Doughnut Economics - Kate Raworth

Oxfam senior researcher and former co-author of the UN's annual Human Development Report Kate Raworth visits the RSA to explain 'doughnut economics' -- the bold new theory that is sweeping the development world.
Listen to the podcast of the full event including audience Q&A: www.thersa.org/events/audio-an...
Follow the RSA on Twitter: / thersaorg
Like the RSA on Facebook: / thersaorg
Our events are made possible with the support of our Fellowship. Support us by donating or applying to become a Fellow.
Donate: www.thersa.org/support-the-rsa
Become a Fellow: www.thersa.org/fellowship/apply

[@carlwain1676]

This is inspiring it kind of brings together all the things we grapple with on a personal, local, national and world level into one place.

[@henkhadders9985]

Chapeau, Kate ! What an impressive presentation. I like how you combined ecological with the social limits in this world, illustrating that we need both social and ecological footprints. For me there are three important human systems/actors operating within this safe and just space for humanity: the Market, State and the Commons Sure,we need to know what their context-based relational footprints are. But most of all, we need to re-invent and re-discover the Commons to solve our wicked problems!

[@dipakhore6325]

a very effective presentation on a Complex issue.

[@KatsuBae]

Thanks for posting.

[@AlexSipka]

Your incentive within an RBE is access to goods/services supplied by the local and broader community. Have you seen the RSA Animate 'Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us' or 'The Empathic Civilisation'?

[@summondadrummin2868]

The Economy we currently have is probably better called Egonomics, this insight might prove helpful in transforming towards Doughnut Economics

[@richardventus1875]

We are entering the global Great Depression 2.0 and I believe we will only recover from it if we change to the Doughnut Economy led by people compliant with the Transpersonal Leadership paradigm. This new paradigm of leadership treats everyone as an individual rather than the current 'one-size fits all sausage factory' that everything has become. I have advocated the Transpersonal Leadership paradigm for the doughnut economy for many years now, but the 'elite' and academia don't want it as it doesn't fit in with their desires and motivations from egotism , greed and control. I have contact with one of the world's leading experts on Transpersonal leadership - if anyone sends me a reply I'll pass on their details.

[@Samwiseo00o]

Thanks for your reply. Looked up the ecological footprint and wished that, for the sake of everyone being aware of their own footprint, the metrics would be simpler.

[@HolgerGoesKiwi]

Hey guys, there already exists a pretty well thought through economic concept that covers all of Kate's ideas: Just google Gemeinwohloekonomie (Economy for the common good) Have alook at it. It's fascinating and already being taken into action. Enjoy Holger

[@TheGammelfjols]

It´s looks and feals like a. moderen version of. georgism. much of the doughnut , is in henry Georges book. henry george progress and poverty but the picture of a doughnut is a good.way to perskrive that we must be in harmony in the world we live in.

[@EduardoGarciaSv]

This requires a change in the way we live. We have to do global politics, and more social action. We are not what our governants tells us. We are what we want to be.

[@andyg5606]

It's such a brilliant concept and so brilliantly put, and I have loved the book. But as Terry Wolfe commented, my concern is that she is looking to politicians for implementation. And it is questionable how much power politicians have in the face of global corporatism. I don't know how to combat that, and I think that the corporate cabal will resist and manipulate politics to prevent this sort of change until it is too late. When I think of Bildeberg for example, which is supposed to be a meeting of influential politicians and corporate executives, the politicians are the pawns in those discussions. The strategy is dictated by the corporates who operate internationally - effectively relying on our nationalism to duck and dive between tax laws, and in the worst cases maintain those nationalistic differences to profit from war etc. So, how can we deal with that? Kate - can you answer that as compellingly as you have presented your case?

