When I was a kid we had a tea-towel with this story printed on it: This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have. When Mr Meadows is talking about the hammer and he says that no technology will help because the social, moral, economic and political values which are embedded in our technologies are the problem I think he hits the nail on the head. No pun intended. 😊
Another brilliant installment… Each podcast sends me scurrying for pen and paper to make highlight notes. Paradoxically, I find this podcast to be one of the most uplifting and hopeful available. Hope as context, not plan. I will continue to suggest this work to others in my networks, however I am one who believes in community and quality over commodity and quantity. Keep on doing what you’re doing in the world, Nate…
I also feel much more hopeful since I discovered this podcast, after spending a lifetime catering to the prevailing unlimiting beliefs of most people in our cancerous culture. Hiding my own pessimism and worries have been very fatiguing and hearing more people who are willing to frankly discuss our shared predicaments is liberating.
Well, this is such a briliant discussion between two fascinating authorities. Meadows has long been one of the most forward thinking and thoughtful voices in the fields of sustainability and earth systems science. Hagens is a relatively new kid on the block but nonetheless a very erudite and considered voice. I was articularly impressed by Hagens' ability to pose interesting questions along with his own take on the issues raised without hogging the discussion. An altogether superb contribution to the wider debates happening in these fields of enquiry.
Denis said near the end of the interview that happiness is getting what you want. I beg to differ. I think happiness is learning to appreciate what you have. Are the wealthiest people satisfied and happy? Probably not. Feeding insatiable desires is a path to more suffering, not a path to happiness.
Thank you. I am glad to see that Dennis Meadows seems to have come out of his "funk". That was how it appeared to me back about 6 years ago when I found it almost impossible to contact him. When I DID manage to get his attention, I was only given about a minute of it. Of course, he had plenty of reason for a funk, from his loss of Donella to his witnessing of the passing of tipping points. Still, I was disappointed. He seemed to have simply given up. I am almost as old as he, and back in the early '70's he, along with Jay Forrester, was in a way a hero of mine.
Paul Watson could be a great guest, perhaps to talk about biocentrism, ocean issues, courage and strategy in confronting eco criminals, appealing to governments for cooperation and progress, etc.
Dennis Meadows? Common sense? The guy literally wrote a book advocating for the genocide of 86% of the worlds population so the elitists can have "freedom"
It just never makes me feel any better when someone says, as Dennis did... "Don't worry about the planet. You don't need to save the planet. It will save itself," based on the true fact that it has billions of years to go. To me, this is besides the point. It's an offshoot of the old standard that everything else here is chopped liver, compared to us, and the astounding biodiversity it has evolved to this date is more of an unfortunate circumstance, than a horrific tragedy. Having said that, this man is still a hero to me, nonetheless. But I guess he's more a fan of man, than I.
People were thinking in 1972 and to the present, that we would not be limited to this planet. We were going to the moon in the late sixties and during the seventies and many saw that as the answer to the limits of this planet. Even today many people dream about this. But to either colonize other planets or bring resources back from space, would require some major science fiction to come true. A lot of innovation would be needed to maintain the current population without going off planet for resources as well... I first read LTG in 1979, and was told we would find ways around limits since we had found ways to do that in the past. People had faith that science fiction would come true. But my response was that until things are found, they are imaginary, and looking for imaginary things doesn't cause them to be found. They have to exist to be found, and you don't know they exist until you find them. People were confusing correlation with causation to say that since we have found ways past limits in the past, we would find more as needed. They were, and are, working on blind faith, working on this superstition that since we found ways before we will do it again, when there is no evidence of a physical relationship between the two things. If people want to plan on blind faith, plan on superstition, also many have mystical beliefs about the issue, then my opinion is that they can go ahead with that, but I don't think that we are being scientific to plan on finding ways past limits, because science works on evidence, and imaginary things are not considered scientific evidence. I see a very clear distinction with this. People who actually respect science, respect deciding what reality is on physical evidence, would not do this on the issue of limits to growth any more than other things.
This is one of the best interviews. It is for the Thinking Mind, for those who will patiently ponder and try to see the future. I am tuning into this calm and logical scientist, Dennis Meadows.
Nate asked for an example of systems thinking that solved a problem. I have one. In WWI the problem was that machine guns and shrapnel made it impossible to attack a well-fortified position, and such positions were pretty easy to extend. The solution was the tank, but then the system thinking part only took 20 years. Within 20 years Guderian had invented lightning war. It needed tanks, radios in every tank, integration of dragoons/motorized Inf, and air support. During WWII the stalemate of WWI was not repeated on any front as a result. Yes, more people died, though. But, there were also more people to die, and the war spread to China.
Dennis Meadows has changed for the positive as he has aged this is wonderful to see and unfortunately why I'm one of these people that will have to retract some of the comments I have made previously
“We don’t need a new kind of agricultural technology in order to feed people” If what Dr Meadows is referring to is conventional chemical agriculture or even high input organic agriculture then I would have to disagree whole heartedly. Current methods in agriculture are a significant contributor to ecosystem destruction, species extinction and climate change. New understanding about the role of the soil’s microbiome in helping to produce nutrient rich crops while regenerating soil health will be critical going forward.
I genuinely believe Dr Meadows would agree with you. I'm sure his definition of technology would encompass the scythe, using horse and cow manure and natural pest control methods along with some more modern but sustainable methods. Indeed during this discussion he does, to my mind, define the term 'technology' to mean in effect, 'tools that we know work best'.
