that’s the problem! Hence Bendell’s flight from concentration of power is surely right, and so the debate circles round again
@@anthonymorris5084 We want to introduce community-based, commons alternatives to those who understand biosphere damage and wealth / power concentration. Arguing against corporate centralisers and status quo defenders wastes time and causes clutter. So do your stuff somewhere else. Final.
Technology may have advanced enough to release civilization from the confines of the second law of thermodynamics. These confines were imposed during Victorian England's scientific and religious cultural fascination with steam engines. The second law is behind modern refgeration needing electrical energy to compress the refrigerent to force it to release as waste the heat that it has removed from the refrigerator's service interior in the cooling part of the refrigerent's circulation. There is also discarded heat from mechanical friction and electrical resistance. The total released and discarded heat minus the removed heat equal the electrical input but the attached conversion of electricity into heat is forced. Refrigeration by the principle that energy is conserved should produce electricity instead of consuming it. It makes more sense that refrigerators should yield electricity because energy is widely known to change form with no ultimate path of energy gain or loss being found. Therefore any form of fully recyclable energy can be cycled endlessly in any quantity. In an extreme case senario, full heat recycling, all electric, very isolated underground, undersea, or space communities would be highly survivable with self sufficient EMP resistant LED light banks, automated vertical farms, thaw resistant frozen food storehouses, factories, dwellings, and self contained elevators and horizontal transports. In a flourishing civillization senario, small self sufficient electric or cooling devices of many kinds and styles like lamps, smartphones, hotplates, water heaters, cooler chests, fans, radios, TVs, cameras, security devices, robot test equipment, scales, transaction terminals, wall clocks, open or ciosed for business luminus signs, power hand tools, ditch diggers, pumps, and personal transports, would be available for immediate use incrementally anywhere as people see fit. Some equipment groups could be consolidated on local networks. If a high majority thinks our civilization should geoengineer gigatons or teratons of carbon dioxide out of our environment, instalations using devices that convert ambient heat into electricity can hypothetically be scaled up do it with a choice of comsequences including many beneficial ones. Energy sensible refrigerators that absorb heat and yield electricity would complement computers as computing consumes electricity and yields heat. Computing would be free. Chips could have energy recycling built in. A simple rectifier crystal can, iust short of a replicatable long term demonstration of a powerful prototype, almost certainly filter the random thermal motioren of electrons or discrete positiive charged voids called holes so the electric current flowing in one direction predominates. At low system voltage a filtrate of one polarity predominates only a little but there is always usable electrical power derived from the source, which is Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise. This net electrical filtrate can be aggregated in a group of separate diodes in consistent alignment parallel creating widely scalable electrical power. The maximum energy is converted from ambient heat to productive electricity when the electrical load is matched to the array impeadence. Matched impeadence output (watts) is k (Boltźman's constant), one point three eight x 10^ minus 23, times T (temperature Kelvin) times bandwidth (0 Hz to a natural limit ~2 THz @ 290 K) times rectification halving and nanowatt power level rectification efficiency, times the number of diodes in the array. For reference, there are a billion cells of 1000 square nanometer area each per square millimeter, 100 billion per square centimeter. Order is imposed on the random thermal motion of electrons by the structual orderlyness of a diode array made of diodes made within a slab: ______________________ - Out 🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻 ______________________ + Out All the P type semiconductor anodes abut a metal conductive plane deposited on the top face of the slab with nonrectifying joins; all the N type semiconductor cathodes abut the bottom face. As the polarity filtered electrical energy is exported, the amount of thermal energy in the group of diodes decreases. This group cooling will draw heat in from the surrounding ambient heat at a rate depending on the filtering rate and thermal resistance between the group and ambient gas, liquid, or solid warmer than absolute zero. There is a lot of ambient heat on our planet, more in equatorial dry desert summer days and less in polar desert winter nights. Focusing on explaining the electronic behavior of one composition of simple diode, a near flawless crystal of silicon is modified by implanting a small amount of phosphorus (N type)on one side from a ohmic contact end to a junction where the additive is suddenly and completely changed to boron (P type) with minimal disturbance of the crystal lattice. The crystal then continues to another ohmic contact. A region of high electrical resistance forms at the junction in this type of diode when the phosphorous near the ĵunction donates electrons that are free to move elsewhere while leaving phosphorus ions held in the crystal while the boron donates holes which are similalarly free to move. The two types of mobile charges mutually clear each other away near the junction leaving little electrical conductivity. An equlibrium width of this region is settled between the phosphorus, boron, electrons, and holes. Thermal noise is beyond steady state equlibrium. Thermal noise transients, where mobile electrons move from the phosphorus added side to the boron added side ride transient extra conductivity so the forward moving electrons are preferentally filtered into the external circuit. Mobile electrons are units of electric current. They lose their thermal energy of motion and gain electromotive force, another name for voltage, as they transition between the junction and the array electrical tap. Inside the diode, heat is absorbed: outside the diode, to exactly the same extent, an attached electrical circuit is energized. The voltage of a diode array is likely to be small so many similar arrays need to be put in series to build higher voltage. Understanding diodes is one way to become convinced that Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise can be rectified and aggregated. Self assembling development teams may find many ways to accomplish this wide mission. Taxonomically there should be many ways ways to convert heat directly into electricity. A practical device may use an array of Au needles in a SiO2 matrix abutting N type GaAs. These were made in the 1970s when registration technology was poor so it was easier to fabricate arrays and select one diode than just make one diode. There are other plausible breeches of the second law of thermodynamics. Hopefully a lot of people will join in expanding the breech. Please share the successes or setbacks of your efforts. These devices would probably become segmented commodities sold with minimal margin over supply cost. They would be manufactured by advanced automation that does not need financial incentive. Applicable best practices would be adopted. Business details would be open public knowledge. Associated people should move as negotiated and freely and honestly talk. Commerce would be a planetary scale unified conglomerate of diverse local cooperatives. There is no need of wealth extracting top commanders. We do not need often token philanthropy from the top if the wide majority of people can afford to be generous. Aloha Charles M Brown Kilauea Kauai Hawaii 96754
Yeah, all very nice ideas, except it only takes one society not to go along with it, and they win. And there are definitely a number of societies, including the largest Earth, who have no intention of signing up for a voluntary reduction in growth. And they certainly aren't about to redistribute their recently won relative prosperity with the billions further down the international pecking order. High throughput (of energy and materials) societies will always be able to militarily out-compete low throughput societies when the struggle is existential. So when a high throughput society starts depleting its resources, it can (and will) just go and takes the resources of those low throughput societies which so considerately preserved their resources to be taken by the civilization that defeats and succeeds them. So lovely thoughts, but not even the seed of a realistic plan.