[@jeffrudloff1153]

Andy G, you are absolutely correct. She wants this to be implemented through politics. Through a government that knows best what its people ought to do. What they ought to eat, what they should buy, what they should consume, how they should think. This is the aim of the RSA, to "educate" enough people to their way of thinking so they can enter and or influence politics. This is dangerous. There is no perfect economic system, but I believe capitalism to be the best. The beauty of it is NOBODY decides how resources are allocated, only the free market and competition. The moment you introduce politics into things, that's when they go south. I love how she talks about carbon foot prints and consumption as if she has no effect on the planet, like it's everybody else, or the rich. She is part of the problem, if you want to call it a problem (which I don't). This is elitism at it's best (worst), wanting badly to tell the rest of us how we should live. Environmentalism is the main impediment with populations getting clean water and electricity. Many of these populations reside in Africa. Africa has an abundant supply of oil and coal, which are cheap resources to create energy.. Unfortunately, Europe is still exerting the remnants of their colonial power and authority to prevent these nations from developing into first world economies by dictating to them how they should create their energy. Asking the poorest of the poor countries to utilize the most expensive form of energy creation only ensures that they will forever be poor. This is what is creating the inequality, NOT capitalism. Saying capitalism creates income inequality by the "hoarding of wealth" by the top 1 percent is based on the assumption that there is a finite supply of money. An economist with the basic understanding of the banking system knows how money is created, and therefore, knows that the money supply is not finite. Prior to the modern age, everyone struggled, everyone was poor, but somehow with capitalism, progress by a large majority of the populations who live in capitalist societies is considered income inequality. Comparing everyone's income to the top 1 percent is like comparing statistical data to the outlier, yet this is somehow labeled "inequality". I guess RSA would rather everyone were poor.

[@tlee4218]

currently being applied in Amsterdam, Portland and other cities around world.

[@andyg5606]

@@jeffrudloff1153 The problem with that approach is that it preserves and increases power for people with the right connections, and relies on an ever-expanding consumerist paradigm which is impossible given finite resources. The free market simply wants people to buy what they are being sold. To that aim billions is spent on advertising which is underpinned by highly educated psychological knowledge . All education is of course selective, but good education (like that of the RSA IMHO) is about increasing self-determination. The consumerist paradigm creates and encourages a vacuum of knowledge and makes economic success the only valid form of status. The paradox of the free market is that it sells the idea of self-determination through false ideas of choice. Large companies set out deliberately to manipulate consumers into buying their product - while pretending they aren't. Free market approaches like to present themselves as a 'market place' you might find in a small town or village, but the global 'free market' is nothing like that. It is a self-reinforcing power structure which has deep and total control over us all. Whether we like it or not. If you believe in the rule of law you must believe in the enforcement of law and some degree of societal control. Kate's proposal is that we apply that to limit the destructive power of greed and provide a framework in which we can balance individual freedom to 'go to the market and sell stuff' with other more fundamental principles of human existence.

[@arthurguy5779]

@@jeffrudloff1153 When you like capitalism, you need to be able to justify this simple paradox for instance : an entrepreneur who creates a new need, a new stuff (that we quite often don't vitally need) has the possibility of earning millions. That is his carrot. Meanwhile, a farmer earns 40% less than the average wage. And those people fed you today, yesterday and your entire life. They are vital to our collective and individual survival. Then, how can you justify that their carrot is so low compared to the millions of dollars of an entrepreneur ? They literally feed people while the entrepreneur do that only indirectly and within a specific economic system. We don't really know what is the best or less worse. Capitalism is only best within a set of criteria. You have your own criteria. Also, it would be surprising to have naturally ended up with the best system without thinking much about what is best for humanity. So we first need to explicitly define our values before saying what's best. But you may have done it, so we just don't have the same values. Ah! another big question : what is progress ?

[@jSmith-ig5wq]

Actually, Kate Raworth's argument doesn't rest on government for implementation, although she definitely sees a role for government policy thought through the lens of doughnut economics. In the last few minutes of her talk she thinks first in terms of individuals, then companies, and finally governments. In other places she has thought of doughnut economics in terms of spatial scales -- with organizing going on in places like Birmingham (UK) where residents apply the doughnut model to a single neighborhood to identify where improvements can be made and then begin to mobilize around those issues (see kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKXYg4mCn7N2g5Y). This is perhaps the most important thing about Raworth's work, she has found an engaging and dynamic way to start conversations about what needs to be done without getting bogged down in the old tired debates about state vs market or individual vs society.

[@IndoJaps]

Easy to say than act. Politics don't work like that. Politics always have a connection with nation's economy for centuries. Especially, in this era of globalization. Nations always competitive to each other.

[@michaelmcmedia]

(cont) Also, the gains of automation have yet to be seen, since under a model that requires continuous growth, it is a threat to people's ability to consume. If you stop or even reverse compound interest, you immediately eliminate the need for ever increasing GDP, and if you take the debt-burden off people, you allow greater competition to shareholder-beholden monopolies.