It’s to bad people didn’t realize what they did to the farmers back starting in early 190❤0’s then the hammer happened most old farms were sustained without the big boys coming in and shoving lie’s down the farmers throat
Excellent! Lots of good ideas here. Well-managed interview. I look forward to listening to this interview again, and I look forward to checking out other videos. I appreciate the recognition that our most basic problem is in how we interpret our own existence in a complex ecosystem. Much of this has to do with our language, which frames our entire outlook. Our language forms the structure of our culture. If you can't say it, then you can't think it. We need to develop our language to express our purpose as a species and what our existence means. From birth we are taught that we are separate from one another, we have different names, and we are different from, and superior to, the natural world. This is a deep error in our culture that needs to be corrected. So keep interviewing, and keep talking. "Let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late." (Bob Dylan)
Interesting conversation, but got the impression Dennis Meadows, had reached a point where he felt he’d spent enough of his life teaching/tutoring and writing, and through his books pointing out how humanity would overshoot any chance of a sustainable existence as it continued to destroy everything in its way in pursuit of mammon. He didn’t say anything controversial presumably just wanted in the autumn of his life to contemplate life’s mysteries whilst tending to his vegetable garden. Though I was surprised little mention was made of his book “Beyond the Limits: Global Collapse or a Sustainable Future” 1992 Dennis L Meadows, Donella H Meadows and Jorgen Randers, or “Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update” 2004 Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers. Still maybe next time if there is one🤔
Fascinating discussion thankyou , the existing mindset got us into this mess , new forerunners could be useful eg people like Prem Rawat ( Guinness world record holder for the largest attendance for a lecture) could offer tools for the job , and his growth since 1967 has definitely been beneficial , or it seems to me that if we don't want to know we will have to go.
Speaking of games about developing countries - check out Terra Invicta. The game developers used real-world population and economic data in designing the 180+ countries/regions.
Isn't the expectation of the elites is different to the ordinary person. The elites want growth and more wealth whereas the ordinary folk want something simpler. The problem is that the democratic process doesn't reflect the wants and needs of ordinary people.
It is a tendency that physical scientists or engineers to blame human behaviours for inaction, and social scientists suggests that there is no need for more technical knowledge to deal with the situation we found ourselves in (there is plenty of academic evidence to support the afore-mentioned). Both positions are intellectual untenable. Our present predicament is the product of the co-evolution of social and physical systems right from the start when humans learned to use fire (energy) and axe. Our present circumstance reveals deep disconnect between us and the nature upon which we subsist. And, it is the political economy of globalisation that has led us to the real and present danger - the rock and the hard place.
First , I agreed with much of this . However, it’s important to recognize that the majority of the world lives at a subsistence level already . Many people even in America are dependent on government subsidies just to pay for food and shelter . The real question is how to get the people with disposable income to stop buying so much stuff .
Push higher quality products to those people and bring back sustainability within the product..Once was a huge market of quality over quantity from how long shoes would last/with resoling to sweaters that would last for a decades or a drill that’s been used for three generations..get people off of the instant! Push gardening and canning and bring back local..local businesses are always better than sending stuff thousands of miles away
You must interview JEAN-MARC JANCOVICI he’s French but he’s your guy. He speaks English decently, an interview should be feasible. He’s a total expert in Energy, limits to growth, ecology, and the inevitable degrowth, peak oil etc
I'd love to hear the authors of Superabundance: The Age of Plenty |on your podcast.. I think it'll provide for an engaging and meaningful discourse which may also test some core assumptions of limits to growth models.
People won't decide to use less on their own, on mass, and if people wait until they are forced to use less, the consequences could certainly cascade into a stone age future or even worse...The rate of change the natural world is experiencing is only comparable to the very worst mass extinction events on Earth, except only orders of magnitude faster this time around..It's only natural to want to have hope for the future, but the consequences of our behavior on this scale are very serious indeed...Everything in nature and civilization are interconnected and interdependent, meaning cascading collapse becomes inevitable once a level of destruction is reached.
🤦♀️🙃 stop .. you all are now damaging w your virtue signaling… everytime you use a recycle bin you are throwing it in the ocean. Bring back plastic bags.. they were one of only things dual use …
Hi Nate does your calculation of "energy slaves" apply to primary energy/secondary/final or useful energy? Not that it changes the message, but just to have an understanding
I have noticed your use of the word "blind" as in "energy blind" or "materials blind". I think it is a good use of it. In fact, I have had earlier settled on the term "blind spot" for just about everybody involved in climate change etc. That blind spot, I feel, is the unwillingness to imagine that the cities as we know them must be abandoned. Strange. People are willing to discuss, or at least refer to, collapse, but not purposeful decentralization. If they could get sight in that spot, it would clear a lot up.
The most determing factor (1:13:38 Paul Ehrlich; The Population bomb) mentioned but not considered the unsustainable number/footprint of population and how to reduce. This will reduce consumption wich in turn has to undergo a qualitative change at the same time.
you know the elites have ressources that can keep the humans to thrive for generations and generations .. yet you beleive ONE MAN with his crazy depopulation ideas .. your are all sick in the heads .. ignorant .. and quite frankly .. sad people
As a businessman, there are opportunities going up and coming down. So long as it is not a sudden collapse of the world climate, economies and society, we can make profits. I am listening...to see what is there for me.
Politcs should not be corrupt or cowardly. Then science could be "political", if politics means: an understanding of what makes socio-economic-environmental (etc) inter-relationships healthy. But it won't be until humans learn to live in smaller regional communities because allowing self interested nepotists to run things is bad, but so is allowing uneducated fools to run things. Hence another paradox. Small communities of reliance and resislience.with true self-representation is more viable than trying to have comoromised gangster politicos "represent" a bloated 8 billion people... average joes who are a bunch of overwhelmed, uneducated and pissed off wage slaves.
I am no expert on this stuff but do know that I may have done just fine with less as a child in the fifties but back then their was less than three billion humans on earth and coal and oil were king.
Why would people not care about limits to growth. They refuse to take action before they are personally hurting❤people seldom learn through insight but most learn through pain😢
Interesting talk as always, one question I would have to Dennis is why the US peak conventional oil that occurred end 1970 wasn't mentioned at all in Limits to growth (in the preface or something). Is it because it was recognised as such at the time ? Too "touchy" ? Was it mentioned in talks about the book or things like that ?