We build the commons economy in communities everywhere, including the US. There's no other way. We can't challenge global power head-on. The obvious response to your post of course is to (genuinely) ask if you have a better idea.
@@LowimpactTV Do I have a plan? No, not really, or at least not a program beyond greatly reducing government power and involvement in peoples lives. Limit government to national defence from foreign foes, and maintaining a legal system composed of many fewer, but very strictly and equally enforced laws, and the rest will sort of look after itself.
Bollocks. Animals have problems. Just ask the gazelle with the cheetah trying to run it down (or the cheetah, trying to get something to eat). If the solution to problems is to get rid of the organisms that have problems, then we should be cheering for global extinction of all life. There are no problems on Mars. Antinatalism may reduce overconsumption (assuming that existing people and those who don't adopt antinatalism do not increase per-capita consumption as population declines), but it creates other problems, such as aging populations without enough young people to support them. AI and automation may solve that for awhile, but then there's the question of how much the AI's (data servers, etc.) consume.
We must have a central authority with the power to mobilize to act reactivity, and hopefully proactively, to avert existential threats. This power is otherwise reserved by the grassroots communal layers. This allows a finer granulation of self governance and variation of things like language, culture... For central government selection, this must be based on social merit and capability. Years of process and honing must shape these representatives. They must also earn the mean or less and share the same sustainable levels of equity with the rest of us. Like it or not, Chairman Xi Jinping was scrutinized and selected through a rigorous system to ensure that he is and will remain l, incorruptible and for the people. What is the measure of the real social merit or Donald Trump, Tony Blair, Etc...? We need to rewrite how this world works, and fast.
Right. As a green anarchist I have been preaching AND practicing these things for 30+ years. Here are a ten more benefits to decentralization: 1) You can exercise free will or liberty (defined per Lord Acton as the freedom to act as you OUGHT, to do the right and moral thing, in accordance with your conscience) and you can finally have a democratic society because EVERYONE is in control of their own means of subsistence (their life-support system) and therefore CANNOT be controlled or manipulated by external suppliers of that life-support (My “means of subsistence” should NOT be confused with centralized Communist’s implementations of the materialist Marxist theoretical concept of the “means of (mass industrial) production”. Whomever controls a widget or a sprocket is irrelevant as long as it does not affect an individual’s subsistence!) 2) It benefits national security! If local communities can make AND fix everything, then disruptions to foreign-based supply chains do not threaten to disrupt national security or undermine your community’s economy. You are essentially invincible. 3) It benefits the economy. More choices (rather than fake choices ALL actually owned and produced by the same monopoly) creates competition which lowers prices. More businesses increases demand for workers, increasing the wages of talented workers and rewarding meritorious work! 4) The previous two benefits work together to DECREASE inflation by increasing buying power. 5) retains wealth WITHIN the local community. 6) broadly distributes wealth. 7) increases community safety and resilience to disasters as more people have the skill and the capability to effectively cope with crisis. 8) increases the efficiency, responsiveness and accountability of businesses and government by pushing government policy decisions to the most local level practical and feasible. 9) increases cultural diversity and the diversity of ideas, increasing innovation and facilitating political adaptation and 10) the most important benefit of all - it replaces big government/big business with BIG CITIZENS! One caveat: the resultant economy MUST be ecologically-based and ecologically-constrained. Merely decentralizing the economy without addressing the fundamental underlying flaws of materialism as implemented by both centralized capitalism and centralized socialism will NOT solve the problem. What were those false assumptions? 1) that humans are independent of the ecosystem and do not require ecosystem products and services to support their existence. 2) that sources and sinks are infinite, therefore we can produce what ever we desire (rather than prioritizing human and ecological SUBSISTENCE NEEDS over non-subsistence desires). I suggest making ecological literacy a cornerstone policy priority. Ecological literacy is even MORE important than reading, writing and arithmetic. In fact, anyone who is NOT ecologically literate OUGHT to be treated as an illiterate bumpkin, unfit for any leadership position. I myself do that now. When I am talking to an ecological illiterate, I purposely speak slowly, use simple words and speak louder - just as people treated illiterates in the past. It is a very effective way to deal with such people. Ignoring them and shunning them is effective too, for similar reasons. They want to hide their greed by appearing as intelligent, trusted, respected leaders. Treating them as morons forces them to formulate an argument, which can then easily be destroyed using logic, reason, and scientifically supported facts. As I said in my earlier post, they are either stupid, ignorant, criminal or insane. If they are insane, they should receive medical treatment. If they are criminals, they should be compelled to make restitution. If they are ignorant, they should be educated. Unfortunately, nothing can be done if they are found to be just plain stupid! 😂
We must have a central authority with the power to mobilize to act reactivity, and hopefully proactively, to avert existential threats. This power is otherwise delegated.to the grassroots communal layers. This allows a finer granulation of self governance and variation of things like language, culture... For central government selection, this must be based on social merit and capability. Years of process and honing must shape these representatives. They must also earn the mean it less and share these sustainable levels of equity with the rest of us. Like it or not, Chairman Xi Jinping was scrutinized and selected through a rigorous system to ensure that he is and will remain l, incorruptible and for the people. What is the measure of the real.social merit or Donald Trump, Tony Blair, Etc... We need to rewrite how this world works, and fast...