[@gustavodossantosangeli]

Amazing

[@Samwiseo00o]

I think the stakes are so big that this task shouldn't be left to politicians and power brokers. You're absolutely right, they'd do a bad job. I have more hope in a single individual to change than nation state politics

[@koneye]

Helping poor people was never about CAN we do it, the problem was always is their money to be made in it

[@Seanocular]

remarkable likeness to professor david dernie

[@michaelmcmedia]

To come back to my first point, I believe that the employment crisis is in large part a result of the increased efficiency technology affords us, we just haven't worked out how to reap the benefits. If you eliminate the massive ever-increasing debt overhead and allow small business the breathing room to offer competition, prices will fall. But most importantly, if we do not tackle the growth paradigm, the space for a conversation about over-consumption simply does not exist.

[@MateusCavalcanteFonseca]

How about more co-working , people form diferent areas working together with one goal ? I think this is more efficient. We need all the perspective views , not just one or two . Just my thougth (:

[@alan851603utube]

Unemployment is actually a good thing in some ways but we need to distribute it much more evenly through the working population for it to have the most benefit. Someone on another channel pointed me toward a funny/serious essay: google: Bertrand Russell - "In Praise of Idleness". The underlying accounting system we use is flawed - it allows feedback loops like you describe when the underlying economy (in conventional human, not ecological, terms) is relatively sound.

[@kikiperry8176]

I just bought George Monbiot's "the Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order" along this line of thought and participation.

[@henricvandijk6995]

I keep asking myself: do these tables with the “donut model” excist?

[@caylitosway]

Have she heard of Jacque Fresco?

[@alan851603utube]

The calculation procedure is already oversimplified, but the front end is still too complex. Maybe the whole process could be automated through the the Banking system, give them something useful to do apart from generating inflation. So the price of high foot-print goods (Airline tickets or heating oil) would go right up while low footprint goods (live acoustic music) would go right down.

[@plusECON]

I don't think that's what she's suggesting entirely. The main problems I find with a "resource based economy" are that people respond to incentives, and a RBE has many built-in incentives that lead to free-riding, tragedies of the commons, etc. while simultaneously holding few incentives to work hard. A "Zion" society would be great, but how do we motivate people without brute force?

[@PCMcGee1]

A new way of looking at things, doesn't change the fundamental forces that cause these things. It is not hard to imagine my government producing this graph, and having it look perfectly symmetrical. Numbers lie.

[@jockm2]

We will be discussing these issues at the Sustainable Economics Conference at Kalikalos in June this year. This is an issue that is bigger than Governments, everyone will need to take a new approach to life if we if want to thrive on this planet Check out Kalikalos dotcom

[@ProphetTenebrae]

...without money, how do you have a specialisation of labour?

[@wolfpox]

It's not about short-term national interests. It's about international corporate greed. You won't change that.

[@AlexSipka]

Resource Based Economy?

[@mrjonno]

Reading Peter Joseph's book 'The New Human Rights Movement - reinventing the economy to end oppression' currently and I see a great deal of overlap. I will tweet both to become aware of each others' work. Ultimately we have to get to the Resource Based Economy which is living within the boundaries of Earth's carrying capacity for a maximum quality of life for all.

[@Kiyarose3999]

I was ( finally) told by an advocate of a ‘’Resource Based Economy’’ that it is a Growth Economy! Which is also why we need to know if the ‘’Doighnut Economy’’ idea is a Growth Economic system? Cos we NEED a ( cyclic/regenerative) Steady State Economy!

[@michaelmcmedia]

As to how you encourage environmentalism, look up Charles Eisenstein's work on negative interest, and research the Worgl Experiment, a massively successful example of a local currency with negative interest used in Austria during the Great Depression. Austria's central bank and government forcibly shut it down when it realised that if people saw the success of decentralised power, their legitimacy and supposed importance would be threatened.

[@mysteryjet2007]

money wins money wins money wins. and those with money don't care about inequality, those with money want more money, those with money will bend the rules without concern. All institutions are corrupt in this system because profit is the motive and I don't see how that can change.

