Why Capitalism Loves Fossil Fuels

[@OurChangingClimate]

🍂 What groups/orgs/movements do you feel are doing the best work to stop fossil fuel extraction? 🔗Get 40% of Nebula and support OCC using this link: go.nebula.tv/occ 🎥 Watch part two of this video right now on Nebula: nebula.tv/occ/latest

[@mackone8035]

Extinction Rebellion.

[@petrbelohoubek6759]

Communist countries are/were even worse than capitalist in terms of pollution. So stop blaiming "capitalism"

[@chidubemishie5945]

i got nebula through this video but the interface of the app is so unusuable on Android. Please let Nebula fix their app or I'll unfortunately have to unsubscribe.

[@nicolatesla5786]

Fossil fuels is just basically ancient carbon dioxide that caused more likely cause the five greenhouse gas mass extinction events. Assist stored up carbon dioxide in plant life in humans are extracting it all at once

[@jrus690]

None of them, because they are all using fossil fuels :3. You guys know how your computers, power grid and lights got built, right?

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

"the march of progress is charted not just by the introduction and invention of new technologies, but by the economic and social relations formed around those new technologies." incredibly insightful. this is what i think is so misunderstood by so many people. new technologies are created, sure, but it takes people, to make the choice of whether or not to adopt them.

[@TheMercilessEye]

Let us not forget the influence of marketing and advertising -- convincing us of our need for things we never needed before...

[@somerandomguy___]

Yeah, but those only exist (at least in that amount) because of systemic greed brought on, and facilitated by capitalism.

[@jacobs483]

I agreed, marketing exists primarily to induce demand for something, and justify its value/purchase/use. Especially in its modern form, it’s reverse science: it starts with its conclusion (you should buy/support this thing) and does everything it can to convince you to do it, including exaggerate, mislead, or lie, deliberately.

[@TheMercilessEye]

In the last analysis, Marketing is propoganda.

[@juliancalero8012]

As things change so do our needs but "needing" a new car every year to keep up with social and advertisement pressure is apocalyptically too fast

[@ZentaBon]

Not born wanting an iPhone, that's for sure.

[@真夜中の橋]

Infinite growth on a finite planet is not possible.

[@TACTICALwaffle2]

And communism is a death cult

[@vpmgamer2995]

So should we stop economic development and growth?

[@zachweyrauch2988]

​@vpmgamer2995 yes.

[@真夜中の橋]

@@vpmgamer2995 no, grow until our needs are met. And anything more than that is unnecessary.

[@真夜中の橋]

@@zachweyrauch2988stop spewing anarcho-primitivist propaganda, will ya?

[@shawnparker6635]

There seems to be a contradiction in arguing that water provided a cheaper, equally powerful, even source of power while also acknowledging that it doesn’t work well when water level falls and can be significantly affected by freezing in winter. It also should be noted that there were huge conflicts and legal battles over water rights. The challenges of water power led to the desire of capitalists to maximize labor when the water worked best. This led to the labor movements mentioned in the video. Coal was more expensive but increased production and the potential for profits because it eliminated the variability in the power source, could make labor equally productive at all times (including at night since many factories first converted coal into coke for more powerful engines and coal gas to light the factories for 24 operation). With coal, labor then became the crucial variable. It’s also a less known history how coal began to transform English cities and countryside even in the 1600s, well before the Industrial Revolution. See Ruth Goodman’s “Domestic Revolution” about how the conversion from wood to coal for heating and cooking contributed to the conditions in which the Industrial Revolution emerged, including enclosure, rising urban population, rising coal mining, distribution networks, etc. Taking all this into consideration, it’s a stretch to argue that coal was embraced primarily because it controlled labor in spite of the superiority of water.

[@12pentaborane]

Everything I wanted to say and more.

[@julecaesara482]

perfect, have my upvote and comment and gratefulness for not having to type this out. I'm from Germany and while water mills aren't uncommon, large scale production was only possible with something that would provide you with a steady and predictable outcome, e.g. an oven. Rivers unfortunately used to freeze over or flood half the town in spring if there was especially much snow in the alps that winter or, contradictory, not carry enough water after droughts.

