Something Has Got To Give - Prof. Tim Garrett in Ecosophia - Collapse and Regeneration

Infinite economic growth on a finite planet is the problem no energy source can fix, it can only lead to wars for limited resources. Ecosophia documentary explores the meta-crisis and interrelation between energy, the laws of thermodynamics, the economy, resources, the limits to growth, climate change, population, psychology and spirituality. Only available on Films For Action linked here: www.filmsforac...
And Bullfrog Films for community and Educational screenings: www.bullfrogfi...
Documentary explores the meta-crisis, thermodynamics, energy, the economy, resources, exponential growth, climate change, greenwashing, population, regenerative solutions, collapse and renewal, psychology and spirituality.
Directed by Peter C Downey. Music by Tiella Scampoli. Featuring Prof. Tim Garrett, Stephen Jenkinson, B. Sid Smith, Prof William Rees, Prof Ian Lowe, Morag Gamble, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Prof Stuart Hill, Prof Will Steffen, Prof John Gowdy, Prof William Ophuls, Bobbi Allan, Alnoor Ladha, Whaia Whaea, Mindahi Bastida, Rocky Dawuni, Victor Pires and Randy Hayes.
Special thanks to Foresight Analysis Nexus www.faninitiat... (a website well worth checking out for further information on collapse and renewal)
www.wombatcitys...
/ unitednaturesmedia
You are supporting homemade, homegrown, off-grid, independent media.
#ecology #wisdom #metacrisis

[@wombatcitystudios]

Watch Ecosophia in full on Films for Action and support a homemade, homegrown, off-grid documentary www.filmsforaction.org/watch/ecosophia/

[@bélalugrisi]

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. - Kenneth Boulding

[@antonyjh1234]

We know that the world had over a 800 percent increase in people since coal started a hundred and sixty years ago and we know that a lot of countries are going to lose half of their population over the next 80 years, and the planet is now in a stage of settling as far as peak population, 350% over the last 80 and 35% in the next would mean growth has effectively stopped. If those people growing can adopt solar and only live with electricity instead of oil, there is a chance.

[@mathieucaron4957]

​​​​@@antonyjh1234try to build solar panels and batteries without oil... Just try to extract the ressources needed without oil. Or build what's needed to do the extraction without oil.

[@anthonymorris5084]

As long as you can put a shovel in the ground and make stuff up, growth continues indefinitely. Anything biological is renewable. It's a very large planet that we've barely tapped into. Eventually we may be a space faring people and we will likely learn to recycle everything. As long as we keep the socialists and anti growth people at bay.

[@paulsawczyc5019]

The rich will always be just fine.

[@madeleinepengelley2854]

Isn't it sad that it's funny?

[@bogtrotter5110]

As Ed Abbey once said, "Growth is the ideology of the cancer cell"

[@antonyjh1234]

And a flower, a tree, a fish, a kitten, a human, it's what we are growing into that is concerning.

[@anthonymorris5084]

Growth leads to rising standards of living and increasing quality of life. Calling it a cancer is absurd.

[@antonyjh1234]

@@anthonymorris5084 Growth in any system fails when it kills the host, is maybe why the connection. There can be growth in animal species because of what causes those conditions to happen, when there isn't enough food or other reasons, the growth stops and the population reverses. lowering the things you mentioned.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@antonyjh1234 There is no evidence that we are "killing the host". Growth in this context is meant as economic growth not population growth.

[@omegalamda3145]

Big Oil has a huge TAB to PAY!!

[@Jorden.Florence]

There is simply no telling people they are all living a human fantasy

[@anthonymorris5084]

Reality is not a fantasy.

[@omegalamda3145]

WRONG! PFCR ~Perception is a Fantasy that Coincides with Reality.

[@antonyjh1234]

It' is definitely hard to explain to people that reality is the result of our choices and that we can choose a different reality, not just accept what is classed as normal just because other people are all doing the same thing.

[@NickDonnetelli]

It is interesting how civilization has a rock solid appearance to it, especially if you fly over it and look down, so I can see how people become deluded into thinking it will go on forever. Yet, one look at a few telling graphs and charts and you quickly realize this is folly. An MIT analysis has it ending about 2040. That's only 16 years from now.

[@CaresseTaVie]

Well done, thanks

[@BoothTheGrey]

Its absurdly "astonishing" that so many economists worldwide exist... and almost no economical group is working FOR DECADES on theories and models how to establish a healthy economy that shrinks. How could this happen that the "science" of economy is not interested in such models?

[@brianwheeldon4643]

economists jobs depend upon that very fact. Only endless growth will do.

