Why Capitalism is Killing Us
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2024
- Right now, the first 500 people to use my link will get a one month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/ourchangingclimate1023
Support OCC via Patreon: / ourchangingclimate
Watch next month's video right now on Nebula: nebula.tv/occ/latest
This video leaned very heavily on Andreas Malm's book Fossil Capital. Check it out here: www.versobooks.com/products/1...
In this Our Changing Climate climate change video essay, I look at how fossil fuel extraction and capital accumulation intertwine into fossil capital. Specifically, I look at the accumulation of capital throughout the industrial world has always been underpinned by fossil fuel emissions. Today, in the age of imperialism, fossil fuels and carbon emissions have facilitated the hyper-exploitation of workers globally, all in the name of profits and capital accumulation. The end result of this relationship is climate change and massive emissions output.
Help me make more videos like this via Patreon: / ourchangingclimate
Email List: ourchangingclimateocc.substac...
Twitter: / ourclimatenow
Facebook: / occvideos
Instagram: / occ.climate
Reddit: www.reddit.com/r/OurChangingClimate/
_______________________
Further Reading and Resources: ourchangingclimate.notion.sit...
_______________________
For music, I use Artlist. You can get 2 months free with this link: artlist.io/artlist-70446/?art...
For stock footage, I use Artgrid. You can get 2 months free with this link:
I also use Epidemic Sound for some of my music: epidemicsound.com/creator
Some visuals courtesy of Getty Images
_______________________
Timestamps:
0:00 - Intro
1:57 - What Is Fossil Capital?
6:30 - The Destruction of Fossil Capital
16:17 - Why Capitalism Won't Save Us
_______________________
Check out other Climate TH-camrs:
Climate in Colour: / @climateincolour1273
zentouro: / zentouro
Climate Adam: / climateadam
Kurtis Baute: / @scopeofscience
Simon Clark: / simonoxfphys
Sarah Karver: / @sarahkarver
Climate Town: / @climatetown
Jack Harries: / jacksgap
Beckisphere: / @beckisphere
All About Climate: / @allaboutclimate
Aime Maggie: / @aimemaggie
Just Have a Think: / @justhaveathink
Ankur Shah: / ankurshah
Planet Proof: / @planetproofofficial
Future Proof: / futureprooftv
_______________________
#socialism #fossilfuels #climatechange
🍂 In your opinion, which corporations are the most destructive? (Localy or globally?)
🔗Support OCC on Patreon: www.patreon.com/OurChangingClimate
✊Support the Atlanta Solidarity Fund to bail out climate activists arrested in the fight to stop Cop City: atlsolidarity.org/
Systematic Animal Slaughter Industry.
The corporations of the Military Industrial Complex, such as Lockheed-Martin.
Agribusiness, shipping, and the military.
The war machine,
Th8s summer, tempatures did reach 1.5c co2.earth
I've told people for years that if a company could figure out how to force people to pay for the air they breathe they would.
I feel like I'm already paying with my health.
You could argue air is already being sold.
Phase 1) Pollute the air
Phase 2) Sell air filters.
Profit
@@wsams??al
@@deepseadarew6012 You are saying this as if capitalism is to blame for air pollution. Please look at air pollution in China.
Why do you think people like Bezos want to create orbital factories? No legal jurisdiction to regulate labor practices, complete control over communications back to Earth, and employees who cannot leave and are dependent on you for the very air they breathe. It's no wonder he also liked The Expanse so much, that's a Utopian vision to him. He sees being able to just slaughter Belters who dare unionize and drools over so wonderful a future.
Sadly, it is the poor and innocent who will suffer most. Those profiting from destructive habits can shield themselves using their wealth, propaganda, and an army of ignorant deniers (many of whom are also poor and relatively innocent).
and the people outside of the imperial periphery
Soon they're about to do away with public education, and then make colleges more unaffordable, and then nobody will be able to "climb the latter" or "get a salary" At this point it's getting near impossible and I'm worried I wont be able to finish college, not because of the studies, I love it, but the financial aid is running out soon, and I don't know if I can continue my education. Because I have to keep working to pay bills, but the more I make, the less Financial aid i get to cover school. I worry for my future kids if they'll even be able to go to College, let alone if there is even a Public Education System in the future. I've even noticed Trade Schools starting to get out of hand.
So go open a co-op in the United States.
YOU develop a product, pay for the patents and prototypes and then secure financing and give the profits to the employees.
@@youtubesucks1499lol what an ignorant comment. as if that's even possible under the current system, because well, everything in the video which you clearly didn't watch. clearly critical thinking isn't your strong suit. 🙄
Im no fan of capitalism, actually imho its more precise definition would be globalist-crony capitalism. However, I shudder at the thought of an global eco-socialist, and/or global eco-communist one too.
Too bad it only seems like we, as a populous of people on the planet, are given only two choices. So, odd that there isnt someone, a group of ppl, or an organization that can design a global govt/ global economic model/ globl financial model within the framework of a hierarchical system/society that actually is quite fair "for all". Not perfect mind you, but at least one that doesnt have all the $$/resources/energy/etc funneling up to the top few ppl/family dynasties/ etc.
ps, the very people/org/etc that currently control "it all" wouldnt mind switching gears to what this narrator speaks of, and in all probability is actually pushing for it, simply b/c socialist/communist organization is ideal for the ppl at the top.
Imagine being given a whole Earth that already has all you could ever need, and destroying it because you want more...
Why don't you open a business?
I think you missed the point. As I read it and understood it, the point is why destroy the earth because you have an insatiable greed for more, a gluttony for more and more--when you have all you need in front of you for free.
Opening a shop sounds like a suggestion to someone who has a lot of resources and wants to benefit from giving it--which I don't think is the main point of the comment.
Since the person seems to be talking more so about humanity as a whole and those in charge wasting what we have for their greed of wanting more and more than can ever be, and be sustainable, on a finite resourced planet--rather than saying "If I had this much why would I do that? What would I do instead" which I think is what you got from it. /gen
Promise I am trying to help explain, not be rude. @@youtubesucks1499
Im no fan of capitalism, actually imho its more precise definition would be globalist-crony capitalism. However, I shudder at the thought of an global eco-socialist, and/or global eco-communist one too.
