Been working solidly for 50 ish years #Neoliberalism

Our economy is selling hits of dopamine. It has no perception of physical limitations of reality. It’s clueless about the finite supply of energy and resources.

It is far cheaper, and easier to go with massless energy. Electricity is massless, so just go with massless inputs, such as wind, sunlight, gravity, heat (geothermal), and nuclear power, in concert.

Let's avoid the techno-feudal hellscape.

There's something in Melanie Brusseler's voice that makes paying attention impossible.

Robinson is almost 10 years older than I am, but his story about his orientation as a California boy in the 60s, and his relationship with the sci-fi giants of utopia and dystopia, are bizarrely identical to my own in the Midwest a decade later. Small, tide pool world. Great interview.

Thank you. This needs to be heard.

Utopianism vs Dystopianism

This guy seems dismissive of opposing views and the interviewer seems to have a political agenda. I think their stances are shallow. They appeal more to conspiracy theorists than rational realists. I suspect they take this stance in order to persuade children of the goodness of the left. A deception which they can then use to win office and pass legislation that is worthy of the worst tyrants and mass murderers. Kim Stanley Robinson isn’t a murderer. I think his way of thinking, his true “ministry of the future” would lead to the sabotage of social order. In a way that would turn out worse than he thinks possible of the opposing side. Then again that may be his hidden agenda.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that he ignore any consideration of imperialism and its role in the current world order. This was particularly apparent when discussing “petrol states”. That being said, I haven’t read his works and am unsure whether the themes are present there.

Great conversation. Pointed here by Damien Walter.

My own reservation is with an "idolatry" or simplistic positivism towards bureaucracy. I think bureaucracy is an organism of its own, and without proper boundaries and intentional design around a goal/mission/principles, can be manipulated or corrupted into either disfunction or counterproductivism (relative to its stated goal). Bureaucracy often develops by itself for its own purpose, like an invasive tree species trying to gather all the sunlight indifferently to other organisms in the ecosystem. Bureaucracy can be a powerful tool, but like technology can also run amok and become a problem. Same can be said about naive political and economic systems.

This dialogue between the “old left” and the “new left” is essential. I’m no where as far left as KSR but I am part of the statist coalition he discusses. Yes. We need to stop burning dinosaurs today. No. It’s not going to happen when parents in India and China need to metaphorically decide between starvation and throwing coal on the fire. How do we get from here to there? It’s not demonstrations or legislative demands for shutting down fracking. It’s a fifty year world view where all of the “cares” of the new left are weighed and pragmatically advanced through compromise. If we are committed to democratic progress, we need to be ready for democratic patience. Utopia now has always led to oppression. Utopia in 50 years has a chance.

Katharina Pistor, thank you so much for helping me to understand just how complicated our present circumstances are. I wish I had studied law when I was younger. I know in my heart that "profit = protecting and enriching the environment". In the 3rd grade, when we were taught that 'profit = income - expenses', it was very clear to me that this profit model makes no sense. There was a wall of widows in our classroom, and I pointed outside and said "all of our actual gains come from the environment. Money is only a permission slip that allows us to buy our actual gains". What I didn't know at that time is that the second part, "minus expenses", is our death knell. This means we maximize our so-called profit by minimizing as many expenses as possible. This means we must ignore the damages that we do to the environment, and we must also keep our labor expenses as low as possible. Our heartless reckless behavior model 'profit = income - expenses' is the reason that the earth is on fire and also the reason there is so much homelessness. Great legal minds, I implore you. Please make "profit = protecting and enriching the environment" our new norm so that we can repair our environment. All of our lives are depending on you. I've attempted to work out some of the details as to how the new economy might look. Here's what I can offer. "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment". Under this new behavior model, our only major expense is ignoring our obligation to protect and enrich our environment. The new profit model requires us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment". Caretakers will have many specialized categories: 1. Collecting pollution that is already in the environment 2. Collecting pollution before it gets into the environment 3. Dealing with all of the waste in such ways that are good for the environment, and or good for the production of products 4. Designing new ways of producing products so that those products last for a long time and don't have to be replaced every two years 5. Thoughtful distribution of wealth 6. Economically incentivizing families with two or fewer children There will be many more types of Caretaker jobs. Every company and government will have Caretaker jobs, and everybody will be schooled, from elementary school through university about how to be caretakers of the environment. We will all be caretakers of the environment. What do you think about this idea? How can we transition from our present reckless economy to this entirely new economy that requires us to behave rationally and responsibly. It may already be too late to save our environment, but it is never too late to try.