[@plusECON]

Haha, a person does not need to mix chemicals, study stars, or build rockets to be a scientist! Economics IS a social science - we study human behavior and how they form markets, policies, etc. Our behavioral and statistical models have found their ways into nearly all disciplines, which I'm sure includes yours ;-)

[@valentin6li]

Specialization of labour is actually not as needed now. Automation and technological advancement has made this idea of "labour specialization" nearly obsolete. Unlike Adam Smith's observation of needing 5+ different human specialists to make pins (Chapter 1 of "The Wealth of Nations"). We now have machines that can do all those things - at a far greater efficiency.

[@michaelmcmedia]

Valid point, but my thinking here is that currently, the US, UK and Europe are hovering at around 50% real unemployment figures, a figure which is simply too low to keep up with the economic output needed to keep up with the debt. On top of that, right now, companies absolutely cannot raise wages or lower prices or risk going under, also because of the continual raising of the GDP bar, causing a lowering of the living standards.

[@smallgreenfrog]

actually due to the nature of inequality 3 thirds live in countries that are more unequal than they were, 2 thirds live in countries that are worse off than they were.

[@plusECON]

What? A correlation IS a study of observations!!! And science is entirely about observations, whether through experiments or observational studies, both of which are done by economists and every other type of scientist. I'm not really sure why I'm even dignifying this with response; it just doesn't make sense :/

[@heathrelawrence]

We may not accomplish that the first go around but definitely won't if we never try at all

[@Kiyarose3999]

But is the ‘’’Doughnut Economy’’ idea a Steady State Economy? It NEEDS to be stated!

[@plusECON]

... What?!

[@Jayremy89]

So much talk about it but never enough being done to push it. Perhaps it may be more than that, but still better than what we have now.

[@Borabas]

Is electricity really a fundamental need? Did every individual in every society live miserably before the widespread use of electricity?

[@jeffrudloff1153]

Incredible question. The answer to it is YES!!! Just look at the life expectancy pre electricity, and the life expectancy today in developed nations. Look at the life expectancy today......2018 in locations with no electricity. Electricity is the spark for industrialization, modernization, medicine etc. Telling these poor countries that they have to use the most expensive form of energy (Renewable energy) when they are sitting on top of a wealth of natural resources in coal and oil, is only guaranteeing that they will remain poor.

[@KevinCarney42]

Yes

[@Borabas]

In my opinion, the most important parameter is human population. There are simply too many humans for sustainable welfare of the majority. Most experienced aquarium keepers would easily understand this.

[@vinnieallen240]

you've managed to miss the point entirely

[@alan851603utube]

A disappointing over -shoot - The negative interest argument is sound, but the comparison to 19th Century America overlooks the fact that huge areas of land and other natural resources were were monetised via a process of burning up natural capital was hugely accelerated. There is no "Natural Abundance" when it comes to Food, Clothes, Houses and Tools. These things have to be produced a the expense of other forms of wealth - Land, Fire and the by - products. Respect to the Doughnut!!

[@Samwiseo00o]

Wish more people like you would speak up. I absolutely agree. The purpose of economic growth must be linked to improving the standard of living. It should be a cyclical relationship, not a competition. One of the myths that underlie the economic priesthood is that you can either have one or the other. I feel that the speaker alluded to this near the end of her speech that economics should be directed in finding that balance between social and ecological concerns not maximal wealth accumulation

[@claudiabarbosa2563]

Aqui no Brasil a ex senadora Marina Silva citou o nome sustentabilismo como possível nova ordem econômica mundial, é algo que segue o mesmo sistema da economia donut. será que Kate irá participar desse encontro: www.vaticannews.va/pt/vaticano/news/2020-03/economia-de-francisco-assis-adiado-novembro.html ? a presença dela é de grande importância

[@michaelmcmedia]

Thanks, I'll stick that on my reading list. Agreed, at some point we're going to have to figure out that there simply isn't much to keep the entire population busy for 40+ hours a week, we should stop working some into the ground while leaving others destitute. We need to disempower the parasitical class so that we can enjoy the benefits of increased efficiency =] and .. then political efforts to save the biosphere will have a realistic shot!

[@Hotjer]

Maybe, but Kate Raworth is an economist nonetheless

[@64SGH]

getting a wage slip after 30 days of work that says no u F'in cant is really a good insentive.

[@IndustrialBonecraft]

You'll never get politicians to give a fuck about 10 years, let alone 100000 years - they're interested in the next four or five years, themselves, and not a lot else.

[@peterjol]

These 'experts' are starting to 'get it' when it comes to the problems but they just aren't getting why nothing can really be changed when the economic 'system' we use is 'money'.