Too bad it only seems like we, as a populous of people on the planet, are given only two choices. So, odd that there isnt someone, a group of ppl, or an organization that can design a global govt/ global economic model/ globl financial model within the framework of a hierarchical system/society that actually is quite fair "for all". Not perfect mind you, but at least one that doesnt have all the $$/resources/energy/etc funneling up to the top few ppl/family dynasties/ etc.
ps, the very people/org/etc that currently control "it all" wouldnt mind switching gears to what this narrator speaks of, and in all probability is actually pushing for it, simply b/c socialist/communist organization is ideal for the ppl at the top.
I mean...the whole point of Socialism and Communism are that they are community-oriented--not towards just a few at the top. I could really get into it, but I think someone else can explain it better than me especially since I'm sleepy atm.
I am curious tho--what makes you shudder at the idea of socialistic or communist governments? Is it a specific type of it like that seen in the Soviet Union? Because, there are MANY versions, some better than others, some that never saw the light of day, some that failed, and some that would have worked had they not been destroyed by the dominating force of the US military and CIA. (Meaning they were doing well and getting better until there was violent intervention.) I think it would be worth looking into different kinds and asking yourself why you are uncomfortable with them--and see if there is a brand of socialism or communism (as they are different), like Marxism vs Markist Leninism that you prefer better. (Just two of many many many examples--since philosophy is BIG AF and many people put in their two cents or write papers and books on it. Give speeches, etc.)
It would also be worth your while, imo, to look into the history of communist and socialist movements and political parties in various areas, why it ended, if it ended, who ended it, what they said and were fighting for vs what they actually practiced, what came before and after, especially in places like Cuba. What policies could be considered socialist or communist even if the overall government could not or would not be considered socialist or communist? (For example, Socialized Healthcare, social welfare systems, public libraries, mutual aid groups, etc.) I'd avoid red-scare propaganda and pro-communist propaganda as much as you can, other than reading or dissecting actual philosophy where everyone has an agenda, and just look at the numbers.
How high or low was the poverty percentage? How close did they come to actual socialism or communism by definitions alone (like a checklist)? How high or low were literacy rates and other quality-of-life metrics such as housing, welfare for those unable to work, disability services, etc.?
I think you'll find it interesting and it may help demystify the giant concepts that are socialism and communism. There are video formats, articles, books, audiobooks, visuals. Lots of ways to learn that don;t involve reading heavily worked academic papers.
I myself research mostly using videos with subtitles and some smaller books due to my disabilities. And, given how my quality of life is, what the quality of life is for many disabled Americans in the US--it was not difficult for me to become far more left than before. I had always cared for other people, even when I was pessimistic about the human race, and fundamentally to me that's what socialism and communism are about. Community building, equity (NOT just equality), social equality and equity, and human rights. To me it's the path forward to fighting for every single person no matter their identities and backgrounds, to get basic human rights met. To get basic needs--to help propel how the world works forward and how many humans are given the chance to innovate and create. Which to me is what life is about, but I am an artist so I am rather biased.
I hope this helps!@@Gizziiusa
If you want any beginner resources or book ideas, let me know! My ideal form of information is usually deep dives, reading, and anxiety researching--so that's what I do. I often start off with tiktoks and book recommendations then go down a deep rabbit whole to fact-check as much as I can and purchase second hand books.
As a disabled artist...yeah I hate capitalism. I wanna just live, I want us to have community and third spaces again. I don't want money to be our goal, it's a made up paper and metal thing--and I value connections with others and my ability to create fulfillment in my art or gardening far more.
What on earth do that have to do with you being a disabled artist ????
And may I ask, if you are disabled, who make it possible for you to live ? who provide you with shelter and food and how do you heat your home at winter and cool it at summer time etc. ?
@@Uriel-Septim.Clearly not capitalism, that's for sure.
@@Uriel-Septim. capitalism is making it harder for disabled people to continue living.
if we were just nice, we would give them food and help without asking for money
Capitalism is stealing from productive, giving it to the useless being an artist is a hobby not a career
@taureon_ literally you are mentally disabled who has a better time a disabled person in US or disabled person in any socialist country
BP and Shell didn’t pull out of their renewables programs because they couldn’t make _any_ profit, it was because they couldn’t make _enough_ profit and the return on investment too slow in the initial years. That and they have no long-term vision.
I've been banging on about this since the late eighties, when there were talks about anti-monopoly laws for corporations I was kinda hopeful. But that didn't happen, with free trade and deregulation it opened wide the gates for neocorporate imperialism. Now we have politicians serving the corporate lobbyists.
So glad to see i m not alone in believing that capitalism is our enemy, the enemy of humanity.
You are not alone comrade
More directly the American capitalist economy is an offshoot of colonialism and is killing the planet.
We’re with you bruv ✊🏽
AKA white imperialist culture 🫢
Nah uh. It’s the enemy of 99-95 percent of humanity, man. Geez. You gotta think about those people who make it to the top and don’t need to worry about all this. What about them? They might not get to have most of the money and power and protection and authority and freedom anymore. Gawd.
The environmental Kuznet’s curve is highly misleading. Relative emissions have decreased in high income countries, but a large part of this is due to outsourcing manufacturing to developing and middle income countries, who pollute more. Overall emissions continue to increase.
Money is an arbitrary limitation.
@@shaun3713What is this mess of a comment? Please, take a day off and really think through what you're planning to say next time, thanks!
A lot of these Oligarchs have a similar set of personality traits.
They simply think they're better than everyone else. And only their interests matter. Regardless of how it affects others.
That's why a lot of this stuff is simply to line their own pockets. They can't think of a business plan. So, they fall back on taking as much away from the public as possible.
And then convince the worst people in our society that it's their own neighbors who are the problem.
-Basically like a thief in a business suit. Or the villain character in Shakespeare's story of "Hamlet."
They already have the business plan. The only thing they fear is that the awareness of the climate crisis can destroy them. Therefore, for their longer life, it is more beneficial to control public opinion in their favor and against regulations.
Another ideology is not our salvation. Only broad awareness of the harmfulness of the industry, the need for regulation and the need to transform into a safer industry can save us.