RIP to the Goat Fredric Jameson

i like the topic and thoughts presented here. but i do have some reservation towards science as good. science it is a method but in modern form it is another thing and a producers of things an "progress". even if you use science in the best possible way it is waste of human and material resources(pollution) and to try to or have a chance of some improvement in the future. instead of just use the knowledge and technologies we already have to simplify life towards a sustainable society.

Really good points about cost of capital. But, the model used here is a Neoclassical model. It assumes the Government borrows. It’s really important that we talk about money creation (Govt fiat and bank created credit ). The choice to issue Govt bonds and the interest rate on the bonds is a separate policy decision. We call that debt even though a currency issuing can repay this at any time. The real issue is the growth in private debt from bank created credit. Also I question whether renewables are cheaper. When we consider end to end lifecycle costs including storage? And take away Govt incentives. However energy investment to transition should not be a price decision. Prices do not reflect all information and that we continue to follow this Neoclassical doctrine is frustrating. We know that the cost of carbon is understated. It only reflects the cost of extraction not that it is a limited resource. That said great discussion and Govt investment in the energy sector is fundamental to any attempt at reducing carbon emissions.

Another amazing interview. This channel is one of my favorites. No BS fear environmentalism. Talking about Markets and the incentives. A breath of fresh air. Don’t stop!

Thanks for this interview! Fantastic insights, and a few important challenges put forward by Chris Shaw to reframe how we look at social and environmental issues today.

Thanks for posting. Great interview with quite valuable information

Thank you for confirming what i already thought about anything in regards to climate * change). It is clearly a (neo) marxist push, usually derived by self hating middle class or upper class individuals who give out about the 'bourgeousi' and use 'common people' as fodder f their ideology.

I loved this presentation from Chris Shaw who takes such a different approach from the middle-class wankers who are generally on show. He really knows what he's talking about - and I'll certainly read his book "Liberalism and the challenge of Climate Change"

You talk rubbish. Liberalism is the idea that you can do what you like as long as you don't harm others, pretty basic stuff, but it has never been implemented. If it was it would bring capitalism to its knees, because the rich could not exploit workers. Nor could they get away with polluting the environment.

"We are betting the house on solar and wind". Well, if you continue that you sow the seeds of destruction. How about NOT doing that? Because it makes much more sense to try and balance energy w different sources. That way you can truely balance year on year without a shock factor. The renewable road is an unreliable one. IF climate change is a factor then making your system more vulnerable is exactly the wrong thing to do. Nothing is settled. Everything is in flux. Nothing in energy ever transits. We have used higher density units over time. We go backwards w unreliables. Is everybody looking forward to pre-industrial times? I don't think so.

You cannot talk about energy and transition at the same time. The point of departure in this talk is: we HAVE to. No we don't. We won't. The people will turn against it. It is based on a set of lies and misconceptions and we don't like fascists, green or otherwise.

Well, capitalism doesnt have to solve anything as there IS no climate crisis. There may be peak oil but that is debatable. There is NO energy transition and certaintly not one from higher density to lower density unit. Technology will improve but has limits. Everything has limits. We adjust, slowly, over time. We have to assess year by year what the right balance is. But the climate alarmists are pushing too hard and they will fail, for obvious reasons one of which is that their projections are not based on reality. We dont want cobstant fear mongering. We dont want a kind of green fascism. We like and need a level of liberty and will stop those who are power hungry.

Interesting discussion. Thank you.

Maoism is a bureaucratic authoritarian model, and as such not a path I would favor. Socialism has to be democratic to work. With the climate/environmental crisis it will even be more important to have people on board.

A "JUDAS" IS ONE, WHO SELLS OUT THE "WELL-BEING OF ANOTHER", FOR THE WORTH OF SOMETHING ELSE.... THAT'S CAPITALISM !