[@TheGreatDigitalism]

Err.. what?

[@MrSvenovitch]

we are not long for this world and taking into account the horrible things nature does to us and we do to others and ourselves (suffering in its broadest sense) that is a good thing. I made no offspring and I know why.

[@whyisthereahandlenow]

2:19 ALIENS

[@kourakis]

Donut Economics has a hole in it; it's Malthusian theory revived -and, as before, the putative 'solution' is to increase the power and scope of the State and its coercion. Its proponents here do not see, or do not care, that the State depends on the theft that is taxation, and on the immorality of aggressive force -they reject the wisdom in the observation that the wages of sin are death. From Mao’s Great Leap into the Great Famine, to Stalin’s Ukraine Holodomor, to the politically-caused famines in Nigeria, South Sudan, Somalia and Yemen, it has been government leaders, not individuals trading in economic freedom, that have killed so many. Listen to the speakers here, from 0:12… ’We don't want to focus politics on a notion that involves the rejection of a principle around which a large majority of our fellow citizens organise their lives.’ -Now imagine our progress if all advancements in science, morality, and the arts were subject to ‘principles around which a large majority of our fellow citizens organise their lives.’ Another speaker says… ‘Anyone who believes in indefinite growth on a physically finite planet is either mad, or an economist.’ -Cute, but not an argument. Growth, or development, can be an increase in quality, an improve in what we value; there is no reason that we cannot better the quality of ourselves and of our lives on a finite planet, just as there is no reason to limit ourselves to the planet. And finally, the nadir of the speakers’ immoral pretentiousness… 'What should economies be aimed at? If you were in charge of a country's economy, what would you be trying do deliver with it'? -But there is no economy without people, ‘the economy’ is but an abstraction that refers to many people living and trading together. What the speaker means, therefore, is ‘What should she aim people at? What should the people in charge of other people be trying to deliver with them?’ Such Statist, forced-collectivist domination of the individual by the State and its leaders is grotesquely immoral, from its lack of fundamental moral principle, up. And should it be tried yet again, the wages for it will be as catastrophic as they have ever historically been. We should reason from the basic moral principles of non-aggression, property, and equality -universal moral equality, not forced equality of outcome. This is the consistent and sustainable way to peace, and prosperity in what we most value.

[@lmtada]

Stephen K I agree.

[@lennybruce77]

You're laughable.Besides the fact that you obviously missed the point of the talk by a mile, I always laugh at a white dude from a rich country spewing morality against statist oppression. You don't have the moral high ground, you're just trying to defend the status quo that has been constructed through years of oppression. The modern state, at least on paper, should protect the rights of all, right? What if the state, has been the perpetrator of injustice? Should it try to fix the injustice it created? If so, how can the state do it without using what you call status coercion? If it shouldn't try to fix it, then you are saying that whatever property and resources we have now we should keep as we have and who has less can just suck it, no matter if the reason why they ended up in that place is a result of violence or theft. You talk about equality of opportunity. But equality of opportunity can only exist through equality of means. Now, take 2 random people born in a country like the United States (This could be applied to 2 people born in 2 different countries, one rich, one poor). Let's call them Albert and Bernard. Albert is born into wealth. His great great grandfather came to the US and got his 40 acres and a mule, by stealing land to a native tribe who used that land as hunting grounds. The huge amount of land allowed him to have intergenerational wealth. His children went to state college and built businesses. Now, I commend the business acumen that allowed the kids to build something but, we can argue that maybe that would have not been possible if it wasn't for the fact that they had enough capital to start a business and the skills that they gathered at school. Albert's grandfather did even better. He expanded his dad's business, created a small empire. His kid (Albert's dad) goes to an Ivy League college and becomes a corporate lawyer or a CEO. Albert has all the best schools, all the opportunities, great tutors, he visits 5 continents before he's 18, and his parents bring him to the opera. He will never want for money because his family is rich but he also smart and wants to start his business.He is obviously very smart, but the fact that he is "nourished" and can take on financial risks, sure helps. Bernard, is the descendant of slaves. His great grandfather was a share cropper, which meant that he didn't own his land. Unfortunately the man was raised on a plantation and didn't know how to do anything else other than farming and laws kept him from owning land. His grandfather worked an honest job, but couldn't buy a house because of red lining (a wonderful private-public partnership program to create an underclass that can't create intergenerational wealth). His dad worked a union job until in the 80s, when his state passed right to work laws which meant that he could give up his job and stay in the union or drop out and keep his job (freedom, right? The state is all pro free market capitalism!) Because of the absence of union protections his wages declined while productivity soared. Bernard works hard as but without money, he can't afford even a state college and because he has to work 2 jobs to support himself, he ends up dropping out. Now he has debt and no degree. He is smart and hard working but even so he will probably get a job that will pay him in a lifetime the amount that Albert will have made by years 10 of his career. Now, Albert's Great-great-grandpa got his land through theft. Bernard's grandparents were kept in poverty through coercion. Where is the equality of opportunity? Shouldn't B have more than A to bring B to the same level? Is that coercive? Then you talk about the free market. The free market doesn't exist, it's a completely made up concept. Can you tell me when there was actually a free market? was it after WW2, when national governments built infrastructure to boost commerce? Or was it during the robber baron era, when capitalists lobbied governments to get unfair advantages and to keep them form passing child labor laws? Or was it even before, when the British empire stole raw materials from its colonies and then place tariffs against the import of refined good from those same colonies? the history of capitalism is rife with examples of not-so-free markets. The concept itself of a free market is bullshit because a market implies that there are property right and rules that one has to abide by in order to engage in trade. Those rules are enforced by states, and without entities that make sure that everyone respects the rules there is no market. Period.