Govt debt exploding and higher interest rates, lets hope government collapse, all bureaucrats get fired and the people get freed from big government harassement and the climatescam.
An interesting discussion but such narratives are distortions if they don’t rely on up to date empirical evidence. While I concur that electrification on its own is no solution to the convergent ecological and climate crises, without a radical restructuring and decentralising of socioeconomics, you cannot dismiss electrification on the basis of the damage caused by mining rare earth metals, and then use the example of Tesla cars, when Tesla has already moved a large proportion of its production to battery chemistries free from rare earth metals. And it seems this trend is being replicated more widely across the electrification industries. Sound environmental and energetic arguments against personalised electrified transport abound. By misrepresenting the facts, Bendell renders his own position less tenable.
Why you gotta attack Extinction Rebellion and the Guardian like that? Gatekeeping isn't helping anything, you can't call yourself a libertarian then attack the little guys who trying to challenge power.
Didn't attack - explained that XR haven't got into working-class communities, or made significant changes on the ground. Guardian not a 'little guy' It's a giant state mouthpiece, with a corporate board. Last time I looked they had top executives of banks and corporate supermarkets on their board.
I live in a traditional immigrant working class neighborhood. We are already growing the three sisters (corn, beans, squash) in our street tree beds, community gardens, and backyards. The local businesses are often the ones who supply the water.
You're asking for an article (or maybe a book). See www.lowimpact.org/categories/money - book recommendations in there. But - 1. banks have a state monopoly on creating money when they make loans, and charging interest, which concentrates wealth. 2. banks choose the most profitable (therefore corporate) borrowers, which concentrates wealth. 3. fiat money can be (and is) sucked from communities via corporate branches and websites and concentrated, often in tax havens - whilst community-based businesses can't avoid tax - concentrates wealth again. 4. there's now a war on cash that will allow surveillance of all transactions, to target corporate advertising and allow greater centralised control. That's just a start - see article for more avenues to explore.
Seriously...The ONLY possible way to completely avoid all the fighting, violence, death and destruction of this system collapsing (and there is no question it is collapsing) would be to make it financially worthwhile for people to SHARE the jobs we would democratically agree we NEED to have done and work much LESS...it's the only thing that could guarantee that peoples NEEDS never stop being met while at the same time completely putting an end to this insane infinite growth system on a finite planet.
It was a process to get where we are and it will be another process going back to say..playing music together and cooking together. Good luck to everyone out there🌎☀️💙
What is needed is for each of us to realize we have agency, a sense of efficacy, that we can in fact affect change.
Talk to your neighbors, yes. But mostly listen to them. The people living on your block are the only ones who will be able help as the system unravels. Good luck to us all.
Absolutely excellent. Rational, humane, logical, shrewd. Thank you.
We need equality and a simpler form of democracy. Say we can’t save our environment and ourselves perhaps we can minimize the suffering.
Nature doesn't allow an imbalance to continue forever. Even the mountains erode to dust.
Astute observations, gentlemen
Great interview! I especially like the Left/eco-Libertarian discussion, as I'm an ex-Green who went through the looking glass during the pandemonium, don't recognise my old Green buddies anymore, but am not always comfortable with the values of the Freedom-loving Right.
I'm a doomer, doomster or post gloom (whatever) but I still like/support XR, the Guardian and environmental justice organizations. All are needed.
Yep, I'm absolutely there with you. (Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and all that!). No system or solution is perfect - and if being a Guardian reader and supporting XR and/or environmental justice organisations leads you on to theoretically better ways forward then that's really important. NB: note to Jem, I wouldn't have come across him and his work had it not been a link from an XR local group!
Really appreciated. Thank you, both.
Great convo. Just coming across these ideas and you're blowing my mind. So many insights. Thank you
Have you come across Daniel Schmachtenberger’s work. I think your mind will live it.
@@changethatmatters6081 Thank you for the recomendation
I hope Jem's next book will have significant content (e.g. 50%) about what can be done.
Grow flowers and vegetables, feed the yard birds.
I’ve read the book and did not really come across any realistic answers about how address the situation. Run away and join a commune seemed to be the only solution suggested which doesn’t seem possible for most. Maybe I need to read it again ? When you consider how long it’s taken to come to any agreement on where we are going and then look at how little of the root causes have been addressed then maybe Jem’s right. 😟
Permaculture. Transition Towns. Geoff Lawton. Bill Mollison. One straw revolution.
Your welcome ❤
Ps. I'm still not suggesting collapse can be avoided, I don't think it can.
nothing can be done anymore than enjoy the last spasems of live
always a pleasure to listen to Jem. Also nice to hear three references dear to my life : XR, Ye Tao, Michel Bauwens
No.
We need to design for recycling, and deliver what everyone reasonably needs.
That is doable, but not within a market based paradigm where the goal is profit.
We need to accept planetary boundaries, and work within them.
Technological solutions are both possible and necessary, and they are very unlikely to emerge as the result of market incentives.
The problem space is actually deeply more complex than this discussion points to.
Cooperation is fundamental to the survival of complexity, and so is freedom (within responsible bounds).
Than means acceptance and respect for diversity.
Eternal growth is not an option, but universal poverty isn't a survivable option either.
Diversity is required at every level, and everyone has to have what they consider sufficient to do whatever they reasonably choose. And clearly we cannot all own planes and superyachts.
But we can all have secure food, good communication and healthcare, reasonable travel, interesting things to do.