A bad ideology can only destroy us, as the same people are only more authoritarian in unnatural regimes.
They are literally sociopaths. No one else matters. No compassion or empathy for others.
It all boils down to fascism, honestly. They can't accept their are rich because they are monsters and because they won the birth lottery, so they have to believe they are a superior race or deities among us.
King Claudius??
@@richardouvrier3078 That's right 💯
I always look forward to a new Our Changing Climate video. SO informative.
How to fix climate change:
th-cam.com/video/Klcsgp3wrh4/w-d-xo.html
A good laugh indeed.
@@michaelcap9550 yeah, sure.
You made me wait until 16.04 but I finally got the 'reck-a-nize' I was waiting for, the easter egg that has become an inevitable and essential feature of these videos. Thank you. It's the attention to details like this that keeps me subscribed and liking.
reaching the conclusion that industrialist will fight like a cornered dog automatically leads you to the realization that change without violence is unlikely. They have immense resources and connections. I wouldn't put it beyond them to start a civil war, or a war in general just to protect their wealth. Due to this and other things like the demographic collapse of the rich world for ex, things feel like they will get much worse before they get better. we are certainly going to live through the bad, but i'm not so sure we have the lifespan to see the good. The quality of life, peace and stability have already peaked for this century imo. Prepare
I mean yeah they already start wars all the time for this purpose. That's basically the last 100 years of history and the cold war. The oil industry isn't even really profitable without regular conflict to seize new oil fields.
Sadly, I must agree. They will always find others willing to act violently to support them. For example, the police. The police work violently against their own class just for a wage. And their psychotic need to harm others.
I have been saying the same thing. Kind of glad to be reassured, but this doesn't make me happy at all. I think we need to have sustainable conviction of our rejection of the current economic system and distribution of wealth and power.
@@gulaschnikov5335 indeed. Vague anti-capitalism doesn't do anyone much good. In fact capitalism is more than willing to sell it to you.
They have started civil wars over it around the globe, often but not exclusively with the help of the US. Fascism has also functioned like an immune system for the body of capitalism. Any time socialism grows too much back the fascists who will exterminate the leftist elements in the country over a number of bloody years before eventually returning to normal neoliberal republics now that the left is sufficiently wiped out and demonized. Churchill said we owe a debt to fascism for a reason. It even almost happened in the imperial core - look up the business plot for several robber barons plotting a fascist coup in the early 20th century in America. If environmental, unionization, or any other leftist or anti-capitalist movement even begins to actually threaten their power and wealth as opposed to just talk they will not hesitate to back a fascist coup and purge those elements, no matter where.
I love the Beff Jezos. I did a double take. Like, did i just hear that incorrectly? Lol
Yo Das Kapital mentioned in an OCC video, one day we’ll get something from Murray Bookchin or Kropotkin
It was always obvious that he is an educated communist. But interesting that he now chooses to show this to people that are not educated in this way
My guy occ just went on the deprogram. A podcast you'd probably call "tankie red fash!!!"
I think occ is smart enough not to fall for anarchist idealism
@@naberville3305 You should actually read into anarchist theory, history and practice and only then form your opinions on it.
I’ve been all over the spectrum man, Second Thought pushed me red and then anarchist channels moved me past that and to look deeper into anarchism and actually start reading stuff. Put your theories to the test, these have been developed for almost 200 years so you’ll probably find criticism that echoed all the way to this time and the answers to that criticism, just look into it and then decide what fits for you so far, and if it’s still not enough, look further.
With the huge variety of theories and perspectives drawn from and built on anarchism it’s only a matter of time until you realize maybe it must’ve got things right if it survived and changed so much to this day.
And I dare you to claim the more recent developments on practice to be “idealistic”. Kom’Boa Ervin and Peter Gelderloos have some amazing works that really helped me understand how to actually do things
A part of the problem with setting up solar farms in the desert is despite how barren it seems, it's still an ecosystem. Many species would be displaced in the development process
We wouldnt have to. (sure there would always be some disruption) right now thought when we build logistics we have profit based incentives which necessitate destructive practices like land clearing.
Without the profit incentive extensive timelines would be easier to manage. Part of degrowth would mean the world moves slower, and slower development can build into the land instead of over in more places than you might think.
Great video keep it up
Thank you. Been screaming this & no one seems to listen to me so thank you!
Beff Jazos... awesome under cover ops
what does that mean? sarcasm??
This is a great breakdown. Thank you very much!
Yes there are other better ways than capitalism for our society to progress. Getting rid of capitalism does not mean you dont get things, but that the things you get are made better without profit motives. No more planned obsolescence, things can be made better lasting and without exploitation.
Meanwhile while we have capitalism, avoid buying garbage, falling into traps of having to buy the latest trends or big collections of stuff. Buying local made things which are less likely to be made by exploited people across the globe instead made by people in your contry, benefitting their livelyhood, instead of beff jezos and other fossil fuel human-exploiters.
Write to your government for what you want.
Any other ideas i would like to hear.
The fact that people cant imagine organizations whose goal is to fulfill their mission (postal service, healthcare, etc) rather than pursue a profit motive is so, so sad to me.
I like the idea of equipping people to be as self-sufficient/community reliant as possible, so they're less reliant on whatever garbage the market is peddling and are also in a better position to be able to push back (actions like boycotts and strikes). Stuff like making "libraries of things" with basic woodworking and gardening tools and seeds and sewing equipment super common and accessible, plus getting volunteers to teach classes on sewing, cooking, gardening, and woodworking, so people will be trained and equipped to be able to take care of themselves and each other independent from the market.
I think mutual aid networks dovetail really well into this idea of subverting market domination over people, too, but admittedly I don't know much about those yet. But just the general idea of using cooperation and mutual support to put as much power as possible back in people's and local communities' hands, so they're not being held hostage on a sinking ship.
How about the idea of looking at other means of production, like the command economies attempted by North Korea and the Soviet Union. History tells us if there isn't a profit motive, there isn't an efficient way to produce and distribute the goods we need to survive. I think it's possible that we could surrender self government and use AI and blockchain to control the means of production, but then we risk becoming literal slaves to the machines.
"write to your government for what you want"
My guy... My guy.. I hope your being sarcastic.