Note : However regarding the discussion on the climate models and the IPCC, I don't agree with what is said. The strictly climate models (developed in WG1) are derived from physics, biology, CO2 cycles, etc and they are system (or biophysics) oriented models. And in fact they don't need supercomputers to run : climate models are much less computer resource hungry compared to weather models ! Weather models are based on finite elements with detailed geographic grids, the more detailed the grid, the more computer resource is required. Climate models are much more "gobal equations" based with the key parameters being basically the radiative forcing values of various green house gases. Of course some are more geographic detailed for local effects etc, but overall the overall results are not much different from the "basic ones" that you can run yourself on your laptop (or online) such as MAGICC (magicc dot org the model can be run online). These climate models in any case are purely physics/hard science oriented, and what will truly make the scenarios is the inputs (typically CO2 anthropogenic emissions time series for the future, evolution of forests in square meters, etc) that are provided for the runs of the models. Then for the "scenarios" regarding future emissions, indeed it is a totally different story. The RCP scenarios definitions are in fact "tautologic" : defined by the radiative forcing levels in 2100. So these scenarios are defined by their results ... (1/2)
2/2 Then you have the SSP or "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways" and here indeed it is not "systems oriented" but pure "kind of bs economics and growth forecasts with decoupling" stuff. And in particular, nowhere are reserves of fossiles fuels seriously taken into account. Strangely the reserve numbers appears in WG1 (from what I can tell), and they are taken straight out of IEA or other junky numbers. In fact the only place where the word "reserves" appears in AR6 WG1 (in the sense fossile reserves) is : "Fossil fuel reserves are from (BGR, 2019); fossil fuel resources are 11,490 PgC for coal, 49 6,780 PgC for oil, and 365 PgC for natural gas." (and BGR 2019 is based on IEA) If you take more realistic numbers such as Laherrere ones, typically the most realistic scenario is RCP 4.5 (RCP 8 totally unattainable) See for instance the pdf returned by gg "laherrere durand co2" (links don't go through anymore in YT comments apparently) But then of course who knows what will happen during the Crash or before, will we have time to cut all forests for fuel for instance ? In any case, what is clearly missing in the GIEC analysis, is serious reserves evaluations, possibly that should not be the role or the GIEC, but of an organisation dedicated to that. This organisation is clearly not the IEA, which has dropped the ball of serious reserve analysis since the 1998 report, and now consider itself as a GIEC subsidiary or something …
01:17:09 Putin: "you know what we see currently with putin amassing his troops on the border of ukraine not i don't think to invade but rather to secure attention to his demands and and his goals" Well - always the human factor ..
Solar minimums and maximums have been factored in to climate change models for quite a number of years. So have los niños, Milankovitch cycles, sun spots, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes and numerous other variables. None account for the current rate of global warming.
@@faze0ne844 Surprised you didn't use the term "sheeple" along with other inanities and other intellectually challenged epithets. Yeah dude, look that word up. Clearly you are everything but well informed on these issues. Here's another term for you that has served people well in the past, "the precautionary principle". You probably think Trump is a genius too. Get back to your in-bred, backward community, keep burying your head in the sand and don't let it all worry your tiny limited mind. Because many thinking people have noticed and understood issues which are obviously beyond you.
All rational factors are taken into account. The lack of subsequent consequences as well. So what about non-rational behavior, the TABOO for example? In the past, taboos were used to prevent undesirable behavior without any rational/scientific justification. Forest destruction for example. But I don't think it would work universally these days.
The property which every man has in his own labor, Is the original foundation of all other property, So it is the most sacred and inviolate. A. Smith circa 1700-something >< Very good....except for the anti-Stone Age comments. Sad ☘🪨🚀
I don't think so, Joe Rogan doesn't strike me as the type to skew the narrative to fit within a certain cultural framework. I think it was probably someone much more "progressive" - someone who wants to look and sound the part, but not quite someone who's willing to accept that predicaments don't have solutions, they simply have outcomes. That's a hard message to sell to the progressive crowd, at least for the time being.
@@nicksince9487 no offense but you probably don't have a very critical perspective if that's what you think of Rogan. Joe is "confirmation bias" personified
@@zeamaiz945 maybe that’s right, I’m willing to be wrong - but that’s the way I see it. Can you really imagine Rogan saying, “hey man, love your work but can you try and provide a message of hope after delivering such heavy news?” No chance, not in my view anyway..
Could be Jon Stewart. He recently tried to cover the climate crisis, and his journalists gave all the usual hopeful crap about renewables, and he ate it up.
@@johnbanach3875 maybe.. my guess is Rich Roll. He’s been engaging in many more conversations around climate/ecology, but his audience is the type to either wholeheartedly accept or reject the truth delivered by Nate’s work.
So consuming less that is put in front of us is easy to do but we have to be able to grow our own food we have to be able to raise our own animals we need to do it and not for the lands to be removed from us and not to be banned from having a garden at our homes the emissions of cows has been way overblown and it's way out of proportion what we need to look at isn't anyone who best looked at an aviation map on a daily basis will be able to understand immediately who the real culprits are
And furthermore Mass immigration into Canada the United States and Europe must stop country must look after their own first which country must guard their natural resources first each Country Must ensure that their citizens have all they need be able to lead happy healthy fruitful lives
The question of being hard wired for growth gets brushed over way too fast. Constant growth is a property of life and we're its instrument. We're made of DNA and what DNA does is make copies of itself. We are programmed for growth and it's at the core of our problems. If we didn't grow before (we did, just more slowly), it's because we couldn't. As always, It comes down to energy.
@@kvaka009 The devil is in the details but the further you pull back, yeah, it's that simple. We're a branch in the tree of life that got too big for its own weight. If you prefer: Life is organisms transforming matter using energy. As Carlin said, humans are here to make plastic. We're running out of energy. I think this idea that we have control over that is just cognitive dissonance designed (evolved) precisely to keep us growing. The Matrix is life.
You're also a thinking being, not just a ball sack full of DNA. We can decide what is enough and keep ourselves to it. Many communities have existed sustainably within the carrying capacity of their echo system. They did this by creating various practices that allowed for negative feedback loops that slowed down and reversed growth. To reduce all life to one principle is simplistic, it ignores the complexity of nature for the sake of simplicity. Bad way of thinking.