[@madeleinepengelley2854]

Economics is not a science. It is an internally consistent model with no tether into reality.

[@BB-tm3sx]

Like all "science" these days, but especially in US, money drives not only what is studied but often the "consensus" that is "reached".

[@BoothTheGrey]

@@BB-tm3sx No - science is NOT about creating an ideology and hold on to the ideology no matter what. Especially the basic natural science fields are very much about data and if there is data that is evidence for something wrong in the model they adress it. In economical science we have a bunch of data that shows that many... "assumptions" are just wrong (about the individual, about national economy, about special markets, etc). There still are many neoliberals who think "praxeology" is a good approach when it clearly is an absurd example of how deranged economical ideology can become. And I am sorry, but science is not invented or mainly done by americans. There is a whole world and in almost every country we have a lot academia. The weird thing is that economical ideology even took over in the areas that was somehow against it but had no good ideas to develop our current economical model. In most other science fields realty shows when stuff is wrong cause a lot technology is created that tries to use science models.

[@BB-tm3sx]

@@BoothTheGrey oh my sweet summer child...

[@deepashtray5605]

If we manage to double growth it will mean the final nail in the coffin of our planet's biological diversity. Just one example of what we can expect: according to the IPCC at 2 degrees C warming 99% of our world's coral reefs will disappear, which in itself will trigger massive economic hardship.

[@volkerengels5298]

Coral reefs die at +1.5K - as we see right now. IPCC is reporting 'conservative'....

[@wmpx34]

Biodiversity has been wiped out before, life on this planet will likely survive and flourish again. Homo sapiens may or may not be a part of that renewal, I guess we will see

[@Contraction1205]

"But this ship can't sink! It's unsinkable!"

[@idegteke]

We have to go too far to see how far we can get - and we will see how far, and it will be waaaay too far to even think of recovering. What goes up, must come down - and will.

[@daveh3777]

...but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboat. - Voltaire

[@mikeriley3938]

Time to get rid of the GOP!

[@SD-vy7gj]

Proudly left or right. Your the problem. The rich worshiping tribalist problem. Always crying "my multimilionair cares more than yours. Mine will save us. This time will be different.

[@braeburn2333]

Something has to "give." True words, but what? What has to give? Its our industrial lifestyle that has to give. Does everyone have to give up the industrial lifestyle? No, because the majority of people on the planet don't have the industrial lifestyle. They are too poor. Thats right, you have to be wealthy to consume lots of industrial products. The wealthier you are, the more you consume, and pollute as a result of that industrial lifestyle. The thing that will give in, is the wealth that people have to live the high consumption, industrial lifestyle. When people are poor again, they will have to figure out a new way to live because getting their needs met with the industrial system will not be an option. You may think life will be much worse, and in material ways it will be. However, what have mostly forgotten what we gave up to be a part of the industrial system. We gave up local communities, and extended families, and a rootedness we all used to have to our home town. We gave up healthy food, and we gave up the connection to the land we had when we grew our own food. We will lose a lot in the transition to a poor society, but we will gain a lot too. I have set up an off grid lifestyle where I only need about $400/month to live very comfortably. Just because the industrial system will collapse, doesn't mean we will not be able to live anyway else. Some will survive the transition I think, and in the long run society will be better off for it.

[@anthonymorris5084]

So your answer is to make everybody poor? *"You may think life will be much worse, and in material ways it will be. However, what have mostly forgotten what we gave up to be a part of the industrial system"* My friend what we gave up with industrialization is abject poverty, malnutrition, starvation, dying from treatable diseases and working from sunup until sundown. The history of humanity prior to industrialization is a story of suffering. Average life expectancy was around 35.

[@crapisnice]

So i can avoid consuming and build a free wooden 8m sailboat with thrown timber and grow organic food in tropics and make workshop gear and artisan modern furniture, and you call that "poor" thats rather RICH while people consuming "luxury" toxic crap in cold arctic cities are POOR

[@crapisnice]

You are beyond retarded, past poveety is true but the only mass industrial product needed are pharmaceutical products and that can even be manufactured in small facilities in batches with little knowledge of chemistry and some machines You DON'T NEED mass manufacturing as you can build almost everything by yourself with natural materials, mostly wood,bamboo,etc and very little metal, you only need workshop space and tools and grow your food and crops for other uses And thats RICH while todays people have sponsored knowledge poverty

[@SD-vy7gj]

Iv always said. The 3rd world war will be against the rich.

[@SD-vy7gj]

Poverty is relative. We can secure everyone's needs. Just not everyone's greed. Destroying the luxury economy of cruises hips and sports car and service to the rich would help us hit every target without effecting the majority of humany You talk like somone who knows they are the problem..