Establishing communism means the state owns everything, the people own nothing, and everyone starves.
So inportant thank you for talking about this subject!
sucks that we may not be able to do anything about it.
here in philippines, the air is always hyper-polluted to super hyper-polluted. fossil fuel infrastructure still going up all over the place, emissions regulations are never enforced, the vehicles are so smoky filthy here it's hard to believe how they can be allowed on the roads. and people are burning tons of plastics per day, when i say burn, i mean, smolder, make smoke, you can't really go anywhere in which the air is clear and free of smoke. it's really bad, and 90+% of it is fossil fuels related. they also love to burn green wood and leaves here, which makes a lot of smoke. just making smoke here seems like a national pastime.
and i imagine there are probably a lot of countries like this, sadly
The only way we might be able to save ourselves would be to make it financially worthwhile for people to SHARE the jobs we would agree we NEED people to do and work much less..no more a system that demands infinite growth. ..no more having to fight all the fossil fuel workers who simply don't want to lose their 'jobs' because it would provide them all with an alternative.
We need economic democracy by turning all corporations into worker co-ops and decommodification.
This is it, very hard to convince people to give up 10-20 hours a weeks work and pay when they have their perceived needs. The thing is with more free time you can do a more lot to save on expenses but it requires whole other sets of skills.
@@atmatey a.k.a. socialism. That is "unamerican", I mean "uncanadian"!
@@andersonandrighi4539he has a point tho, if you explained socialism to an average American they’d love it, if you called it socialism they’d hate it
@@atmateyMost cooperatives fail because they are no longer competitive and the few that survive remain stagnant, do not grow, do not improve, do not innovate
Thanks for the video
Thank you for the video, its more important for people to learn and understand this than ever.
great video! thank you so much. you explained our current problems in simple, everyday language without handing out free guilt trips.
For anyone interested in similar topics I highly recommend to check out Nate Hagens and Daniel Schmachtenberger
Thanks. I recommend Potholer54, Simon Clark, Vaush, and Unlearning Economics.
Publish your tax return@@QT5656
Extremely good video, thanks!
Good video and insights
awesome information ... fun fact: 1.5C right now in 2023 ...
We want video about how war and occupiers killing the earth with us
Its all capitalism
Military-industrial complex: yet another branch of capitalism.
Edit: there is such a topical video on this channel:
th-cam.com/video/KYu_WOrL_gM/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Agreed, they are related as fossil fuel industry profits from war and attempts to control countries that might have that natural resource. War, occupiers, capitalism, sides of the same coin. A video connecting war would be great.
@@Monkehrawrrr I know but we want specific video, like how change the land's uses and shape. And how displaces the people effects the environment.
Exceptional content, very good and important video!
Thank you for making this.
Publish your tax return
I understand where you're coming from and I'm anti capitalist too but from a purely scientific perspective, the 'anthropocene' is still an apt and the correct term, imo. it isn't meant to imply that humans are inherently climate destructors, but to make the distinction between 'natural' climate change and human induced climate change. it's not a 'political' signifier, but a literal one. the Anthropocene is the age we live in
The governments of Reagan and Thatcher have a lot to answer for.
Great video!
Don’t forget to like and subscribe this monetised video
The scripts you write for these videos are honestly perfect
Still, by 2005, anthropology professors were professing that climate change didn't exist (ie..natural cyclic climate phases)...I said even if that is true we should still try to reduce the carbon loading of the atmosphere.
I find it interesting that people can consider the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment about AI, but don't recognize the exact same dynamics in current day capitalism as a Capital Maximizer. There's really no difference in form or likely outcome. They are the same concept.
That's actually a good comparison and while I did understand the incentives of capitalism necessitating the destruction of all resources to maximize quarterly returns it never occurred to me. Could be a useful analogy when discussing in good faith with someone.
Great video
Bless you friend.
Monetised like and subscribe
Well put, thanks for your time.
Based as always.
Capitalism : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. What could possibly go wrong by giving control to a select group of individuals who confiscate the belongings of others?
There is no such thing as a free market and there never has been.
Hi, thank you for the fascinating video again :) Would you be interested in a video about "Doghnout economics"? I've just finished the book, and though I found the theories in it highly idealistic, I would be interested in your opinion on it too.
All I have to say is thank u brother 👍🏾🙏🏾
Overall, noting my other comments, I agree with your main points and, particularly the need for degrowth and ecosocialism. However, as you point out, capitalists are hugely powerful and won’t give this up easily. How about a video on the sufficiency movement. If enough people in richer nations reduce their consumption, this could lead to recessions which may allow a route in for alternative economic approaches. Not easy I accept and the movement needs massive growth to have an impact.
So why don't YOU open a co-op?
One of the most devastating aspects of this whole catastrophe is for me that those responsible for it now will most likely not live through the fallout their profit-hunting causes because most of them are already quite old. And with their millions they will be able to spend their retirement in relatively safe areas that won’t suffer climate change too much during their remaining lifetime, probably with a golf course nearby.
Glad you took a que from Decentrify Tech's channel.
What do you think of circular economy?
For anyone interested in this content, I highly recommend that you read 'Less Is More' by Jason Hickel... and then join your local non-violent civil disobedience group (e.g. Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, Climate Defiance, etc.)
isnt "just stop oil" a fossil fuel sockpuppet or somethin
beff jezos
0:56 i wish i didn't recognize the source of this stock scene.
That shiny black haired "science woman' that looks like she came STRAIGHT from Pixar is not a character you can forget.
Excellent work! Another huge problem comes you touched upon comes from the transoceanic transportation of goods from outsourced industries from Asia, especially to China. There are nearly 1 million foreign corporations in China ruthlessly exploiting Chinese labor. If that isn't bad enough, thoss goods are transported throughout the world via cargo tankers, which use the dirtiest fuel oil possible. The pollutants emitted by those cargo ships in one DAY, is equivalent to the pollutants emitted by land vehicles in one YEAR!
I get it. Money isn't really the bad actor here, as some people might say, it's capitalism. In my accounting course, our instructors would define capitalism as the freedom to trade. And then would ramble on and on about why it's killing the planet trying to get answers from us students which we hardly ever know, so thank you for this.