@@kvaka009 So you think we're divine or something? Simple rules can lead to complex systems. We're subject to the same laws as other species. That conscience that makes us believe we're in control is there to deal with other humans, not to solve existential threats. You also have a photographic (simple) view of history. Populations are dynamic. Those communities had primitive means, some still managed to overshoot, they waged war, drove species to extinction, etc. The big question is: where are they now? A better equiped invasive species took their place. Evolution is a dumb process. It doesn't care if it's sustainable. It's in it for the quick gain. Speaking of quick gain, I won't get into the relation between natural systems and capitalism. Yes, it is complex but the rules are simple.
@@borealphoto it's the "we're it's instrument" that is too simplistic, not simple. It brushes over the work of culture that has produced fascinating ways for societies not to over shoot. I just learned of Tsembaga peoples and their pig festivals. I'll post a link to Donella Meadows' vid where she talks about this. Growth is def some sort of basic principle. Maybe of Being a such. But rates of growth matter as well. All things wish to grow, perhaps. But not all things aim to grow at exponential rates. I don't think humans are super natural, but we're not quite natural either. And that is because I believe we are free. Not in the sense that we violate laws of nature. But in the sense in which nature becomes more free through us. That is a longer conversation, however.
I have totally changed my mind about his gentlemen what's a statement we don't need to save the planet the planet will save itself those are words that really are near and dear to my heart is my own belief that this is something that has always happened us little ants referring to humans cannot do anything to change what the planet has decided to do what we need to do is learn to become respectful you have to learn not to deplete our resources for the sake of profit look up a beautiful planet our beautiful world our beautiful people look at everything that is alive appreciated every single day and stop those who are here to rape our planet of all of her resources
Totally agree with you. These people are completely nuts. What makes them really dangerous is the narrative. They speak with a forked tongue, which makes them sound plausible, when in fact they are just bat shit crazy. Club of Rome says everything you need to know about these idiots. Soulless Godless people.
SHOW ME YOUR GOD , why is he invisible? Why don’t you bay Jesus by selling all you possessions and giving to the poor & trust the LORD to provide you material needs like the birds of the air and flowers ? Fairy tales are powerful to simply minded hypocrites
I dont mean to be superficial but can you show some images or something dynamic while these talks happen i find myself finding things to read in the meantime and then getting sidetracked every time. The talk with Daniel Schmathenberger using Cameras was great from this point of view.
@gillbeatsisback01 - thanks. A couple things - most importantly this is a podcast - and putting the audio on youtube is just ancillary to this. Secondly, SOME of our guests (Eg. Daniel Schmactenberger, Tristan Harris, etc) have very good internet so video production is possible (though more costly). But most (like Dennis, Herman Daly, Paul Ehrlich) don't have the internet bandwidth to record video. Thirdly I dont have the time/budget to do more detailed videos, but I understand (and personally agree with) your observation and experience. I'll see what the team can do - thanks for the feedback
@@thegreatsimplification Otherwise the show is great, deep ideas, and nice guests, Im rooting for you I hope your message gets more listeners, energy is a very important aspect of our civilisation ,and your philosophy about it is amazing. Maybe bring some optimistic futurists on ,who think nuclear fusion and Helium 3 might save us. I think you should talk with Paul Beckwith, (th-cam.com/users/PaulHBeckwith) or Michael Dowd -Post Collapse (th-cam.com/users/thegreatstoryfeatured). Or some other Game B people like Jim Rutt th-cam.com/channels/w1Sl_jFYRl2gbkBLp7w4lg.html Or have the Director of Planet of the Humans on that would be phenomenal th-cam.com/video/Zk11vI-7czE/w-d-xo.html
If all ice melted the sea would rise 65 meters higher, this would happen with a sustained 600 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. So, moving above 70 meters is the safe thing to do in my opinion. Today CO2 is about 420 ppm.
yes the climate refugees are going to inundate "your" shores lady. It is already happening and the Amazon rainforest (being cut down to give you hamburgers) already had 3 "once in a hundred year" style droughts in just the last 10 years
Show notes and graphic mentioned by Dennis at this link: www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/12-dennis-meadows
thank you
Great stuff. I liked the talk, although it was kind of depressing. Would like to know what you think of our work?
This guy is a psychopath who wants to genocide 86% of the population.
You're all sick people. You should both go first.
When I was a kid we had a tea-towel with this story printed on it: This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have. When Mr Meadows is talking about the hammer and he says that no technology will help because the social, moral, economic and political values which are embedded in our technologies are the problem I think he hits the nail on the head. No pun intended. 😊
Brilliant. The most important series of our time. Thank you!
Another brilliant installment… Each podcast sends me scurrying for pen and paper to make highlight notes. Paradoxically, I find this podcast to be one of the most uplifting and hopeful available. Hope as context, not plan. I will continue to suggest this work to others in my networks, however I am one who believes in community and quality over commodity and quantity. Keep on doing what you’re doing in the world, Nate…
I also feel much more hopeful since I discovered this podcast, after spending a lifetime catering to the prevailing unlimiting beliefs of most people in our cancerous culture. Hiding my own pessimism and worries have been very fatiguing and hearing more people who are willing to frankly discuss our shared predicaments is liberating.
Well, this is such a briliant discussion between two fascinating authorities. Meadows has long been one of the most forward thinking and thoughtful voices in the fields of sustainability and earth systems science. Hagens is a relatively new kid on the block but nonetheless a very erudite and considered voice. I was articularly impressed by Hagens' ability to pose interesting questions along with his own take on the issues raised without hogging the discussion. An altogether superb contribution to the wider debates happening in these fields of enquiry.
Denis said near the end of the interview that happiness is getting what you want. I beg to differ. I think happiness is learning to appreciate what you have.
Are the wealthiest people satisfied and happy? Probably not. Feeding insatiable desires is a path to more suffering, not a path to happiness.
Very excited to watch this
The hammer analogy is so simple and yet mind bending insightful. Pure value creation! Thank you Nate and Dennis
Wow, what a great interview. Have only just stumbled upon your work Nate, thanks so much for this work and also your extensive show notes are amazing.
Great guest, great questions, great dialogue! Keep it coming, Nate.
This is one of the best podcasts you've produced.
Great, brilliant, scientific mind! Thank❤🌹🙏 you, Dennis Meadows and Nate👍!