[@BobQuigley]

Convert fossil fuels energy to oil equivalent and find we're going through 100 billion barrels of oil equivalent fossil fuels energy annually. Easy oil is long gone. Fracking scrubs clean the remaining hydrocarbons. Each new find is more expensive, difficult, of poorer quality than the last. Yet as the video points out we're on track to double usage in a short amount of time.

[@anthonymorris5084]

There has never been a greater ratio between known reserves and consumption. We're finding the stuff everywhere. Oil consumption across the Western world is leveling off and the growth in consumption elsewhere, is lifting countless millions of people out of poverty and giving them the lives you take for granted.

[@davestagner]

It’s important to think of WHY the historic economic growth has happened. I see two key causes - explosive population growth, and lifting billions out of poverty. But there’s a pretty strong correlation between economic status and energy consumption. Now, what’s interesting about this is that (assuming no massive civilizational collapse) BOTH of these factors are coming to an end. We are nearly at the end of global population growth. We’ll reach approximately 10B people in approximately 30 years, then global population will go into sharp decline. We could see as much as 50%/century population loss. What does this imply for endless growth? And assuming no civilizational crisis, poverty will be all but eliminated by the end of the century. (I mean real poverty, not middle class inequality!) And we can observe that real economic growth is much slower and smaller within the middle class than the jump from poverty to middle class. (For example, I remember my grandfather’s farm when I was a kid did not have electricity or running water.) So what does a largely middle class planet imply for growth?

[@ramontrevinosantoyo3303]

LO PRIMERO ES REDUCIR NUESTRO CONSUMO PERSONAL DE ENERGÍA. COMER SOLO LO SUFICIENTE, EVITAR EL USO PERSONAL DEL TRANSPORTE (SOLO COMPARTIDO), ALUMBRADO Y REFRIGERACION AL MÍNIMO.

[@livethemoment5148]

Ya es demasiado tarde, la humanidad va a tronar pronto hasta la extincion

[@ShaneNull]

the plan is sustaining profit not life

[@anthonymorris5084]

Profit is what sustains life. It leads to human flourishing. You clearly don't even understand what a profit is.

[@ShaneNull]

​@@anthonymorris5084 kurt vonnegut understood profit when he said, "humans might go extinct because surviving isn't cost effective"

[@clintmichigan9112]

​@@ShaneNullsavage burn bro. golf clap

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@ShaneNull Which clearly turned out to be as myopic as it gets. Kurt Vonnegut clearly has no idea what a profit even is, even while he happily collected the considerable profits earned from his books. He is an author not an economist.

[@captainandthelady]

Only when "something gives" will we do something about it. It's just human nature.

[@antonyjh1234]

When something gives, it is usually classed as broken and needing replacing. Are people not saying the system is broken, collapsing, "giving"? This is about planned change of the thing that is breaking, I am sure that's in human nature too.

[@crapisnice]

If you consider " human" the post 1945s massive "development" state planing to deliver this excess to an spoiled boomer generation and their siblings Thats not human, thats a predatory system that has to be dismantled

[@SD-vy7gj]

Na. It's slave and master nature. Humans see, humans warn, humans make sacrafises for the greater good. Ignoring important things is not human.

[@ianthompson44]

The only constraint is energy. If, hypothetically, energy was abundant and cheap (by abundant and cheap I mean ubiquitous and near zero cost), then there is no limit to the water we can desalinate, the trash we can recycle, or the electricity we can consume. The sign at the start of the video says that 10 calories of fossil fuels go into making 1 calorie of food. But if you remove the fossil fuel part of that equation, it means that it takes 10 joules of energy to produce 1 joule of food. If the 10 joules is basically free, then it really doesn't matter. There is no shortage of Nitrogen or Hydrogen. If energy is near free, then all of our current resource challenges can easily be solved.

[@davestagner]

I wouldn’t say “all” challenges can be “easily” solved, but as a generalization, you’re right - very low-cost renewable energy radically changes the picture for problem solving, and for economics.

[@CampingforCool41]

Aren’t raw materials another constraint though?

[@ianthompson44]

@@CampingforCool41 Not really. It's a big planet. Take lithium for example. 20-40% of the world's lithium is locked up in micas, where it is expensive and difficult to extract. But with unlimited cheap energy that difficulty goes away. Or gold. The world's oceans contain about 20 million tons of gold. They also contain about 80 BILLION tons of phosphorous. Hilariously, one material that might see a serious constraint in future is atmospheric CO2.