I agree. !
here is my prescription. Start with yourself. Make yourself sustainable by taking responsibility for yourself and placing all of your life-support systems under your ownership and control. That way you cannot be controlled by outside providers. If you can't do it all, partner with others who are trying to do the same thing trading your surpluses for the subsistence life-support resources that you lack. Continue to work on achieving self-sufficiency. Then work on your family, close friends and neighbors doing the same. Consider the subsistence life-support needs of this group as an entity. Create mutual aid networks with other such entities. Continue to spiral outwards in a similar manner, including extended family, and coworkers, and more neighbors, then your neighborhood and community, your town, your city, your county, your state, your region, your country, the world, the solar system...the universe, each time stopping to consider the subsistence life-support needs of each level of aggregation. THAT is my approach. It works and it is scalable to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Let's do it. Let's start today!
I love this as an idea. In reality, I believe it to be far more tricky - but I suspect that's majorly because we have all become so used to one-click easy answers to anything we don't have an immediate answer for ourselves. I think there's a lot of growing and learning we all need to do - and time is not on our side... But we've all got to start somewhere :)
@@gillywillybythesea The primary problem as I see it is two-fold and interrelated. First we have all been made to be dependent upon big business and big government for our subsistence. Second, we have all been made to look to big government and big business for solutions to our problems. The solution is for individuals and communities to take responsibility for and ownership of our subsistence away from big business and big government (rendering them useless, redundant and powerless) and start taking action ourselves. The reason that we are "running out of time" is that we are NOT doing so. We ALREADY have the power, we are just not using it. My prescription creates the required transformation and transition by creating a Shadow Democratic mutual aid network that gradually weens people off their dependency and reestablishes mutual interdependency. No violence or shots need be fired. That cannot be said if we wait until people are desperate and the inevitable crisis occurs. That will likely lead to totalitarianism. So that's our choice. Do something now or hand our children the problem and bequeath them a totalitarian dystopian future.
We have begun doing just this. We left the U.K. 2 years ago, moved to Bulgaria where we have a small house on a decent plot of fertile land. We can live on very little, our lives are greatly simplified but we still use all things modern because we can and it’s convenient. We are slowly weaning away, aiming to become more off grid and self reliant, learning old skills and ways. It’s very common for people to live like this in the poor villages where we live, foraging and gathering free resources to survive. It ain’t pretty but when the SHTF they are going to be ok where we are going to struggle!
The future is definitely in community, and I hope to be able to bring people into our home that can help us with the skills and time/energy we don’t have in return for a share of what we do have and can give. I’m glad it’s not such an out there idea after all!
Thanks that was a good interview. I was just wondering yesterday why The Guardian seem to post the more radical articles, as often referred to by Paul Beckwith on his channel. I see what you are saying now is that they are just the other side of the same coin and that the only thing left to do now is build something from the ground up in any areas we feel called to, or where our interest lies.
Recent development on building the commons and communities amid collapse is "Design School for Earth Regeneration" with the development and spread of bioregional learing centres. I find these inspiring as they are entirely community / bioregional based - from the ground (land) up. Joe Brewer, the co-founder is an innovative, non-conventional thinker worth checking out.
Yes, we know Joe Brewer, but will investigate more, thanks. We're more focused on how to make commons infrastructure available to people in working-class communities. I think that's essential. Most of the world is working-class, and they don't really have ways in to the commons.
@@LowimpactTV yes. reclamation of the commons is central to bioregonalism. It is evolving rapidly.
Massive human overpopulation after our ancestors jumped fro a Hunter-Gatherer clan living social structure that was egalitarian and into the sedentary grain farming nightmare of today is the basis of capitalism, predatory capitalism, and all of the other ills of modern hierarchical society. A wonderful, rarely mentioned in the MSM, book lays it all out: "Before Writing", by one of may alltime heroes, Denise Schmandt-Besserat.
It's also good to keep in mind uthe capability to recycle lithium in batteries for use again, as well as other circular/sustainable methods. Mining is not the end all and be all.
Adaptability is inversely proportional to the level of specific adaptation. Our current global civilization is a very specific adaptation, so in order to adapt some level of societal collapse is necessary. That is why the commons flourish when societies collapse. As society sheds its specific adaptations the members of the society are then free to adapt within the space left open.
True, but how do we know that the adaptation isn't going to be worse that what we currently have? We need to realize that we can create virtually anything that we can imagine. Since available resources are scarce, logically, we need to prioritize what we create to favor that which serves to enhance our sustainability, resilience, survival, diversity, capacity and the sustainability, resilience, survival, diversity and capacity of the ecosystem on which we depend. We need to develop an ecological-based and ecologically-constrained technology and economy and STOP developing and using technology that undermines human and ecological life. The best way to do this is by requiring a public statement of how a given technology is going to provide such life-affirming benefits and then directly voting for proposals rather than voting for "representatives" who inevitably allocate resources (to favor those who bribe them).
@@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702 Adaption should be fit to the requirements of survival within a local environment. Considering the speed of deterioration, you might not have time to convene the biweekly committee or carry out a vote of the majority. The "save the whole world" strategy, due to the scale involved, requires cooperation of the entire species, which has never happened in the history of mankind. Even an agreement of nations or national leaders is an extremely rare event outside of platitudes. Everybody made promises on climate change; everybody broke their promises. Keep in mind the road to Utopia always leads to Dystopia. No one has ever, in all of human history, successfully constructed a society or an economy from scratch.
@@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702 There’s one other element to survival, and that is diversity. When environments change, monocultures tend to go extinct due to a lack of sufficient variation in the population to find adaptations to explore. Not all adaptations will be successful. Essentially, monocultures run out of possible adaptations before they find one that works. Therefore, to improve the chance for some survival, you want to encourage diversity in traits, behavior, and solutions. You don’t want to force everyone to use the same solution or the same adaptation, but you also want to cut any support for clearly failing adaptations when it is clear they are failing. The more things we try, the more likely we’ll find something that increases our chances for survival-at least on the species level.