[@clitisswood7330]

Indeed ! All these idiots with their simplistic solutions and accusations ! We are paying an education system more prone to teach false social science than real science that requires a brain, hard work, dedication... Next we will have the solar panel on the car top to power it, et voila ! I am working on a wind mill powered by politicians talks and a combustion engine powered by Greenies farts !

[@Andriastravels]

Yes. Clearly, water power could not sustain the demand for power. If it did not happen in the England textile mills, it would have happened quickly in overall industrial development.

[@Pertinaziuos]

Not to mention, bodies of water that can be used for power aren't available everywhere, some of those places aren't suitable for construction, and the energy output may not meet the requirements for all types of manufacturing. Coal and other fossil fuels also removed geolocations restrains, allowing factories to be places near cities(labor), near the site of raw materials or near the coast (ease of transportation).

[@simon7790]

1) Thom was from Greenock, and so was James Watt. 2) The Mills were not just cotton (mainly Lancashire), but also wool (mainly Yorkshire) and linen, with many export oriented. 3) The point about fossil fuels being geographically flexible needs contextualising. Coal is big and heavy to transport and it was not really until the canal network was built (and later trains) that mill owners could choose to move. However in the case of many mill towns, and certainly the bigger ones like Bolton and Oldham, they also happened to be sited on coal fields, as well as water sources. The population grew as the industry grew. So although the mills got bigger and more complex with the shift to steam, they often didn't move very far. 4) The move to steam was not just a benefit for the owners of the mills, it also benefitted workers to some extent, as their hours were managed to set times and periods, their income set, and better regulations slowly came into effect. Their greater productivity reduced prices of the goods they produced too.

[@slevinchannel7589]

FIY, Climate-Change was covered by UpisnotJump, Hbomberguy, OCC

[@rbxless]

I hear people say things like "Capitalism encourages innovation!". No, capitalism encourages innovative ways to control the workers and what they spend their time on. Ford's assembly lines, for example, weren't a technological innovation, they were a way to make sure that workers spent more of their time working rather than resting. Another example: during the pandemic, a lot of us worked from home. We observed better productivity in so many workplaces, but look where we are now: right back at the office. Your boss is a sociopath who wants to control you all ~8 hours that you're working just for profit.

[@kokofan50]

OMG! The guy paying you wants you to do your being payed for. Also, most businesses who shifted to remote work lost productivity.

[@garethbaus5471]

​@@kokofan50 When actually measured people who work from home are more productive on average according to most of the studies I have been able to read, so citation needed.

[@rbxless]

OMG! The guy doing the work is now working more than during the Middle Ages so that they can live in their polluted planet! Wonderful!@@kokofan50

[@marxcherry]

your boss isn’t a sociopath. if he didn’t work you that much he would go out of business so he’s acting perfectly rational. the fact that he must do so is why capitalism is bad. rest of the comment is good though

[@rbxless]

@@marxcherry Yeah true, it's not sociopathy as much as shareholder pleasing and destroying the competition.

[@omegahaxors9-11]

It's like I always say: "It's not about the money, it's about control"

[@MariaMartinez-researcher]

Control, for making money easier. Control for the sake of control is not in the capitalist mindset; profit is. Historical examples are the one presented in this video, Chile's coup d'etat, the Roman Senate, and many more. A funny fictional example, the Ferengi in Star Trek. An alien species for whom profit is the core value, at the religious level. If you care to watch Star Trek DS9 (the best scripted series of the franchise IMO) you'll get to know the essence of capitalism. ✌

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

Why can't it be both? It's messed up if you say there aren't people who hurt others cause of greed for money or resources too. OCC said some people also wanted fossil fuel power because it's more consistent and with water power you need to be close to rivers. Maybe some people thought coal power would make workers work more and therefore it's more money.

[@erdem--]

Because super rich has all the money he needs. They literally have banks to print money out of thin air. When you have so much power, you only need control of masses to prevent uprisings.

[@andycooper6085]

@@MariaMartinez-researcher Profit at the expense of value is such a delusional position itsn't it?