*The world is sick of **-Zios'-** criminality.* ✔

You climate people are fkn weird…completely blind to the uncompromised science

*The 🆄nited 🆂laves of 🅰ipac is morally bankrupt* ✅

🅵🆁🅴🅴 🅵🆁🅴🅴 🅿🅰🅻🅴🆂🆃🅸🅽🅴❗💯✌

*The 🆄nited 🆂laves of 🅰ipac!*

*The 🆄nited 🆂laves of 🅰ipac!*

#Podcast #Capitalism #ClimateCrisis #EcoCrisis #Breakdown / Adriene Buller

I believe the saying goes, "Good riddance to bad rubbish." (speaking of course, of unfair capitalism *fair capitalism is fine*) Or, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's!" (speaking of course, ironically, of the working person)

Those in power are godless

The system may implode in a four stage process. Stage one: there is a massive famine from one or two bad years of global crop growing, due to climate damage. Stage two: because food is treated as a commodity, capitalists do not continue to invest in risky food growing schemes, and if governments step in to fund, they do so too late. Stage three: capitalist supply chains for complex products are relying on getting food to their workers for the final products to be made, and the workers cannot afford the food. Meaning those complex products are not made, or are made at a loss to pay the workers so they can eat. Government steps in: again, too late. Stage four: some complicated labour-saving devices cannot be made, that are supporting the global economy, plus food growing. Leading to implosion and collapse. Supporting ideas are the following. 1. Many complicated capitalist products are costly in the sense of too many moving parts involved. 2. Capitalist government steps in too late to fix market failure. 3. Food is treated as a commodity by a lot of the people growing and selling it so farming will lack capitalist investment as it starts to look risky in the face of floods and drought.

Oh the corporate and evangelical fascists allied with the Trump cult are doing just fine

The greatest threat to the world is American agression and evil.

Having spent many years living amongst the indigenous Asmat people of West Papua, who famously consumed Michael Rockerfeller, I can assure you that there's at least one lesson that we could immediately put into practice which would go a long way towards ameliorating the planetary crisis.

How are societies built upon foundations of ecological destruction and imperialism supposed to continue to function without continued ecological destruction and imperialism. It’s very easy to sit in front of a camera and pronounce support for one side or another, but at the end of the day the existence of every human alive exists on one side or another of this dynamic. What is to replace imperialist/capitalist/anti-ecological regimes? And I don’t just refer to legal frameworks and high minded Utopianism, but also the very basic questions of: what do we do about food supplies and ways of life dependent on imperialism capitalism and ecologically destructive patterns? How is the average western citizen supposed to do anything about this without a lifetime of ivory tower education as the world burns underneath? When the average western citizen is too busy paying rent and buying over priced over industrialised food? When the clock runs out, water runs out, crops won’t grow, climate changes continues to fundamentally alter population structures and movements, how are most people on either side of the imperialist core or periphery supposed to focus on anything but basic survival? Our governments are owned and controlled by a small elite with enough protection to survive any future, in spite of us all. We can’t begin to consider any kind of change to any aspect of society without running into money in politics, we can’t talk about money in politics because the world is burning, we can’t fix the world burning because there is too much to change about our societies. So what do we do? Revolution? What replaces what comes after? A war may be brewing in the Middle East which isn’t going to help any kind of climate or political reform efforts. I am a nobody, but I am a nobody who believes he understands that capitalism won, and it will grab the world by the scalp and pull along until it reaches its logical conclusion . Sure we in the west could protest for withdrawal of Israel from Palestine, but people already did and nothing changed because the decision isn’t for normal people to make . The ugly imperialist reality is our societies depend on Israel and what the existence of this state means for West. On a similar vein, I don’t think we should be so keen to state western imperialism exists in a vacuum, an eastern alliance of Iran China Russia and North Korea with their affiliated state and clear they do not like the West and they actively sabotage us and are trying to destabilise our societies (more than we already do to ourselves). Israel has gone too far since the October 7th attacks, but also, this conflict feels like the us West vs them East. They are acting with the irrationality of a society that believes it could be on the brink of destruction, but isn’t that true? Does Iran say that they want to eliminate Israel? Doesn’t the news constantly tell us the planet is warming up too much for our societies? Aren’t our societies reaching such levels of inequality and indignity that young generations have no hope for a bright future? In the context of everything I - as a 24 year old nothing - don’t see the Israeli-Palestinian/Western-Eastern in the backdrop of economic ecological and geopolitical uncertainty, I see this war in the context of way may become the end of the world as I know it. And I don’t have a the time or money to sit around reading the history of this ridiculous region of the earth to « understand » why I am right or wrong. I have rent to pay and food to buy. This is all the game of elites with nothing better to do but inflate their net worths and egos.