@@kimwelch4652 I'm not arguing for a top down approach, in fact, in all my posts, I have argued for a bottom up approach and adoption of beneficial approaches by adjacent groups through the diffusion of ideas. Such a process is natural and is the way human societies have traditionally worked -- monkey see, monkey do. I simply want to avoid the recreation of destructive unsustainable political and economic structures and technologies following a collapse. We have to LEARN from our mistakes, not repeat them. If history is our guide, when a society collapses, the rich take the money and run and set up shop elsewhere and DO THE SAME unsustainable stuff AGAIN! This time, rather than a local or regional collapse, the collapse will be global with nowhere to run. Even so, they will try. We just need to prepare now to put in place a better more sustainable system than what we currently have, otherwise, more likely than not, it will be less equitable, more draconian and less sustainable than what we currently have. Referendums and direct democracy on policies can work on the local level. I advise creating a Shadow government to vote by referendum alongside the official government. People can discuss and vote on the issues and then we will have something in place to offer as an alternative when the crisis strikes.
@@kimwelch4652 I agree and a diversity of approaches originating at the local level is exactly what I am advocating for. No one is forcing anybody to do anything. I was merely urging a prudent proactive precautionary approach be taken. Despite what many Americans currently believe, Liberty is NOT the freedom to do whatever one desires and wants (regardless of the harm that it causes to other humans and to our ecologically-based life-support systems). Rather it is the responsibility to act in a manner that not only does no harm but actually provides net benefits to society and to it's life-support systems. Liberty is the freedom to do what we OUGHT, to act in accordance with our conscience to do the right, moral and ethical thing. THAT is the only "freedom" that humans have. So before I authorize a dime of funding or a gram of resources, those requesting it ought to have to state and justify how what they are proposing is anticipated to occur, what these net benefits will be and to whom they will accrue. They should be competing with other proposals for funding. The affected citizen residents of the jurisdiction should then decide what proposals get funded. Funded proposals will be those that are anticipated to result in the greatest net benefits for the jurisdictional citizen residents. Then we can track them and adjust or terminate our support accordingly. This is not unreasonable.
But how do you make mobility and transport more sustainable and democratic without strong governments? You can't build and expand public transport without a strong government and expect to get a workable system that actually serves peoples' needs.
governments aren't going to build a sustainable, democratic transport system or any other system. If I had one wish, it would be that switched-on people would give up on govts to do anything useful. How many COP meetings would it take, for everyone to realise that states are in the pockets of corporations, and continue to subsidise the oil industry. There are people building co-operative public transport systems - th-cam.com/video/Xbm7RNwCFhw/w-d-xo.html, and we are working with specialists designing commons structures for every sector of the economy, including transport.
We need to realize that big oil and other big businesses CREATED globalized jobs and globalized travel so that they REQUIRE the use of fossil fuels so the THEY could sell more oil and make more money! Pick a job that does not require the use of fossil fuels. I'm a writer. I don't have to travel if I don't want to. Roll up your sleeves and get involved with improving your LOCAL neighborhood and LOCAL community. Walk, run, ride a bicycle (buy or build a velomobile), use more boats, dirigibles etc. I used to own and ride horses.
Honestly, I think it's likely that the current number of individually owned vehicles will have to go down, by sheer inability to afford them if nothing else. Walking will come back, bikes when possible. Basic motorbikes will possibly be the new luxury transport. Everyone will be "opting out" basically- too busy dealing with storm damage, finding food sources, dealing with the newest local disease... not much time or option for shopping. Farmers might become the new celebrities, only as famous as county lines reach maybe, but still. Work for a couple of hours, go home with a box of food.
I think some of their point is that areas of a few thousand-ish people might be the new "normal" independent governing body taking care of themselves without leaving their areas much. We'll have one country, but won't likely interact much across distance.
'Humanity today is like a waking dreamer, caught between the fantasies of sleep and the chaos of the real world. The mind seeks but cannot find the precise place and hour. we have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. we thrash about. We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of life!
~ E. O. Wilson.
Murray Bookchin set it all out decades ago.
We need a PASSIVE BIBO mutual credit system. Godspeed.
Both good and bad in this interview.
Jem raises the idea of "the commons". Back in 1968, Garrett Hardin published "The Tragedy Of The Commons". For decades afterwards economists, especially neoliberalist economists who were coming into the limelight (Thatcherism, Reaganomics, etc) disputed both the idea of a "tragedy", and of a "commons".
Elinor Ostrom, who denied she was strictly speaking an economist, was finally awarded the so-called "Nobel Prize" in economics, (Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) for her "Governing the Commons" in which she outlined some communitarian solutions to "The Tragedy".
Back even in the '50s and '60s, Murray Bookchin had already been discussing Anarchist ideas. A later essay by him in 1991 entitled "Libertarian Municipalism: A Politics of Direct Democracy", precedes what Jem speaks and writes about here.
Theoretically, communism could have been a route to follow, but we can read about the disastrous annexation by "the centre" of say "collective farms". Stalin, and even Lenin, both wanted a central Russia, not a collective of collectives. Anarchism became eventually for Bookchin, communalism, an even less dominated community.
(Communalism, the Democratic Dimension of Anarchism. theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-communalism-the-democratic-dimension-of-anarchism )
Fragmentation of a central State might be what is required for "democracy"? But, for some reason, we like to aggregate into States. Is bigger really better? (Jem mentioned "Small is Beautiful") Maybe we're assuming there's safety in numbers?