[@TheCarlinCoop]

@@MariaMartinez-researcherit’s because of capitalism and fuel and coal that brought millions out of poverty. If yall hate it so much move to a country where they have none of what we have and have no water safe to drink and no electricity. No one is stopping you. Yea that’s right yall don’t go there bc it’s a horrific way to live

[@toppersundquist]

"More expensive? Less efficient? MY GOD, IT'S GENIUS!" - Capitalism

[@IshtarNike]

This is actually so important. We forget that efficiency comes in different types. There's financial efficiency geared towards profit, then there's energy efficiency geared towards environmental protection. They often align but not as much as we'd like to think. The most profitable option is not necessarily the most energy efficient.

[@dougpatterson7494]

Also reliability and predictability are reasons for, in this specific instance, steam over water.

[@uzefulvideos3440]

did you forget about competition?

[@gregorymalchuk272]

​@@IshtarNikeWhy is maximum energy efficiency the goal? If we were solely chasing maximum energy efficiency, we would be chasing temperatures hotter than the core of the sun, which isn't technically or financially feasible or desirable.

[@FatfighterXD1]

​@@uzefulvideos3440did you forget about consolidation, monopolisation, and market control? Competition is a joke it doesn't exist under capitalism

[@luongmaihunggia]

I honestly don't know how you get such high production quality and I'm grateful for it.

[@Anonymous-gw1vd]

OCC is criminally underrated. Hopefully you continue to radicalize more and more people everyday

[@DalHrusk]

Yes because radicalism is what will help the world. There is not enough conflicts between people. OMG

[@kokofan50]

You made a typo; anyone taking him seriously makes him the most over rated person

[@ashchbkv6965]

It's not radicalization, it's bringing the truth to people, truth that will hurt capitalists like DalHrusk above.

[@dubiouscloud5115]

@@kokofan50 why do people continue to insist that climate change is fake when literally no one would benefit from making up climate change as a whole?

[@DalHrusk]

@@ashchbkv6965 Once, there was a group of people fought against capitalists and it all ended very badly - tens of milions were killed or imprisoned and more than bilion enslaved by their own governments. And it all started as a radical movement mostly young people. Young people between ages of 15-20 with no real life experiences easily become passionate to radical and unbalanced ideologies. This is a general psychological fact. Later on, some of them grow up and understand the real world better, others build a career or a sense of self-importance on their ideology. I used to be radical and unbalanced too. Now, I am 36 years old. Capitalism is far from perfect but the sad think is we don't realy know any better way how can bilions of people live on our planet together. Capitalism always wins and where it doesn't, It's absolute disaster.

[@greengear5622]

All right video, learnt some new things too. However, I gotta say the entire point of the video, with why steam beat out early hydro power, was dragged too long. It's quite obvious too that cotton factories that have an unreliable source of energy would slowly be pushed out of the market and have to get on steam to compete. Obviously these motivations are only pushed so hard because of the nature of capiltism, however saying that early hydropower lost, just because it allowed capitilsts owners more power over the working class (although a major reason) underscores the large advantage fossil fuels have with how much energy they store and how consistent and readily availble they are.

[@medthehatta]

Yeah it is immediately clear that water power is less reliably available (and also you can't just put a plant anywhere, it needs to be on a site that can leverage water power, which isn't just anyplace near water). I am not in favor of capitalist exploitation of workers -- and I don't deny that it is rampant and was even worse in the mid-1800s -- but to say labor practices were the reason steam power won is really bending over backwards to ignore the obvious technical advantages of steam. (Namely its availability compared to water.) You could argue "well if they weren't exploiting their workers they would just reduce their hours when energy supply from the water was low", but that would be profoundly facile. If one option is to make money all the time and the other option is to make money less of the time, you don't need to invoke 15-hour-day child labor practices, it's just an obvious business decision.

[@drym74]

Obviously, Physics is not your strong side. The only thing worse is your understanding of economy.

[@wapo_t]

@@medthehatta That "it's just an obvious business decision" is precisely what is being questioned here. How much of the technical advantages of fossil fuels are actually only advantages in regard to the current economic system? Some are advantages only within the capitalist set of values. Ecologically (economic-ecologically) speaking, hydro has many advantages in many use cases over fossils. The point being made here is that steam at the time wasn't really physically superior in terms of efficiency or power, and was cheaper (required less labour). It could power a factory just fine. It was the other factors, not so ecological in nature and more economic (production, profit), that made it inviable. And there is no denying that it is inviable in that way. But every source of energy has its own characteristics, which are judged by a narrow set of rules that give them value. Yes, fossil fuels are indeed an amazing source of energy, no denying in that either. But if the rules were different, the values would also be different. I think that all of you who are making these (completely valid) arguments against the video may be kind of failing at judging things outside the current systems dynamics, which is what the video made me realize. Anyway, let's keep the discussion going. Hope you have a great week.