I'm learning a lot with your podcast and gettiing introduced to a wide variety of very interesting and insightful people. Thank you very much Nathan!
Thank you. I am glad to see that Dennis Meadows seems to have come out of his "funk". That was how it appeared to me back about 6 years ago when I found it almost impossible to contact him. When I DID manage to get his attention, I was only given about a minute of it. Of course, he had plenty of reason for a funk, from his loss of Donella to his witnessing of the passing of tipping points. Still, I was disappointed. He seemed to have simply given up. I am almost as old as he, and back in the early '70's he, along with Jay Forrester, was in a way a hero of mine.
Priceless wisdom, we are ready Dennis.
Ready for what to die? Lol
@@frankierusso1252 well yes......the liquid bullet called vaxine is inside of the ones who are ready
When murderous fools are celebrated as the smartest among us.
Paul Watson could be a great guest, perhaps to talk about biocentrism, ocean issues, courage and strategy in confronting eco criminals, appealing to governments for cooperation and progress, etc.
I love this man’s common sense
Common sense, yet scientific, analytical, honest, compassionate, and brilliant.
Dennis Meadows? Common sense? The guy literally wrote a book advocating for the genocide of 86% of the worlds population so the elitists can have "freedom"
It just never makes me feel any better when someone says, as Dennis did... "Don't worry about the planet. You don't need to save the planet. It will save itself," based on the true fact that it has billions of years to go.
To me, this is besides the point. It's an offshoot of the old standard that everything else here is chopped liver, compared to us, and the astounding biodiversity it has evolved to this date is more of an unfortunate circumstance, than a horrific tragedy.
Having said that, this man is still a hero to me, nonetheless. But I guess he's more a fan of man, than I.
Great episode Nate. Dennis is wise indeed..
Live simply, so others can simply live.
People were thinking in 1972 and to the present, that we would not be limited to this planet. We were going to the moon in the late sixties and during the seventies and many saw that as the answer to the limits of this planet. Even today many people dream about this. But to either colonize other planets or bring resources back from space, would require some major science fiction to come true. A lot of innovation would be needed to maintain the current population without going off planet for resources as well...
I first read LTG in 1979, and was told we would find ways around limits since we had found ways to do that in the past. People had faith that science fiction would come true. But my response was that until things are found, they are imaginary, and looking for imaginary things doesn't cause them to be found. They have to exist to be found, and you don't know they exist until you find them. People were confusing correlation with causation to say that since we have found ways past limits in the past, we would find more as needed. They were, and are, working on blind faith, working on this superstition that since we found ways before we will do it again, when there is no evidence of a physical relationship between the two things. If people want to plan on blind faith, plan on superstition, also many have mystical beliefs about the issue, then my opinion is that they can go ahead with that, but I don't think that we are being scientific to plan on finding ways past limits, because science works on evidence, and imaginary things are not considered scientific evidence. I see a very clear distinction with this. People who actually respect science, respect deciding what reality is on physical evidence, would not do this on the issue of limits to growth any more than other things.
This is one of the best interviews. It is for the Thinking Mind, for those who will patiently ponder and try to see the future.
I am tuning into this calm and logical scientist, Dennis Meadows.
Nate asked for an example of systems thinking that solved a problem. I have one.
In WWI the problem was that machine guns and shrapnel made it impossible to attack a well-fortified position, and such positions were pretty easy to extend. The solution was the tank, but then the system thinking part only took 20 years. Within 20 years Guderian had invented lightning war. It needed tanks, radios in every tank, integration of dragoons/motorized Inf, and air support. During WWII the stalemate of WWI was not repeated on any front as a result. Yes, more people died, though. But, there were also more people to die, and the war spread to China.
Dennis Meadows has changed for the positive as he has aged this is wonderful to see and unfortunately why I'm one of these people that will have to retract some of the comments I have made previously
I'm ready to hear about ecology and systems! Keep it up nate!!!
“We don’t need a new kind of agricultural technology in order to feed people”
If what Dr Meadows is referring to is conventional chemical agriculture or even high input organic agriculture then I would have to disagree whole heartedly.
Current methods in agriculture are a significant contributor to ecosystem destruction, species extinction and climate change.
New understanding about the role of the soil’s microbiome in helping to produce nutrient rich crops while regenerating soil health will be critical going forward.
Really important correction.
I genuinely believe Dr Meadows would agree with you. I'm sure his definition of technology would encompass the scythe, using horse and cow manure and natural pest control methods along with some more modern but sustainable methods. Indeed during this discussion he does, to my mind, define the term 'technology' to mean in effect, 'tools that we know work best'.
It’s to bad people didn’t realize what they did to the farmers back starting in early 190❤0’s then the hammer happened most old farms were sustained without the big boys coming in and shoving lie’s down the farmers throat
Excellent video, I gave a talk on LtG in 1972, and was very disturbed seeing as how the crash would
unfold in my lifetime.
Excellent! Lots of good ideas here. Well-managed interview. I look forward to listening to this interview again, and I look forward to checking out other videos.
I appreciate the recognition that our most basic problem is in how we interpret our own existence in a complex ecosystem. Much of this has to do with our language, which frames our entire outlook. Our language forms the structure of our culture. If you can't say it, then you can't think it. We need to develop our language to express our purpose as a species and what our existence means. From birth we are taught that we are separate from one another, we have different names, and we are different from, and superior to, the natural world. This is a deep error in our culture that needs to be corrected. So keep interviewing, and keep talking. "Let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late." (Bob Dylan)
Interesting conversation, but got the impression Dennis Meadows, had reached a point where he felt he’d spent enough of his life teaching/tutoring and writing, and through his books pointing out how humanity would overshoot any chance of a sustainable existence as it continued to destroy everything in its way in pursuit of mammon. He didn’t say anything controversial presumably just wanted in the autumn of his life to contemplate life’s mysteries whilst tending to his vegetable garden. Though I was surprised little mention was made of his book “Beyond the Limits: Global Collapse or a Sustainable Future” 1992 Dennis L Meadows, Donella H Meadows and Jorgen Randers, or “Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update” 2004 Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers. Still maybe next time if there is one🤔
Fascinating discussion thankyou , the existing mindset got us into this mess , new forerunners could be useful eg people like Prem Rawat ( Guinness world record holder for the largest attendance for a lecture) could offer tools for the job , and his growth since 1967 has definitely been beneficial , or it seems to me that if we don't want to know we will have to go.