I'm not clear why Jem chose to attack the most liberal (sensible) of British newspapers, the Grauniad. Even in his sphere "academic" journals are influenced to some extent. Jem might remember the "Sokal affair"? The Grauniad is certainly "better than" say the Daily Mail, or what used, in past years, to be the (sensible and reliable) Times.
Yes, I think we'll need to move away from centralised nation-states for anything remotely like a democratic system. Problem with the Graun is that it's absolutely statist / centralist. (and 'progressive' - i.e. a supporter of linear tech / economic 'progress' / growth).
Bolshivism was the realisation that democracy will not be allowed by a state in the hands of capitalism, degrowth will not be allowed for the same reason; whether one chooses to organise or believe you can "build from the bottom" revolution is as inevitable as extinction.
Look folks Marx was a materialist and an industrialist. The only thing that separates a materialistic Marxist from a materialistic capitalist is who owns and controls the “means of production (of industrial capital)”. They both support centralized industrial production. They are BOTH two sides of the same totalitarian coin. The means of production is IRRELEVANT. Only control over the “means of subsistence” is relevant. If each individual controls their own means of subsistence, we have free will, liberty and democracy. If EITHER big business OR big government controls the individual’s means of subsistence, we have slavery, tyranny and totalitarianism. It is just that simple. See my other posts for exactly how to throw off the yoke both big business and big government, make big business and big government irrelevant, unnecessary, and therefore powerless, save the ecosystem, save future generations from catastrophes and do it from the bottom up, with no help from government and WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT!
Vive le chat!
Haven't watched yet but good topic as it is very likely coming!
stupid, a good word, with an S font size that stretches to the sky I used to say
Left libertarianism is like Anarchism but with a democratic state and voluntary cooperation within and between interest organization and corporations. No perpetual revolution, but perpetual change and hopefully perpetual improvement. In my head you can patch capitalism to not be obligued to always maximize the profit, but instead maximize other factors that are valued in monetary terms by the democratic system.
You were very nearly having a conversation- don’t give up! We have a problem at the moment - let’s make sure we’re trying to slay the right dragon. My guess is that capitalism coupled with a strong ethical culture can work and has worked. Capitalism decoupled from meaningful ethics we can see is a disaster.
@@celiacresswell6909 Capitalism is simply a tool. This tool, like any other tool, can be wielded by evil or virtue. Same with politicians. It's human failure that ruins things. Thanks for showing interest. Cheers.
@@anthonymorris5084 I agree: it’s the worm in the core that’s the problem! Hence Bendell’s flight from concentration of power is surely right, and so the debate circles round again
@@anthonymorris5084 We want to introduce community-based, commons alternatives to those who understand biosphere damage and wealth / power concentration. Arguing against corporate centralisers and status quo defenders wastes time and causes clutter. So do your stuff somewhere else. Final.
Libertarians are the phenomenally stoopid apes who trust business and corporatocracy to behave. ..no one is stooooopider, NO ONE.
🐈⬛beautiful kitty
Technology may have advanced enough to release civilization from the confines of the second law of thermodynamics.
These confines were imposed during Victorian England's scientific and religious cultural fascination with steam engines.
The second law is behind modern refgeration needing electrical energy to compress the refrigerent to force it to release as waste the heat that it has removed from the refrigerator's service interior in the cooling part of the refrigerent's circulation. There is also discarded heat from mechanical friction and electrical resistance. The total released and discarded heat minus the removed heat equal the electrical input but the attached conversion of electricity into heat is forced.
Refrigeration by the principle that energy is conserved should produce electricity instead of consuming it.
It makes more sense that refrigerators should yield electricity because energy is widely known to change form with no ultimate path of energy gain or loss being found. Therefore any form of fully recyclable energy can be cycled endlessly in any quantity.
In an extreme case senario, full heat recycling, all electric, very isolated underground, undersea, or space communities would be highly survivable with self sufficient EMP resistant LED light banks, automated vertical farms, thaw resistant frozen food storehouses, factories, dwellings, and self contained elevators and horizontal transports.
In a flourishing civillization senario, small self sufficient electric or cooling devices of many kinds and styles like lamps, smartphones, hotplates, water heaters, cooler chests, fans, radios, TVs, cameras, security devices, robot test equipment, scales, transaction terminals, wall clocks, open or ciosed for business luminus signs, power hand tools, ditch diggers, pumps, and personal transports, would be available for immediate use incrementally anywhere as people see fit.
Some equipment groups could be consolidated on local networks.
If a high majority thinks our civilization should geoengineer gigatons or
teratons of carbon dioxide out of our environment, instalations using devices that convert ambient heat into electricity can hypothetically be scaled up do it with a choice of comsequences including many beneficial ones.
Energy sensible refrigerators that absorb heat and yield electricity would complement computers as computing consumes electricity and yields heat. Computing would be free. Chips could have energy recycling built in.
A simple rectifier crystal can, iust short of a replicatable long term demonstration of a powerful prototype, almost certainly filter the random thermal motioren of electrons or discrete positiive charged voids called holes so the electric current flowing in one direction predominates. At low system voltage a filtrate of one polarity predominates only a little but there is always usable electrical power derived from the source, which is Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise. This net electrical filtrate can be aggregated in a group of separate diodes in consistent alignment parallel creating widely scalable electrical power. The maximum energy is converted from ambient heat to productive electricity when the electrical load is matched to the array impeadence.
Matched impeadence output (watts) is k (Boltźman's constant), one point three eight x 10^ minus 23, times T (temperature Kelvin) times bandwidth (0 Hz to a natural limit ~2 THz @ 290 K) times rectification halving and nanowatt power level rectification efficiency, times the number of diodes in the array.
For reference, there are a billion cells of 1000 square nanometer area each per square millimeter, 100 billion per square centimeter.