Great interview. Energy is the economy. Green tech is typically not green and doesn’t solve the core issue of planetary overshoot. Markets rely on growth, corporations and states are acting in self interest.

It strikes me when I see videos of missiles, grenades, gunfire etc on the news, how much smoke is in those photos! I have a feeling the climate impact of war is heavily underestimated, and regional conflict (which isn't always categorized as outright war) even more so. Thanks for this video, we definitely need more of this. War and human caused climate change are two completely avoidable disasters, if we collectively set our minds to it as a species and civilization.

houthi simp

I know this is a pretty small channel but I want to say that I’ve been loving these interviews, they cover really unique topics and I’ve shown them to my whole family

Quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6 WG1: Flooding - “the assessment of observed trends in the magnitude of runoff, streamflow, and flooding remains challenging, due to the spatial heterogeneity of the signal and to multiple drivers” "Confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on a global scale is low." "In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence" So in absence of detected trends, there won’t be much ability to attribute to humans. You can't say floods are caused by, driven by, or intensified by climate change. The evidence doesn’t support that. Drought - "There is low confidence that human influence has affected trends in meteorological droughts in most regions" So no real evidence we changed the weather to cause periods of dryness. Tropical Cyclones (TC) - "Identifying past trends in TC remains a challenge...There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency - or intensity based metrics" So we can't spot a trend and therefore we can't really attribute that unknown trend to us humans. Storminess - outside the tropics (ETCs) - "There is overall low confidence is recent changes in the total number of ETCs over both hemispheres" "Overall there is low confidence in past-century trends in the number and intensity of the strongest ETCs" So we don't know what's happening with winter storms, so we can't say it's us that changed them. Tornadoes, hail, lightning, thunderstorms, extreme winds - "It is not straightforward to make a synthesizing view of trends in severe connective storms [thunderstorms] in different regions. In particular, observational trends in tornadoes, hail and lightning associated with severe connective storms are not robustly detected" "the observed intensity of extreme winds is becoming less severe in lower to mid latitudes" That's between 60°N and 60°S, so pretty much where everyone lives.

There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones.

Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C. Despite that humanity has flourished. Life expectancy has more than doubled from 32 to 73 years. Literacy has quadrupled from 21% to 86%. Humans are seven times more productive ($2,241 to $15,212 GDP per capita, per annum). People are better fed, having ⅓ more calories every day (2,192kcal to 2,928kcal). Global extreme poverty rates have tumbled from 70% to less than 10% (<$1 a day). And death from weather events have collapsed by a factor 50 from 241 million down to 5 million even while the global population has increased by a factor of 5. In a world that's 3°C warmer by the end of the century, it has been estimated that incomes will be between 1.9% (Tol, 2024) and 3.1% lower (Nordhaus) than the would otherwise have been. However the UN estimates that total incomes will have increased by 450% by 2100. If the effects of climate are included we will only be 440% or 435% richer! Oh my God, it's the end of the world! There is no climate crisis. There is no evidence of a climate crisis. Even if there is radical climate change (and that is a very, very big 'if') with the manifestation of numerous tipping points (including permafrost thaw, ocean hydrates dissociation, Arctic sea ice loss, rainforest dieback, polar ice sheet loss, AMOC slowdown, and Indian monsoon variability) the disruption to economic growth and well-being will be minimal. The world's economy will continue to grow making everyone much richer. By 2050 world mean consumption per capita should be $29,100 with tipping points or $29,300 without tipping points. Barely noticeable. Apart from it being approximately double what it is now. By 2100 world mean consumption per capita should be $71,000 with or without tipping points (Dietz et al, 2021). This is the most fortunate time to be alive in the whole of history.