[@MacBeckett]

If money were the reason for intellectual specialisation, there would be very few scientists -- and no mathematicians. Well, except for economists and bookies.

[@woonchinglee2991]

donut ECO255*

[@Samwiseo00o]

If you examine your statements clearly, you'd find that you and kate don't actually disagree with each other. Your point being that you can't work on one side of the doughnut without simultaneously working on the other. What might be possible is to solve two or more sectors at the same time like providing jobs for food creation in an eco-friendly way.

[@alan851603utube]

Actually " Access to Electricity" is not even a human need, let alone a right. However, feeling that one is a respected member of a human community is a basic need. If you think that including people in a loop of simple comforts is "daydreaming", you need to help yourself, yes, and you could start by learning some respect for other people. Talk a look at Richard Wilkinson's TED talk, and you may learn why.

[@beeankha]

electricity might mean "heat generating power" for warmth and cooking etc, medical equipment, communication access, possibly education (cutting down trees vs electronic versions, smokey air vs clean air)...

[@MarkoKraguljac]

I have no disagreements.. no major ones at least. Problem is, I dont hear her recognizing and vocalizing fundamental dynamic of all this, whose essence is sacrilegious from economic priesthood point of view, namely, we need to concentrate our efforts on creating decent standard of living floor under which no one, employed or not, cannot fall. Thats the essence and first step to bringing sanity into this feudal/racketeering/religious mess we call "economy". Thanks for input tho :)

[@eroceanos]

here's one scientific fact: exponential growth is impossible. Interest forces an economy into exponential growth.

[@plusECON]

...Sounds like you just made and unequivocal statement about unequivocal statements. :P Meta

[@alan851603utube]

The "standard of living" needs to go up psychologically and down materially. We need to understand the cost of living in ecological terms - look up the Ecological Footprint for a boots and braces attempt to do this, it would be a start.

[@ibperry7656]

Excellent. We must not allow despots to continue Group Think to maintain greed and profits before Life.

[@lkuzmanov]

You cannot make the necessary changes within the context of the current form of global capitalism and its hold on political power. Most talks like these ignore critical aspects of reality.

[@jSmith-ig5wq]

I think if you look at the opportunities to organize around the failures (and excesses) of capitalist development that Raworth identifies, it quickly becomes an anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-heterosexist (and more) doughnut!

[@Jayremy89]

Other than insults you obviously can't counter statements made so that doesn't say much for you.

[@gkalkowsky]

I didnt learn anything here... if I wanted a day dream I could have helped myself in that regard. I'd also like to point out that Access to Electricity is not a human right.

[@beeankha]

but electricity might mean fewer trees cut down, less smog in the air in order to get heat, to power equipment, etc. it still may be an important consideration

[@lmtada]

Correct, access to energy, power isn’t a human right.

[@ReallyBadService]

Can we just start building a space ship to space? I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[@alan851603utube]

Why so? No political power is needed in the Doughnut model, only the capacity to collaborate on a peer to peer basis.