Speaking of games about developing countries - check out Terra Invicta. The game developers used real-world population and economic data in designing the 180+ countries/regions.
Club of Rome Member and Speaker?
Im ALL in.
Will WHEAT become the deciding factor?
you guys are sick .. exactly the problem in the world right now and you encourage this !
Really terrific interview. Thanks 😊
Isn't the expectation of the elites is different to the ordinary person. The elites want growth and more wealth whereas the ordinary folk want something simpler. The problem is that the democratic process doesn't reflect the wants and needs of ordinary people.
30min... very useful summary of total energy used globally..many thanks..to you both..Ray
❤
Thank you for the terrific interview.
It is a tendency that physical scientists or engineers to blame human behaviours for inaction, and social scientists suggests that there is no need for more technical knowledge to deal with the situation we found ourselves in (there is plenty of academic evidence to support the afore-mentioned). Both positions are intellectual untenable. Our present predicament is the product of the co-evolution of social and physical systems right from the start when humans learned to use fire (energy) and axe. Our present circumstance reveals deep disconnect between us and the nature upon which we subsist. And, it is the political economy of globalisation that has led us to the real and present danger - the rock and the hard place.
First , I agreed with much of this . However, it’s important to recognize that the majority of the world lives at a subsistence level already . Many people even in America are dependent on government subsidies just to pay for food and shelter . The real question is how to get the people with disposable income to stop buying so much stuff .
Push higher quality products to those people and bring back sustainability within the product..Once was a huge market of quality over quantity from how long shoes would last/with resoling to sweaters that would last for a decades or a drill that’s been used for three generations..get people off of the instant! Push gardening and canning and bring back local..local businesses are always better than sending stuff thousands of miles away
Disposable !!!!! Says it all😮
You must interview JEAN-MARC JANCOVICI he’s French but he’s your guy. He speaks English decently, an interview should be feasible. He’s a total expert in Energy, limits to growth, ecology, and the inevitable degrowth, peak oil etc
The Deer story refers to the Kibab plateau is part of Grand Canyon , a flat area between the upper canyon and the deep lower canyon.
Thanks
👍
Wow, I always thought it was a casino economy...now I think it is a butterflywing economy
I'd love to hear the authors of Superabundance: The Age of Plenty |on your podcast.. I think it'll provide for an engaging and meaningful discourse which may also test some core assumptions of limits to growth models.
😅😅oh my gawd
yes look to the patriarchal religious cultists amd Brigham Young worshippers for answers!
Yes I agree it would be interesting. Why does the other side instantly revert to name calling when reminded their arguments are on pretty thin ice?
People won't decide to use less on their own, on mass, and if people wait until they are forced to use less, the consequences could certainly cascade into a stone age future or even worse...The rate of change the natural world is experiencing is only comparable to the very worst mass extinction events on Earth, except only orders of magnitude faster this time around..It's only natural to want to have hope for the future, but the consequences of our behavior on this scale are very serious indeed...Everything in nature and civilization are interconnected and interdependent, meaning cascading collapse becomes inevitable once a level of destruction is reached.
🤦♀️🙃 stop .. you all are now damaging w your virtue signaling… everytime you use a recycle bin you are throwing it in the ocean.
Bring back plastic bags.. they were one of only things dual use …
Hi Nate does your calculation of "energy slaves" apply to primary energy/secondary/final or useful energy? Not that it changes the message, but just to have an understanding
I have noticed your use of the word "blind" as in "energy blind" or "materials blind". I think it is a good use of it. In fact, I have had earlier settled on the term "blind spot" for just about everybody involved in climate change etc. That blind spot, I feel, is the unwillingness to imagine that the cities as we know them must be abandoned. Strange. People are willing to discuss, or at least refer to, collapse, but not purposeful decentralization. If they could get sight in that spot, it would clear a lot up.
The most determing factor (1:13:38 Paul Ehrlich; The Population bomb) mentioned but not considered the unsustainable number/footprint of population and how to reduce. This will reduce consumption wich in turn has to undergo a qualitative change at the same time.
you know the elites have ressources that can keep the humans to thrive for generations and generations .. yet you beleive ONE MAN with his crazy depopulation ideas .. your are all sick in the heads .. ignorant .. and quite frankly .. sad people
Using half the energy is just kicking the can down the road. Yes or No?
Yes on a longer time span thats perfectly correct. Every bargain is just can kicking
"Hope is not a strategy for achieving change." Merch for the channel - wall plaques??
What’s political acceptable seems to be the biggest variable
As a businessman, there are opportunities going up and coming down. So long as it is not a sudden collapse of the world climate, economies and society, we can make profits. I am listening...to see what is there for me.
Thanks Nate! Have your contacted Gaya Herrington yet for update? You'll have better questions than what we had!
I'd never heard of her until I looked her up. Thank you. Very interesting...
Science should not be political
Bears should not shit in the woods
Politcs should not be corrupt or cowardly. Then science could be "political", if politics means: an understanding of what makes socio-economic-environmental (etc) inter-relationships healthy. But it won't be until humans learn to live in smaller regional communities because allowing self interested nepotists to run things is bad, but so is allowing uneducated fools to run things. Hence another paradox. Small communities of reliance and resislience.with true self-representation is more viable than trying to have comoromised gangster politicos "represent" a bloated 8 billion people... average joes who are a bunch of overwhelmed, uneducated and pissed off wage slaves.
Nate where can those that might support your work make an impact or contribute? I checked Patreon but didn't see an account there for you guys?
New metrics that are long term required
I am no expert on this stuff but do know that I may have done just fine with less as a child in the fifties but back then their was less than three billion humans on earth and coal and oil were king.
I don't get the hedging on prediction. We absolutely are trying to predict what will happen. If we aren't, what in the heck are we doing?