Order is imposed on the random thermal motion of electrons by the structual orderlyness of a diode array made of diodes made within a slab:
______________________ - Out
🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻
______________________ + Out
All the P type semiconductor anodes abut a metal conductive plane deposited on the top face of the slab with nonrectifying joins; all the N type semiconductor cathodes abut the bottom face. As the polarity filtered electrical energy is exported, the amount of thermal energy in the group of diodes decreases. This group cooling will draw heat in from the surrounding ambient heat at a rate depending on the filtering rate and thermal resistance between the group and ambient gas, liquid, or solid warmer than absolute zero. There is a lot of ambient heat on our planet, more in equatorial dry desert summer days and less in polar desert winter nights.
Focusing on explaining the electronic behavior of one composition of simple diode, a near flawless crystal of silicon is modified by implanting a small amount of phosphorus (N type)on one side from a ohmic contact end to a junction where the additive is suddenly and completely changed to boron (P type) with minimal disturbance of the crystal lattice. The crystal then continues to another ohmic contact.
A region of high electrical resistance forms at the junction in this type of diode when the phosphorous near the ĵunction donates electrons that are free to move elsewhere while leaving phosphorus ions held in the crystal while the boron donates holes which are similalarly free to move. The two types of mobile charges mutually clear each other away near the junction leaving little electrical conductivity. An equlibrium width of this region is settled between the phosphorus, boron, electrons, and holes. Thermal noise is beyond steady state equlibrium. Thermal noise transients, where mobile electrons move from the phosphorus added side to the boron added side ride transient extra conductivity so the forward moving electrons are preferentally filtered into the external circuit. Mobile electrons are units of electric current. They lose their thermal energy of motion and gain electromotive force, another name for voltage, as they transition between the junction and the array electrical tap. Inside the diode, heat is absorbed: outside the diode, to exactly the same extent, an attached electrical circuit is energized. The voltage of a diode array is likely to be small so many similar arrays need to be put in series to build higher voltage.
Understanding diodes is one way to become convinced that Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise can be rectified and aggregated. Self assembling development teams may find many ways to accomplish this wide mission. Taxonomically there should be many ways ways to convert heat directly into electricity.
A practical device may use an array of Au needles in a SiO2 matrix abutting N type GaAs. These were made in the 1970s when registration technology was poor so it was easier to fabricate arrays and select one diode than just make one diode.
There are other plausible breeches of the second law of thermodynamics. Hopefully a lot of people will join in expanding the breech. Please share the successes or setbacks of your efforts.
These devices would probably become segmented commodities sold with minimal margin over supply cost. They would be manufactured by advanced automation that does not need financial incentive. Applicable best practices would be adopted. Business details would be open public knowledge. Associated people should move as negotiated and freely and honestly talk. Commerce would be a planetary scale unified conglomerate of diverse local cooperatives. There is no need of wealth extracting top commanders. We do not need often token philanthropy from the top if the wide majority of people can afford to be generous.
Aloha
Charles M Brown
Kilauea Kauai Hawaii 96754
I think soon people who don't grow food will suffer. Those who grow the food they eat, like getting their fingernails dirty, will be ok.
Most politics is merely fighting over the control of money flows.
Growing food will help for sure.
@@dianewallace6064 Expecting others to grow food to eat is the #1 in my view predicament. Thanks for the reply.
@@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner It helps the pollinators and wild critters too.
@@dianewallace6064 Yes indeed. Thanks for that idea!
Why should anyone be judged before Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama?
Yeah, all very nice ideas, except it only takes one society not to go along with it, and they win. And there are definitely a number of societies, including the largest Earth, who have no intention of signing up for a voluntary reduction in growth. And they certainly aren't about to redistribute their recently won relative prosperity with the billions further down the international pecking order.
High throughput (of energy and materials) societies will always be able to militarily out-compete low throughput societies when the struggle is existential. So when a high throughput society starts depleting its resources, it can (and will) just go and takes the resources of those low throughput societies which so considerately preserved their resources to be taken by the civilization that defeats and succeeds them.
So lovely thoughts, but not even the seed of a realistic plan.
We build the commons economy in communities everywhere, including the US. There's no other way. We can't challenge global power head-on. The obvious response to your post of course is to (genuinely) ask if you have a better idea.
@@LowimpactTV Do I have a plan? No, not really, or at least not a program beyond greatly reducing government power and involvement in peoples lives. Limit government to national defence from foreign foes, and maintaining a legal system composed of many fewer, but very strictly and equally enforced laws, and the rest will sort of look after itself.
Why would the gods raise up this kind of human society only to watch it Crash. There might be more going on here than we easily know.
Antinatalism is the ultimate ideological checkmate. It solves all problems.
The problem is humans. Including me and my offspring if I had made them.
Bollocks. Animals have problems. Just ask the gazelle with the cheetah trying to run it down (or the cheetah, trying to get something to eat). If the solution to problems is to get rid of the organisms that have problems, then we should be cheering for global extinction of all life. There are no problems on Mars.
Antinatalism may reduce overconsumption (assuming that existing people and those who don't adopt antinatalism do not increase per-capita consumption as population declines), but it creates other problems, such as aging populations without enough young people to support them. AI and automation may solve that for awhile, but then there's the question of how much the AI's (data servers, etc.) consume.
We must have a central authority with the power to mobilize to act reactivity, and hopefully proactively, to avert existential threats. This power is otherwise reserved by the grassroots communal layers. This allows a finer granulation of self governance and variation of things like language, culture...
For central government selection, this must be based on social merit and capability. Years of process and honing must shape these representatives. They must also earn the mean or less and share the same sustainable levels of equity with the rest of us. Like it or not, Chairman Xi Jinping was scrutinized and selected through a rigorous system to ensure that he is and will remain l, incorruptible and for the people. What is the measure of the real social merit or Donald Trump, Tony Blair, Etc...? We need to rewrite how this world works, and fast.