In 2019, Teeboom noted Alf Hornborg's (Human Ecology Professor at Lund University, Sweden) statement that "you can't have free trade and save the planet"
---- or more precisely, we cannot have limitless growth on a finite planet
In another class, however, we would learn about Capital and how it's Equity, Income minus Expenses. Now, it's ok for me for most parts, but here's the thing: I have an idea of what Equity means and we hardly ever talk about it, except, that it's a "balance". And whenever I think of accounting, Thinker Bell is what comes into my mind, the Lady Mary character who holds an abacus all the time, and in that world, it seems just, coz they don't have to extract energy to fly or do things magic, they have a flowing tree... So that's my take on fantasizing about positive climate change
While the owners of capital use whatever means possible to drive up our consumtion such as, as mentioned, false scarcity. However consumption must come down in high income countries, noting the poor nations and the poor anywhere need to increase their sustainable consumption of necessities. Indeed, reducing consumption may help to bring an end to capitalism.
Ok what consumption are you going to reduce?
Will you never buy another Starbucks? New cell phone? Shoes? Eat at a restaurant? No new video games, computers, or anything other than the basics like 1 pair of shoes, 2 pairs of pants, 1 coat, 2 pairs of socks and 2 pairs of underwear.
You don't need a tv. You can have one radio per family.
You only need 3 meals a day.
So why don't you cut out all consumption now?
@@youtubesucks1499How about the fact that the top 1 percent pollute and use more resources than literally everyone else combined. They are the biggest reason this is all happening, and just not buying the product doesn't make them stop. They will just do the exact same thing with something else that pollutes. They know if they wreck the planet we have to rely on them even more. It's to the point where you can't even eat without people having been harmed to get that food, leaving the populous no choice while people like you try to get us to think we are the bigger problem instead of them.
Yes sir. The fossil fuel industry treats us like an abusive relationship.
Fi: “I didn’t do anything wrong. You did this. Look what you made me do. It’s all of your fault. “
Degrowth FTW. Jason Hickel is ma boi!
We need a different political system in so called western democracies and other more authoritarian countries although the whole world is now subjegated to fossil fuels and neoliberal growth economics no matter what system is used. It's been estimated we have a less than 5 percent chance of changing the system, which means the likely end of society as we know it globally, and perhaps the virtual extinction of life as we have known it, including the human race. But we don't discuss this in polite neoliberal societies. It doesn't pay to. And it doesn't pay to stand up to the USA or UK and Eu. Therein lies military violence, death and theft of resources followed by endless sanctions and austerity. It's what's happening in Ukraine and Palastine, and continues in DRC and across Africa and South America. But we don't teach this at university and we never talk about in polite neoliberal society.
Under capitalism, governments always fall into bed with the rich elite.
We need a non-representative form of government, where people vote directly on issues, instead of meathead, easy-to-bribe politicians.
This video leaves out the dark basic fact of capitalist accumulation of the land in the USA that holds most of the oil production and oil reserves. During the 1830s and 40s the “ texas revolution “ , ‘’Republican of Texas’’ was annexed. Then the “ Mexican War’’ stole 1/2 of the territory of the Republic of Mexico. Texas has most of the oil ( fracking) now. So, without this land grab from native tribes and Mexico,, the oil capitalism and before that the “ Gold Rush” of 1849 would not have happen as soon or the way it did.
We should learn to live with shared earth via sharing caring helping each other needy and self sufficient via growing our needs with skills in group. More than necessity is poison
I've never seen a rich person recycle their bottles, now that i think of it
I have been a marxist for most of my life, and understanding the capitalist mode of production always seemed to be necessary to also understand the climate crisis. Your videos tackling the contradictions that have emerged from the capitalist mode of production really are inspiring to me on a personal level, and the growth of your channel over the last few years fills me with hope. De-growth is necessary!!
You probably support russia and their imperialism.
Capitalism: The land of opportunity at everyone else’s expense.
Nailed it.
Sharing will save the world.
Why? Or how? I think a lot of people confuse those two.
👏
Wrong. Over use of fossil fuels is happening in most countries, those based on capitalism and those that are not. The problem is a market failure from external costs. As long as climate pollution is free, we'll get too much of it. Get your gov't to pass Carbon Fee and Dividend with a CBAM legislation if you want to do something about it. That's only half the fix, since we're so late. Explore MIT's En-ROADS climate policy simulator for insight into complementary policies that can do the rest.
Carbon taxes dont work. Nothing works along as the fossil fuel industry can buy it's way out and is allowed to lie with impunity
China a marxist state worlds largest polluter.
@@user-gf3lw5pi4tThey are fighting climate change more than any other country right now.
Spoken like a true liberal or libertarian
Idea: How about your channel does a debate with James Lindsey - I will go to Costco and buy everyone popcorn for that one. ;-)
debate culture is toxic. Make your own popcorn. Its not difficult, its significantly cheaper and far less polluting. It can also just be your christmas ornaments.
These are great for you younger audiences. But we need more talks about how we wouldn’t even have this infinite platform talk about these issues if not for capitalism. That’s a much deeper philosophical dilemma and one that, until is remedied, will subconsciously hold us back any further meaningful progress.
Thank you for all the videos on the climate crisis and related subjects. I think in this video you may miss a point: The super rich don‘t get super rich because of profit, but because they bring their companies to the stock market. It is a lot more money when you sell stocks than when you make profit. Of course capitalism still is a problem.
Stock market isn't something separate of capitalism bro
Stock market is just the place where capitalists sell a part of their companies to get investments. They get rich through the exploitaition of workers (surplus value).
Money isn’t even real to boot and we’re gonna die cause of it lol.
Really? In that case I'll happily relieve you of the money you have. I'll send you my details, just send me the cash in the post.
Beth Jezos is a funny name
Lets talk about the commitment it took to land beff jezos everytime lol
Yeah I also reported on this on my channel. We're toast.
Not necessarily just energy from fossil fuel, any energy... even solar energy captured by trees in the form of apples or bananas. Capital is the form of accumulation of energy and time.
🦅
nice
Over the years I have eventually and finally accepted that Capitalism and the 1% rich a top of it are the culprits and root of most of the world's problems.