Why would people not care about limits to growth. They refuse to take action before they are personally hurting❤people seldom learn through insight but most learn through pain😢
I suggest Dave Snowden.
Interesting talk as always, one question I would have to Dennis is why the US peak conventional oil that occurred end 1970 wasn't mentioned at all in Limits to growth (in the preface or something). Is it because it was recognised as such at the time ? Too "touchy" ? Was it mentioned in talks about the book or things like that ?
Note : However regarding the discussion on the climate models and the IPCC, I don't agree with what is said.
The strictly climate models (developed in WG1) are derived from physics, biology, CO2 cycles, etc and they are system (or biophysics) oriented models. And in fact they don't need supercomputers to run : climate models are much less computer resource hungry compared to weather models !
Weather models are based on finite elements with detailed geographic grids, the more detailed the grid, the more computer resource is required.
Climate models are much more "gobal equations" based with the key parameters being basically the radiative forcing values of various green house gases.
Of course some are more geographic detailed for local effects etc, but overall the overall results are not much different from the "basic ones" that you can run yourself on your laptop (or online) such as MAGICC (magicc dot org the model can be run online).
These climate models in any case are purely physics/hard science oriented, and what will truly make the scenarios is the inputs (typically CO2 anthropogenic emissions time series for the future, evolution of forests in square meters, etc) that are provided for the runs of the models.
Then for the "scenarios" regarding future emissions, indeed it is a totally different story.
The RCP scenarios definitions are in fact "tautologic" : defined by the radiative forcing levels in 2100. So these scenarios are defined by their results ... (1/2)
2/2
Then you have the SSP or "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways" and here indeed it is not "systems oriented" but pure "kind of bs economics and growth forecasts with decoupling" stuff.
And in particular, nowhere are reserves of fossiles fuels seriously taken into account.
Strangely the reserve numbers appears in WG1 (from what I can tell), and they are taken straight out of IEA or other junky numbers.
In fact the only place where the word "reserves" appears in AR6 WG1 (in the sense fossile reserves) is :
"Fossil fuel reserves are from (BGR, 2019); fossil fuel resources are 11,490 PgC for coal,
49 6,780 PgC for oil, and 365 PgC for natural gas." (and BGR 2019 is based on IEA)
If you take more realistic numbers such as Laherrere ones, typically the most realistic scenario is RCP 4.5 (RCP 8 totally unattainable)
See for instance the pdf returned by gg "laherrere durand co2" (links don't go through anymore in YT comments apparently)
But then of course who knows what will happen during the Crash or before, will we have time to cut all forests for fuel for instance ?
In any case, what is clearly missing in the GIEC analysis, is serious reserves evaluations, possibly that should not be the role or the GIEC, but of an organisation dedicated to that. This organisation is clearly not the IEA, which has dropped the ball of serious reserve analysis since the 1998 report, and now consider itself as a GIEC subsidiary or something …
*was = was not
01:17:09 Putin: "you know what we see currently with putin amassing his troops on the border of ukraine not i don't think to invade but rather to secure attention to his demands and and his goals"
Well - always the human factor ..
I'd like to hear what this channel's position is on climate change. I'd also like to see a conversation about grand solar minimums.
Solar minimums and maximums have been factored in to climate change models for quite a number of years. So have los niños, Milankovitch cycles, sun spots, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes and numerous other variables. None account for the current rate of global warming.
@@Lyra0966 loll you guys beleive everything that the elites share and say ! so predictable .. yet sad
@@faze0ne844 Surprised you didn't use the term "sheeple" along with other inanities and other intellectually challenged epithets. Yeah dude, look that word up. Clearly you are everything but well informed on these issues. Here's another term for you that has served people well in the past, "the precautionary principle". You probably think Trump is a genius too. Get back to your in-bred, backward community, keep burying your head in the sand and don't let it all worry your tiny limited mind. Because many thinking people have noticed and understood issues which are obviously beyond you.
12:50 sounds like data was not fitting the narrative so go make it up
Why did industrialists send all the US manufacturing to China and elsewhere? They wanted the exponential growth
All rational factors are taken into account.
The lack of subsequent consequences as well.
So what about non-rational behavior, the TABOO for example?
In the past, taboos were used to prevent undesirable behavior without any rational/scientific justification.
Forest destruction for example.
But I don't think it would work universally these days.
These sounds extremely authoritarian 💪🏽 not every society will comply, or are you going to make them comply?
Dennis Meadows I wish he was my neighbor....
1:10:12 climate change
I call bs on this
With out the wolf's... lol
The property which every man has in his own labor,
Is the original foundation of all other property,
So it is the most sacred and inviolate.
A. Smith circa 1700-something
><
Very good....except for the anti-Stone Age comments. Sad
☘🪨🚀
Obviously had to walk it back because in 2022 we see that population and young people demographics are actually declining.
Nate was definitely asked to go on Joe Rogan 😏
I don't think so, Joe Rogan doesn't strike me as the type to skew the narrative to fit within a certain cultural framework. I think it was probably someone much more "progressive" - someone who wants to look and sound the part, but not quite someone who's willing to accept that predicaments don't have solutions, they simply have outcomes. That's a hard message to sell to the progressive crowd, at least for the time being.
@@nicksince9487 no offense but you probably don't have a very critical perspective if that's what you think of Rogan. Joe is "confirmation bias" personified
@@zeamaiz945 maybe that’s right, I’m willing to be wrong - but that’s the way I see it. Can you really imagine Rogan saying, “hey man, love your work but can you try and provide a message of hope after delivering such heavy news?”
No chance, not in my view anyway..
Could be Jon Stewart. He recently tried to cover the climate crisis, and his journalists gave all the usual hopeful crap about renewables, and he ate it up.
@@johnbanach3875 maybe.. my guess is Rich Roll. He’s been engaging in many more conversations around climate/ecology, but his audience is the type to either wholeheartedly accept or reject the truth delivered by Nate’s work.