Right. As a green anarchist I have been preaching AND practicing these things for 30+ years. Here are a ten more benefits to decentralization: 1) You can exercise free will or liberty (defined per Lord Acton as the freedom to act as you OUGHT, to do the right and moral thing, in accordance with your conscience) and you can finally have a democratic society because EVERYONE is in control of their own means of subsistence (their life-support system) and therefore CANNOT be controlled or manipulated by external suppliers of that life-support (My “means of subsistence” should NOT be confused with centralized Communist’s implementations of the materialist Marxist theoretical concept of the “means of (mass industrial) production”. Whomever controls a widget or a sprocket is irrelevant as long as it does not affect an individual’s subsistence!) 2) It benefits national security! If local communities can make AND fix everything, then disruptions to foreign-based supply chains do not threaten to disrupt national security or undermine your community’s economy. You are essentially invincible. 3) It benefits the economy. More choices (rather than fake choices ALL actually owned and produced by the same monopoly) creates competition which lowers prices. More businesses increases demand for workers, increasing the wages of talented workers and rewarding meritorious work! 4) The previous two benefits work together to DECREASE inflation by increasing buying power. 5) retains wealth WITHIN the local community. 6) broadly distributes wealth. 7) increases community safety and resilience to disasters as more people have the skill and the capability to effectively cope with crisis. 8) increases the efficiency, responsiveness and accountability of businesses and government by pushing government policy decisions to the most local level practical and feasible. 9) increases cultural diversity and the diversity of ideas, increasing innovation and facilitating political adaptation and 10) the most important benefit of all - it replaces big government/big business with BIG CITIZENS! One caveat: the resultant economy MUST be ecologically-based and ecologically-constrained. Merely decentralizing the economy without addressing the fundamental underlying flaws of materialism as implemented by both centralized capitalism and centralized socialism will NOT solve the problem. What were those false assumptions? 1) that humans are independent of the ecosystem and do not require ecosystem products and services to support their existence. 2) that sources and sinks are infinite, therefore we can produce what ever we desire (rather than prioritizing human and ecological SUBSISTENCE NEEDS over non-subsistence desires). I suggest making ecological literacy a cornerstone policy priority. Ecological literacy is even MORE important than reading, writing and arithmetic. In fact, anyone who is NOT ecologically literate OUGHT to be treated as an illiterate bumpkin, unfit for any leadership position. I myself do that now. When I am talking to an ecological illiterate, I purposely speak slowly, use simple words and speak louder - just as people treated illiterates in the past. It is a very effective way to deal with such people. Ignoring them and shunning them is effective too, for similar reasons. They want to hide their greed by appearing as intelligent, trusted, respected leaders. Treating them as morons forces them to formulate an argument, which can then easily be destroyed using logic, reason, and scientifically supported facts. As I said in my earlier post, they are either stupid, ignorant, criminal or insane. If they are insane, they should receive medical treatment. If they are criminals, they should be compelled to make restitution. If they are ignorant, they should be educated. Unfortunately, nothing can be done if they are found to be just plain stupid! 😂
We must have a central authority with the power to mobilize to act reactivity, and hopefully proactively, to avert existential threats. This power is otherwise delegated.to the grassroots communal layers. This allows a finer granulation of self governance and variation of things like language, culture...
For central government selection, this must be based on social merit and capability. Years of process and honing must shape these representatives. They must also earn the mean it less and share these sustainable levels of equity with the rest of us. Like it or not, Chairman Xi Jinping was scrutinized and selected through a rigorous system to ensure that he is and will remain l, incorruptible and for the people. What is the measure of the real.social merit or Donald Trump, Tony Blair, Etc... We need to rewrite how this world works, and fast...
Ninja robots
Govt debt exploding and higher interest rates, lets hope government collapse, all bureaucrats get fired and the people get freed from big government harassement and the climatescam.
An interesting discussion but such narratives are distortions if they don’t rely on up to date empirical evidence. While I concur that electrification on its own is no solution to the convergent ecological and climate crises, without a radical restructuring and decentralising of socioeconomics, you cannot dismiss electrification on the basis of the damage caused by mining rare earth metals, and then use the example of Tesla cars, when Tesla has already moved a large proportion of its production to battery chemistries free from rare earth metals. And it seems this trend is being replicated more widely across the electrification industries. Sound environmental and energetic arguments against personalised electrified transport abound. By misrepresenting the facts, Bendell renders his own position less tenable.
Ha ha 'big daddy'! 😄
Why you gotta attack Extinction Rebellion and the Guardian like that? Gatekeeping isn't helping anything, you can't call yourself a libertarian then attack the little guys who trying to challenge power.
Didn't attack - explained that XR haven't got into working-class communities, or made significant changes on the ground. Guardian not a 'little guy' It's a giant state mouthpiece, with a corporate board. Last time I looked they had top executives of banks and corporate supermarkets on their board.
I live in a traditional immigrant working class neighborhood. We are already growing the three sisters (corn, beans, squash) in our street tree beds, community gardens, and backyards. The local businesses are often the ones who supply the water.
Explain why centralized fiat currency credit system leads to authoritarianism and away from localism.
You're asking for an article (or maybe a book). See www.lowimpact.org/categories/money - book recommendations in there. But - 1. banks have a state monopoly on creating money when they make loans, and charging interest, which concentrates wealth. 2. banks choose the most profitable (therefore corporate) borrowers, which concentrates wealth. 3. fiat money can be (and is) sucked from communities via corporate branches and websites and concentrated, often in tax havens - whilst community-based businesses can't avoid tax - concentrates wealth again. 4. there's now a war on cash that will allow surveillance of all transactions, to target corporate advertising and allow greater centralised control. That's just a start - see article for more avenues to explore.
big daddy is coming, let the force be with me ??????????????????