As important as informing the people of this terrible news, I also think it is even more important to discuss solutions as alongside it.
Because if we only hear the harshness of this reality, we can end up defeated, despondent and giving into grief feeling as though we cannot do anything about it.
Which of course benefits the 1% rich.
Which is why I will always talk about empowering all of us the people and engaging the Economic system head on with solutions such as:
Socialism - Transition to a public owned Economic system with the Economic power of a united working class to control it.
A progressive Tax AND billionaire elimination tax system (Guillotine tax) to counter the accrued ill-gotten wealth hoarded by 1% of the population so as to pay for this Economic transition.
HOW and to what level needs to be openly discussed and national forums that takes in peoples' ideas and concerns and not just quasi forums like Davos where only billionaires discuss the fate of the world.
Socialism has never worked anywhere in the world, at any time in history, under anybody's management. We even know why it doesn't work.
A rich person provided you with the device you're using to post and the platform you're posting on. If these 4 people were never born - Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk - your life would be severely compromised. And that's just 4 people from the 80 million who make up the 1%.
Yes, in comparison to laissez-faire economies controlled by the 1%, the more socialistic wealthy nations (Nordics, Canada, Netherlands) produce healthier and happier people and societies, plus more trustworthy governments and more freedoms for citizens. Amazingly, they also don't average a mass shooting every day as the US does.
We are in the Anthropocene epoch, but in the age of the Capitalinian. The next geological age might not be defined by Capitalism, but humans are likely to remain a dominant force in shaping the planet even under a liberatory future economic system. Thus, Anthropocene is liberatory as it inherently posits different potential ages within that epoch.
I love that you continue to avoid the topic of a Resource-Based Economy (defined by The Venus Project) as the only viable solution to all the terrible news. Keep up the good work!
What?
@@stevencats7137 Zeitgeist: Moving Forward..... don't talk about it.
@@plantstho6599The Venus Project is obnoxious and has no real solutions. They've been around for like 50 years and have done nothing interesting.
@@nomms You seem to be critiquing the organization rather than the train of thought that they're promoting. The entire point is to show that society is a purely technical construct. And any problems in society can be solved by rigorous application of the scientific method. To date, no one has proven this perspective wrong. The more we mess around trying to solve our problems politically or financially, the deeper we sink into more catastrophic failure... when the correct answer is staring us all in the face.
@@nomms Well, to be fair, pretty much every other movement for ecological sustainability has been around for like 50 years without doing anything interesting. By "interesting" in this context, I mean anything that has actually reduced ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere or reduced our ecological overshoot.
Money invested in procuring energy never circulates again in the community.
How did you come to that conclusion, are construction workers, architects, and factory workers not being paid?
The environment is also exploited in other ways. Where is it easy to pollute rivers because there aren’t laws in place and the voice of local people can be squashed.
What? capitalism made me want things? It is not because I'm a degenerate?
I consume because I indeed am a degenerate, but I’m a degenerate because of state and capital
It’s funny that this anticapitalist videos delivered a very articulated essay against capitalism yet they start and end thanking their sponsor and offer you a discount on some subscription service which still feels very capitalist….
We still live under it and especially right now I think the creator needs to pay bills you don’t have to be homeless to criticize capitalism
If he didn’t participate in capitalism he wouldn’t be able to make videos about it. We are forced to participate in capitalism
@@ricardoortiz3if it wasn't for capatilism he wouldn't have the technology to even make this video
@@luigigaming2717Most of this technology was build by and pioneered by soviet union and by other countries in different economic/political system, shitass.
If you were trapped down a well would you drink the water that the well provided?
Because everyone knows that as soon as we switch to [insert ideology here] we'll give up our unsustainable way of living and return to the trees
i love TH-cam
Changing your ideology won't do anything. But we can definitely change the way we organize society and production.
Not so, if I insert the word Science, because Science is not an ideology.
Science is what capitalists are witnessed borrowing from time and time again, to pathetically try to brainwash us into believing that its somehow successful.
Its Science that makes buildings stand taller, cars go faster, gives us longer lifespans, etc., not capitalism!
Its sad that humans are the only species on the planet that has to pay to live here
Thanks for making me feel better about living in a giant house, driving an SUV, and eating an all meat diet. Climate change isn't my fault it's capitalism! 🥰
Great note , as this video only blames capital, let’s human OVERSHOOT of the natural resources by human overpopulation, consumerism off the hook. Sure capitalism is ruthless and evil, but humans overbreed, over consume . Don’t sugarcoat the human part of OVERSHOOT by humans . Blame humans too .
And capitalists too dont forget!
Everything under this pathetic economic religion is nefarious. I just read the other day that our suburbs and urban sprawl were actually planned to make more money off of oil and fossil fuels. How insidious is that?! We have been living a lie, believing in the unfathomable stupidity of capitalists.
@@georgenelson8917 So it is your fault then , what do you suggest we do about that problem then ?
Capitalism is just a symptom. The fundamental problem is that we live in a world governed by competition. All life must compete for energy and resources, whether it's plants competing for sunlight or bull elk competing for mates. Fossil fuels possess unique properties of energy density, portability, and storability at room temperature. Thus they provide an _utterly overwhelming_ competitive advantage to societies (and individuals, for that matter) that use them vs. societies that don't.
Capitalism is just the system that (so far) has proven the most adept at competition. Even of some other system (say, Marxism-Leninism) had come to dominate the world instead, if M-L nations still had geopolitical and/or economic competition between them, they would still, by necessity, have to grab for all the fossil-fueled economic growth they could get. Could we abolish competition and create a cooperative world order to phase out fossil fuels? Maybe? But first non-competitive people would have to out-compete the competitors in order to seize and hold power, and competitors are very good at what they do.
Competition is quite literally how every single bit of human progress has been made. You cannot be uncompetitive because someone who is will take your place and do a better job at it.
You even contradict yourself in the last line where you say non competitors will have to compete to reach that spot and compete to stay that spot.
@@luigigaming2717 That's my point. "Competitors are very good at what they do" (i.e., at competing). IOW, people trying to create a non-competitive world would have to out-compete the competitors, and good luck with that. Which means: good luck with any effort to stop using fossil fuels.