So consuming less that is put in front of us is easy to do but we have to be able to grow our own food we have to be able to raise our own animals we need to do it and not for the lands to be removed from us and not to be banned from having a garden at our homes the emissions of cows has been way overblown and it's way out of proportion what we need to look at isn't anyone who best looked at an aviation map on a daily basis will be able to understand immediately who the real culprits are
Cognitive dissonance.when the data don t support yr View people seem to prefer to ignore it❤
And furthermore Mass immigration into Canada the United States and Europe must stop country must look after their own first which country must guard their natural resources first each Country Must ensure that their citizens have all they need be able to lead happy healthy fruitful lives
The question of being hard wired for growth gets brushed over way too fast. Constant growth is a property of life and we're its instrument. We're made of DNA and what DNA does is make copies of itself. We are programmed for growth and it's at the core of our problems. If we didn't grow before (we did, just more slowly), it's because we couldn't. As always, It comes down to energy.
Way too simplistic
@@kvaka009 The devil is in the details but the further you pull back, yeah, it's that simple.
We're a branch in the tree of life that got too big for its own weight.
If you prefer: Life is organisms transforming matter using energy. As Carlin said, humans are here to make plastic. We're running out of energy.
I think this idea that we have control over that is just cognitive dissonance designed (evolved) precisely to keep us growing.
The Matrix is life.
You're also a thinking being, not just a ball sack full of DNA. We can decide what is enough and keep ourselves to it. Many communities have existed sustainably within the carrying capacity of their echo system. They did this by creating various practices that allowed for negative feedback loops that slowed down and reversed growth. To reduce all life to one principle is simplistic, it ignores the complexity of nature for the sake of simplicity. Bad way of thinking.
@@kvaka009 So you think we're divine or something?
Simple rules can lead to complex systems. We're subject to the same laws as other species. That conscience that makes us believe we're in control is there to deal with other humans, not to solve existential threats.
You also have a photographic (simple) view of history. Populations are dynamic. Those communities had primitive means, some still managed to overshoot, they waged war, drove species to extinction, etc. The big question is: where are they now? A better equiped invasive species took their place. Evolution is a dumb process. It doesn't care if it's sustainable. It's in it for the quick gain.
Speaking of quick gain, I won't get into the relation between natural systems and capitalism. Yes, it is complex but the rules are simple.
@@borealphoto it's the "we're it's instrument" that is too simplistic, not simple. It brushes over the work of culture that has produced fascinating ways for societies not to over shoot. I just learned of Tsembaga peoples and their pig festivals. I'll post a link to Donella Meadows' vid where she talks about this.
Growth is def some sort of basic principle. Maybe of Being a such. But rates of growth matter as well. All things wish to grow, perhaps. But not all things aim to grow at exponential rates.
I don't think humans are super natural, but we're not quite natural either. And that is because I believe we are free. Not in the sense that we violate laws of nature. But in the sense in which nature becomes more free through us. That is a longer conversation, however.
I have totally changed my mind about his gentlemen what's a statement we don't need to save the planet the planet will save itself those are words that really are near and dear to my heart is my own belief that this is something that has always happened us little ants referring to humans cannot do anything to change what the planet has decided to do what we need to do is learn to become respectful you have to learn not to deplete our resources for the sake of profit look up a beautiful planet our beautiful world our beautiful people look at everything that is alive appreciated every single day and stop those who are here to rape our planet of all of her resources
Wow if sea would ever rise people will move away from the shore.. no one on this planet will ever see that
How much did the UN and WEF pay you? Huh, Dennis, how much?
These eugenicists should start with themselves.
Wow. You got absolutely nothing from this video. Folks, we’re all in big trouble.
@@davehendricks4824 at the time I bet he had no idea about the hidden hand, young and naive
Insane....what godless people talk about.
Totally agree with you. These people are completely nuts. What makes them really dangerous is the narrative. They speak with a forked tongue, which makes them sound plausible, when in fact they are just bat shit crazy.
Club of Rome says everything you need to know about these idiots.
Soulless Godless people.
SHOW ME YOUR GOD , why is he invisible? Why don’t you bay Jesus by selling all you possessions and giving to the poor & trust the LORD to provide you material needs like the birds of the air and flowers ? Fairy tales are powerful to simply minded hypocrites
I dont mean to be superficial but can you show some images or something dynamic while these talks happen i find myself finding things to read in the meantime and then getting sidetracked every time. The talk with Daniel Schmathenberger using Cameras was great from this point of view.
@gillbeatsisback01 - thanks. A couple things - most importantly this is a podcast - and putting the audio on youtube is just ancillary to this. Secondly, SOME of our guests (Eg. Daniel Schmactenberger, Tristan Harris, etc) have very good internet so video production is possible (though more costly). But most (like Dennis, Herman Daly, Paul Ehrlich) don't have the internet bandwidth to record video. Thirdly I dont have the time/budget to do more detailed videos, but I understand (and personally agree with) your observation and experience. I'll see what the team can do - thanks for the feedback
@@thegreatsimplification Otherwise the show is great, deep ideas, and nice guests, Im rooting for you I hope your message gets more listeners, energy is a very important aspect of our civilisation ,and your philosophy about it is amazing. Maybe bring some optimistic futurists on ,who think nuclear fusion and Helium 3 might save us.
I think you should talk with Paul Beckwith, (th-cam.com/users/PaulHBeckwith)
or Michael Dowd -Post Collapse
(th-cam.com/users/thegreatstoryfeatured).
Or some other Game B people like Jim Rutt th-cam.com/channels/w1Sl_jFYRl2gbkBLp7w4lg.html
Or have the Director of Planet of the Humans on that would be phenomenal th-cam.com/video/Zk11vI-7czE/w-d-xo.html
i have been watching another youtube video at the same time with landscapes of nature. That helps me stay focussed
Wow if sea would ever rise people will move away from the shore.. no one on this planet will ever see that
If all ice melted the sea would rise 65 meters higher, this would happen with a sustained 600 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. So, moving above 70 meters is the safe thing to do in my opinion. Today CO2 is about 420 ppm.
yes the climate refugees are going to inundate "your" shores lady. It is already happening and the Amazon rainforest (being cut down to give you hamburgers) already had 3 "once in a hundred year" style droughts in just the last 10 years