[@plusECON]

I entirely disagree! Recent study: "8 in 10 lawmakers lack education in economics" (politico [DOT] com/news/stories/0811/61929.html). If anything, we need MORE economists! Besides, an economist is a scientist! My opinion is that no type of education causes a person to look for objectively at political matters... Of course, looking at what my channel is about, I have a clear bias on THIS matter ;-)

[@socialevolution7719]

There is no compass. There is no plane. There is no steering economies. Economies are more like ecosystems than machines, so let's stop comparing them to machines.

[@AlexSipka]

Not really, communism still had a top down structure and it still required labor for purchasing power.

[@michaelmcmedia]

Why doesn't she just come out and say it... stop using debt-based currency and the need for growth for the sake of growth evaporates. We can organically progress to an RBE-like situation over time by allowing technology to lower prices and raise living standards, as was happening in America during the 19th century (yes, in response to increased efficiency, prices actually fell) between all the wars paid for by debt and the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

[@deborah68598]

unequivocal statements such as "this" = "that" have the same effect as slamming a door and really should have no part in a grown up discussion about critical, complex issues.

[@alan851603utube]

Income does not provide dignity, quite the reverse. If it did, aboriginal peoples would have no dignity and Bill Gates lots of it. People need Air, Water and Food in that order, sunshine and dignity come a bit further down the and list and there are a whole pyramid of things before you get to Income which is near, or at, the bottom of the pile. I think we agree on all this, but the decent standard of living you describe really has to be globally determined if we are to be globalised.

[@wrengarrison8608]

Kate for president

[@2202frog]

Very interesting indeed. But I don't understand the blank area on chemical pollution which is actually huge! from all the products we use in everyday life to chemicals used in mining...chemical pollution is sadly threatening not only human health (reproductive health) but also our water supplies and soils health. Having studied sustainable development, the only way is the start with local economy. This search for growth is obviously is big fail. Sadly the transition to renewable will be another fail as it will reproduce the exact same mistake we've one with previous energy sources. Instead of taking slowing down our economy or talking about sobriety.

[@peterjol]

We may have the scientists, the technicians and the resources to solve our problems but unfortunately we allow monetary system experts and 'lawyers' run the show for us.

[@beancole]

Some issues here. Such as @12:16 the sustainable budget for nitrogen, she says 1/3 is used for animal feed In Europe. This is just wrong, because animal feed in Europe is all by products from human food, such as beat tops and similar.

[@MrGiechel]

I thought we cared about poverty? Or was it inequality? Where did she get her assumptions from..?

[@vinnieallen240]

Without suggesting Marxism to apply these criteria I feel like she is missing the point. There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

[@jeffrudloff1153]

She wants this to be implemented through politics. Through a government that knows best what its people ought to do. What they ought to eat, what they should buy, what they should consume, how they should think. This is the aim of the RSA, to "educate" enough people to their way of thinking so they can enter and or influence politics. This is dangerous. There is no perfect economic system, but I believe capitalism to be the best. The beauty of it is NOBODY decides how resources are allocated, only the free market and competition. The moment you introduce politics into things, that's when they go south. I love how she talks about carbon foot prints and consumption as if she has no effect on the planet, like it's everybody else, or the rich. She is part of the problem, if you want to call it a problem (which I don't). This is elitism at it's best (worst), wanting badly to tell the rest of us how we should live. Environmentalism is the main impediment with populations getting clean water and electricity. Many of these populations reside in Africa. Africa has an abundant supply of oil and coal, which are cheap forms of electricity. Unfortunately, Europe is still exerting the remnants of their colonial power and authority to prevent these nations from developing into first world economies by dictating to them how they should create their energy. Asking the poorest of the poor countries to utilize the most expensive form of energy creation only ensures that they will forever be poor. This is what is creating the inequality, NOT capitalism. Saying capitalism creates income inequality by the "hoarding of wealth" by the top 1 percent is based on the assumption that their is a finite supply of money. An economist with the basic understanding of the banking system knows how money is created, and therefore, knows that the money supply is not finite. Prior to the modern age, everyone struggled, everyone was poor, but somehow with capitalism, progress by a large majority of the populations who live in capitalist societies is considered income inequality. Comparing everyone's income to the top 1 percent is like comparing statistical data to the outlier, yet this is somehow labeled "inequality". I guess RSA would rather everyone were poor.