@@luigigaming2717 okay thats blatantly false... cooperation is how we have made our progress
every single scientific advancement is sitting on top of the work of their forebearers... as they say "standing on the shoulders of giants" - a lot of those advancements have been made due to openly exchanging the ideas and knowledge gained with others working to advance our understanding of the world
and we can go even more basic... how have we even started building civilizations? by grouping together...forming communities and cooperating... by dividing work, so that we can feed and protect more people with less work required... it allowed us to specialize and gave some of us the free time to be able to figure out and understand the rules of the world and to apply them to solve problems... if everyone had to compete for food... no one would have the time to conceive of a better way to produce food
our entire civilization is built on cooperation... competition plays a role sure... but it is so much more wasteful than cooperation
and hey... thats exactly why capitalists do everything they can to avoid competition... it would hurt their bottom line... they just want us to compete with each other so we waste our effort and resources rather than cooperate with each other... because if we cooperate, we might build something that threatens or topples their powerbase
@@SharienGaming You're looking at it from the wrong angle. Our society has been able to evolve into a civilization based on the protection that community provides, not cooperation. Everything we've developed and improved so far, we've done just by making it to market. What did not find application on the market remained forgotten or in the chronicles.
Soviet workers said "we pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay us"
"There have always been and always will be those who are driven by hate and want to blame those who are happy, creative and productive for their misery." --Terry Goodkind.
spring summer winter and fall definition of climate change
We are now in the pyrocene
I think you're too focused on a particular type of institution, and not getting to know the nature of institutions. That, broadly, institutions have a pathology that has characteristics driving a turn toward the accumulation of resources. Of course, the control of resources makes for the greatest ability to exercise influence. That's power. Institutions are consolidators of power. They're also great organization systems. I don't think humans would have risen above the level of band without it. But being useful as an organizational tool, it's usually massaged into a consolidating tool. I think we need to understand this nature if we're going to understand how to maintain control over it. Control that is guided by a focus, keeping them from becoming a parasite that draws off of the resources needed to maintain a society.
MY OPINION
Your question about which is the most destructive is that companies develop along a line that is more like a treadmill. As soon as a company starts up, it is put on the treadmill of corporate pressure to "win." It's incentivized to grow. To compete. This has been part of the manipulation the wealthy have imposed on the legal/regulatory systems to favor them. It has become a winner take all game. We have come to call it capitalism. But it's a process that has always been at the center of expanding civilizations. Well, it's a life force. Maximize resources. We're really good at it. We're really bad at regulating it. Oil's on top because of our inability to regulate. If you want to know what needs to be done, we have to learn to regulate. And I think we need to put society at the center of the motivation for regulation. Else, I think we're in trouble.
To summarise, your answer is to identify all institutions as pathologic and regulate their power, thus regulating resource exploitation. Correct me if I misunderstood you.
I think you're backpedaling and tunnel visioning by assuming that all institutional organisation is pathologic. Of course capitalists use some (most) institutions to further their cause, meanwhile there are institutions that works against their cause, for example environmental protection agencies. They are set up because enough people value something and sees this thing being damaged. Capitalists have various tools to undermine these, in their eyes (i.e. undemocratic), unwanted institutions.
To summarise, institutions are not THE issue, and regulating institutions or companies etc. is not THE solution. I think you have a good eye but I urge you to expand amd nuance your analysis.
True!
We cannot forcefully hold the entire natural system under the throat of an ideology that naturally cannot function on its own. But even before we begin any massive regulation, we must learn to resist concealing the negative impacts of industry from the wider public. The public can only agree to those regulations that make sense and are natural. The more feasible path is always the more natural one.
@@gurraaaaaa I think you're mistaking pathology for something other than what it means. Or, at least, how I'm applying it. When I speak of pathology, I'm referring to behavioral tendency by nature. For instance, institutions have a hierarchical structure. While there are hierarchies that can be based in ability, or profession/skill, there are also hierarchies that are based on authority, not as authorship, but as ruler. I suppose one of the best ways to express a contrast might be the difference between authority and authoritarian.
While institutions can be excellent devices to bring order to action, its usefulness for bringing order to force is also very tempting.
The appropriate raising of authority into hierarchy often tends to get lost. One only needs study what the difference between Trump and others are to see that the confusion of what constitutes authority can get lost. Particularly when elements within the structure are manipulated over long periods such that it does such seemingly inconsequential things as fowling educational elements.
When I refer to pathology, it does bare resemblance to the study of a disease's progression, but I am looking at it from the standpoint of asking what brings down civilizations.
You are correct that there were attempts to limit or restrict institutions, but that doesn't stop other institutions from exploring manipulating those elements, such as the EPA, Judiciary, Economy, through lobbies, the control of media, the expression of narratives, and any number of other inventive approaches they may come up with to improve their positions. Rupert Murdoch was able to convince Reagan to make his media empire more advantageous to him, though probably not in those words.
I think my point is that pointing at Capitalism is too vague, just as being able to actually define it unambiguously is as difficult as trying to define love, or socialism, or god. It's kind of like your immune system. It can protect you. It can also harm you. Institutions can do the same. It can help you. It can also harm you. How we focus them and direct them, I think, is key.
Does this help clarify my perspective?
@@LuboParil When it comes to "Natural" I think I tend to try to understand people in terms of what makes them the same as all life. Thus far, I think it has to do with their innate drive to maximize resources and to serve the self. All life has it, and the degree of complexity the life form is capable of, determines how it interprets what is a resource. And I think I did it this way when I got fed up with the explanation of bad human behavior as "human nature." It got me asking what is human nature that makes it different from the nature of any other living thing. Other organisms can exhibit behavior that is detrimental to its survival. So, selfish excess doesn't seem to be exclusive to humans. That means, it is not human nature, it is just nature. What makes for bad human behavior? So far, I think it has to do with the complexity of our minds, and it's ability to make mistakes. And the ability to make mistakes increases with the complexity of its relationships with itself, others, and its environment. How we get to be so powerful, I think, has to do with our ability to create complex entities that perform desirable tasks and functions. What I find interesting, and, perhaps, a bit amusing, as well as instructive, are what I think are diametrically opposed natures of the two entities. And by that I mean that the institutions we build are not social creatures, whereas we are. While we're attracted to gathering together for the benefits it brings us, institutions are driven by self interest, and maximization of resource accumulation. No matter how noble the purpose of their inception, their tendency is to subvert the intent from a noble cause, to self preservation. Our own lives are driven by the needs of the institutions. It's a curious development. I think we have to be careful about what we call the natural. Poison is natural. But poison is in the dose.