[@ianthompson44]

@@davestagner It's difficult to think of any serious challenge we have that doesn't already have a technical solution, but is constrained only by energy. Fresh water? Energy. Clean water? Energy. Food distribution? Energy. Housing? Energy. Pollution/Recycling? Energy. Add to that AI and robotics (basically constrained by energy) and even the labor constraint disappears.

[@CampingforCool41]

@@ianthompson44 and destroying the earth in the process. Again. Infinite growth is not sustainable on a finite planet even with virtually unlimited free energy.

[@brianwheeldon4643]

It's a nice idea to believe people are thinking about this Tim. But in the community where I live, a typical fairly rich global north community, almost no one is thinking at all. Social media plays a big role in lives, frivolity in public, sport, and behind closed doors it's not healthy, I can guarantee that much. The rule is to never talk about anything meaningful. Cynical, what me? Nah, only realistic.

[@joseenoel8093]

No everyone is on board for growth growth growth, buy buy buy who cares about environment or looming debt plus working yourself to death😢, it's a thing, happiness comes from within, our needs are few our wants are many! I majored in Sylviculture and left my career over disgust of how things work in Québec, became a stay at home mom, shock of my life, kids deserve the best and that's me, now my daughter's a biologist and my son's a nurse, it's more difficult, harder keeping life simple than running around like a chicken with its head off!

[@timeenoughforart]

We face interesting choices. Will our diminishing resources go to keep AI running? Crypto? The economy is enriching the 1% and they are getting to make the choices. Any chance they will spend all the profits to go to Mars while the rest of us move to pods ala the Matrix? We are getting closer to the point where the next generation will only know butterflies from AI videos.

[@antonyjh1234]

With AI supposed to take twenty five percent of electricity consumption al lot of money needs to be directed towards it on a continual basis, will the juice be worth the squeeze?

[@anthonymorris5084]

How do you think the 1% get rich? They create all the music you buy, the movies and TV shows you watch, and the products and services you happily purchase. Someone got rich providing you with the device you're using to post, and someone else got rich producing the platform you're currently posting to. Oh the horror, the evil. Who the heck is taking away your "choices"?

[@antonyjh1234]

@@anthonymorris5084 Why are you going around climate podcasts like this? What is your goal, because you aren't offering anything of value the way you are doing this, imo.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@antonyjh1234 My post was directed at the OP, not you. If it was directed at you your username would be in the post.

[@antonyjh1234]

@@anthonymorris5084 Stop trying to create doubt like tobacco and oil disinformation campaigns did, discuss the topics that are in a public forum means all people get to have a say, it's not just who you want.

[@BouncyBunny-h2v]

Your forgetting that over half the population of the world have been jabbed.

[@CollwinHaccis-zt5dn]

YOU CANT HAVE INFINITE GROWTH ON A FINITE PLANET. CANT DO IT!

[@adblas2222]

There is a population decline, so it’s likely to slow. Also, solar energy is abundant for many more lifetimes. Recycling and self gardening should be promoted, this way people will appreciate where their food comes from.

[@wombatcitystudios]

Population grows at 220,000 humans per day after deaths.

[@markschuette3770]

thats why we NEED to vote for an environmentalist this year! anyone but trump.

[@buriedintime]

i'm with you but thinking electoral politics are going to do any of the things we need to happen to move towards real solutions is laughable but indeed, anyone but the orange one. it's shocking that biden admin/congress were able to get anything remotely sane through congress. inflation reduction act, infrastructure etc is a big deal and i don't want to brush it off as not a big deal but there's so much that needs to happen to get us where we need to be. the people in power aren't going to go there willingly.

[@JohnTaylor-fh4et]

Anyone but any of the incumbents.

[@StormOfferings]

"Anyone but Trump" is exactly how you don't elect an environmentalist.

[@JohnTaylor-fh4et]

@@StormOfferings the entire government structure is broken. They are all just in it for themselves.

[@rosewaters9991]

The current system favours sociopaths. Until it’s dismantled, doesn’t matter who is voted in.

[@frankblangeard8865]

Elon is going to send people to Mars (not himself). And...we can mine asteroids. Problem solved!

[@shaunmcgowan-d8u]

These activities belong to the gestalt, are emergent, as with a slime mould. It is unhelpful, n praps a tad narcissistic to blame 'people'. The urge to growth is a function of life, evolutionary life, which doesn't give a toss about people, nor any other elemental species.

[@alexdetrojan4534]

Another presenter pushing fear porn over a climate 'crisis'...😅

[@wombatcitystudios]

more info please on the fake crisis

[@splitfire2001]

The impotence of commenting on a KZbin video

[@markcounseling]

The pathos of a comment on such a comment