[@UniversalPotentate]

If this ever gets popular (and I hope it does), I can already see Fox News talking about how the liberals have spelled out their agenda. ... sigh ...

[@mk6407]

Can they do it? Of course! 'They' won't though. It's all about power and greed. WE will have to, somehow. Hopefully.

[@matsveritas2055]

7:00-7:07 Talking about Geoengineering as if it isn't the pinnacle of stupidity spawned by our species...

[@matsveritas2055]

Hahahahaha!!! The global carbonistas, wonderful title, but not nearly descriptive enough of their blatant egocentrism.

[@goldwinstewart6590]

Hahahahahahaha An economist isn't a scientist.

[@goldwinstewart6590]

If every field that studied correlations was a science, you'd quickly find that everything is a science. Which is not the case. I think an economist's job is to study as best they can. Besides correlation does not guarantee causation. Scientists are not okay with this. An experiment must be performed to support a hypothesis.

[@76joebell]

ECONOMISTS DON'T THINK THIS WAY ANYMORE....You need to take an up to date economics course

[@angelic8632002]

If you want to learn about markets and the "negative retroactions" of them, dont study Classic economy. Learn "Systems Engineering" and "Ecosystems Analysis". This speaker clearly don't have the "tools" needed to see the real problem of inflation and consumption.

[@goldwinstewart6590]

Sorry, I meant to type "You study correlations, you only observe, you are not following the scientific method. You are not doing science".

[@etniks69]

With all due respect to the presenter and all those who think the promotion of growth is enough to solve today's planetary problems, IT ISN'T. I find it frustrating how many people with good intentions, present ideas to find a better distribution of wealth around the world, but NEVER talk about the demographic growth to more than 7 Billion people, with those who can LEAST AFFORD children, having the MOST!!! I foresee a situation of societies who have discipline (as China has attempted) to curb their citizen's reproduction and lower demographic growth, eventually thriving (like China now) into a healthier society, living next door to other countries who refuse to accept their poverty is the result of THEIR OWN bad choices, and their religious fanaticism keeping them in a state of ineptitude. Why should those who behave in accordance to the correct principles, be asked to pour some of their wealth into a bottomless pit of unreasonable nonsense others insist on doing? I believe that eventually the differences between those places who live in peace and wealth, and those who live in poverty of their own making, will force those in poor countries to change their ways to attain the economic security everyone yearns for. THE DIFFERENCE TODAY It is unfortunate today's situation is made worse by those countries who have attained a higher standard of living, by them taking advantage of the mistakes committed by the poor ones. Instead of truly helping them, the Capitalist system that permeates the leadership circles of the richer countries, exacerbates the situation by taking advantage of the poor neighbors who are too much in disarray to understand what is the real problem, and are vulnerable to being colonized and robed. China is passing to history as a real maverick because it has a long enough history and self-respect to create a totally new model of growth (among other things, by LOWERING their Births!!!) that is proving to be very effective. We in the West are lost in our own idiosincracies as exposed in this video, totally unaware of its self-defeating bases. Lowering our numbers while increasing our technological efficiency is the way to increase our well-being while NOT GROWING economically. Capitalism's insatiable thirst for growth is its biggest drawback. In a world with finite resources and space, infinite growth collides with reality, sooner or later. Our job is to THINK of the NEXT PARADIGM after capitalism and communism.

[@bridgetevans4978]

etniks

[@bridgetevans4978]

etniks

[@mrjonno]

I rather think you have missed the point. She is NOT promoting economic growth - quite the reverse.

[@Herbwise]

This is the next paradigm. Watch the video and read the book.

[@japanesesalaryman8297]

Did you even watch the video lol

[@maikydb]

We need more scientists in politics.. Not economists.

[@lmtada]

maikel de bakker old post. We need more traders, actually understand how money flows. See the consequences of money flowing like water.

[@goldwinstewart6590]

You study correlations, you do not perform observations, therefore you are not doing science. Sorry.

[@jeremiahnoar7504]

That was a lot of talk about nothing. It's all just a bunch of talk about what our society aught to look like. Why doesn't anyone ever go into the details and application of this "doughnut model" ?

[@nielsnable]

Did you even watch the entire video? She talked about using social and environmental metrics to measure economic performance.