@@RichardRoy2 Not natural in the sense of nature, but natural in the sense of casual, normal, simple, self-evident and intuitive.
The video concludes by offering us ecosocialism and growth lowering as protection against self-destruction. But a sudden change of ideology in the management of the world to save the human being is not a lifeline, when it is willing to destroy the hitherto natural development of the market, including the potential of its regulation thanks to the freedom that allows research and education in areas that are not to the taste of the fossil industry. Although a large part of the market is dependent on fossil resources, that does not mean that it is necessary to destroy the entire market because it is not at all certain that the human species is able to survive in any other ideology.
Why should we follow the path of an ideology that we know from many corners of our planet leads rather to authoritarianism and on the contrary we do not know if it can ever exist anywhere as it is defined.? Everything indicates that the ideological-philosophical politics of socialism is not the most viable path for a person, when a person can only act as long as he has an income or as long as others applaud. In the latter case, however, there is a risk that he will stop acting precisely and only because he will not be sure why he is actually acting, when he has no income from it and when there are already people who boo him.
I see the only feasible solution in regulating the part of the economy that is killing us and favoring the part that will allow us to transform a safer industry. We are not guaranteed to survive, but who is to ensure that we survive the transformation to another ideological system of managing growth and ownership?
This has 0 facts
Beth Jezoz
The Mayan Doomsday Clock doesn't mean something terrible began to occur. When the Mayan Clock comes full revolution it will mean the end of something naturally required for survival. Then the clock simply continues turning. Either you are part of the journey towards positivity or you remain negative. The clock watches all.
People who blame capitalism are missing the problem.
Just because money is a motivation, it doesn't have to be the only motivation. Companies like Patagonia have demonstrated this on a large level.
If people put more thought and effort into supporting companies doing the right thing, more companies would follow.
It's ultimately up to consumers to decide what behavior they want to reward.
you mean the patagonia that created a fake non-profit fully controlled by the owners children and transferred the companies ownership to that fake non-profit to avoid paying inheritance taxes? taxes that would be used to pay for improving and maintaining the community with things like...infrastructure, research grants, education, postal services, healthcare... all so they can maintain and further grow their incredible personal wealth
that patagonia?
dont be fooled...they are just as much of a bunch of capitalist crooks as the rest...they just have really good marketing
This is a common argument and it might seem reasonable at first but it is ultimately built on two faulty assumptions. It overestimates the collective wealth of the consumers and that consumers are a monolith that is value maximising. Patagonia is a more ethical company in comparison to others BUT they are an outlier. Many companies don't value ethical sourcing at all and can thus squeeze out more profit. As a consumer you can't tell the difference in the product and don't care.
If the more ethical options were as common as the unethical options, this argument could hold some value. If you want to be an ethical consumer it is so difficult that you must make it a lifestyle and constantly research and police your own consumption, which understandably most people dont do. The current standard is unethical consumption because of capitalism. If you want a more nuanced answer than just "blaming capitalism", that exists. You just need to look for it with an open mind
Problem is that "good" people allways seems to want other people to fix the problem for them, even without them taking any part in it, just look at stop oil, I bet they drive cars/busses and trains and fly on planes and buy smartphone and TV`s and other plastic products.
"There have always been and always will be those who are driven by hate and want to blame those who are happy, creative and productive for their misery." --Terry Goodkind.
Capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others, corruption is the real issue here, no matter the system, may it be communism or capitalism, human nature dictate corruption, only way to fight that, to the degree it is possible, is with moral principles, but we forgot to teach that for a few gererations.
@@gurraaaaaa I have to respectfully disagree that the argument is built on faulty assumptions.
As we've seen with the boycotting of brands in recent years, consumers most definitely can act as a monolith that maximizes a value of the group. Demand is going to lead supply. This is exactly why in recent years we've seen a bigger push for ethically and sustainably sources products, because the market has created a demand for it.
It's true that currently more effort is required to find ethically sources products, but as the demand for ethically sourced products grows, the supply will grow as well, and eventually less and less effort will be needed as it becomes the norm.
Blaming capitalism is a shortsighted argument because capitalism as a system isn't what causes these issues, but rather the culture and values of the people emplementing the system.
Whatever you say liberal or libertarian or objectivist
Today's economic system can't be called capitalism, considering the amount of monopoly's there is no free market
That is the ideal capitalism and we dont live that way. Same way socialits and communists say that the USSR wasnt real communism based on their idealistic utopia. While I do agree that the free market is the economical system every nation should strive for its clear that isn't the case in a lot of places.
One thing I do agree you on if I assume you actually like capatilism is the way this video and this whole channel is made. Its quite literally nothing but 1 side of the argument never once do i see a single remark of capatilism's postives or someone in the comment section arguing agisnt any of his points.
Contrary to his final chapter capatilism has already helped in the fight aginst climate change significantly due to the rise of companies and private interest in trying to profit from renewable energy. Just take a look at a price for a solar panel 5 years ago and now the numbers speak for themselves, thats a lot of the private company's work because no nation on earth can dedicate all of its resources effectively and efficiently into 1 thing but private owners can because of they dont someone else will.
That's what capitalism always leads to. We are in the end game if capitalism.
@@luigigaming2717it was a socialist government run by a communist party. Communism can't be achieved in just a region, communism must be international.
Why cant you see, capitalism is the puppy, and monopoly is the dog??
There was never such a thing as the free market, if you think so, you are welcome to give me a date when a corporation or rich elite didnt have his finger pressed down on its scales? ... an actual date please.
Capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others, corruption is the real issue here, no matter the system, may it be communism or capitalism, human nature dictate corruption, only way to fight that, to the degree it is possible, is with moral principles, but we forgot to teach that for a few gererations.
Are you avoiding a legal case by saying Beff Jezos?
Beff Jezos?