[@medthehatta]

@@wapo_t that is an interesting point. The notion that one kind of energy source generates strictly less energy per year than another one does not necessarily mean the former is a "worse" energy source than the latter-- it depends on what values you are optimizing for. However you need to measure the value of the energy source in a sophisticated way. If I understand what you are saying correctly, you propose the value of the energy should be measured "per unit of human labor".

[@TennesseeJed]

I just finished watching you on The Deprogram!

[@andrewrockwell1282]

Just watched the newest one on Nebula. I'm glad I can now share this with friends.

[@apersonwhohasnothing]

I just saw you in the Deprogram podcast today, I loved your presence there!

[@NathanHarrison7]

Incredible KZbin channel. I hope the kids in school today are learning using this type of methodology (engaging and informative videos). I know I certainly would’ve benefited by it way back then.

[@TheCarlinCoop]

⁠it’s because of capitalism and fuel and coal that brought millions out of poverty. If yall hate it so much move to a country where they have none of what we have and have no water safe to drink and no electricity. No one is stopping you. Yea that’s right yall don’t go there bc it’s a horrific way to live

[@Lastbornschwab7]

I found tour channel through your appearance on the deprogram.

[@sk8razer]

I always enjoy and appreciate your videos! But I have a suggestion for if you ever have the need or desire to make them a bit shorter. This channel has a tendency to repeat the same points & information over and over. This can actually be extremely useful for helping people understand the concept, especially when they're listening to the video while doing other tasks. *BUT* a lot of people are bothered by repetitious formats. Especially in contexts, like YT, where it's very easy to rewind and re-listen to improve comprehension. That means missing out on a significant section of potential audience. As does having lengthy videos in general. I would love to see a short version (where each point is only stated once) and a longer version (where reinforcing repetition is maintained). This video would probably be around 5-8 minutes long if it omitted the repeating points.

[@syiridium703]

I agree. My thought on this video where that everything could have been explained in five to ten minutes. This longer format has more dramatic effect and it gives it a documentary like feeling. However, from the perspective of being informative, it is far too long. Especially for spreading information to people that were unaware of these things. I suspect that people not already interested will not spend 20 minutes watching it.

[@aquaticko]

Love the message of this video. Solidarity--it's what keeps us together!

[@coolioso808]

Let's join action plan Solidarity with One Small Town Contributionism. Anything similar would be fine, but I don't know of anything else at the moment. But with OST Contributionism, it's community based and co-owned and cooperative to create abundance and prosperity. Protected by a powerful collaborative IT platform and the people of the community who contribute 3 hours per week to make their society better each day. Imagine a town of 10,000 members contributing 3 hours to co-owned projects and businesses of their choice from food to energy to clothing to education and healthcare, and so much more. The goods produced are shared with members for free, the excess goods are sold to non-members at best prices because the volunteer labour force can create 30,000 hours of labour unlike any capitalist company could afford, and all members get an equal dividend of the profits. What better? How exciting! Finally, abundance is something we could all benefit from. Less exploitation and more life to live with less hard labour from each person breaking their backs for a capitalist system that cannot compensate them properly.

[@rickkroll]

❤❤

[@TheCarlinCoop]

⁠it’s because of capitalism and fuel and coal that brought millions out of poverty. If yall hate it so much move to a country where they have none of what we have and have no water safe to drink and no electricity. No one is stopping you. Yea that’s right yall don’t go there bc it’s a horrific way to live

[@TheCarlinCoop]

@@rickkroll​​⁠it’s because of capitalism and fuel and coal that brought millions out of poverty. If yall hate it so much move to a country where they have none of what we have and have no water safe to drink and no electricity. No one is stopping you. Yea that’s right yall don’t go there bc it’s a horrific way to live

[@alexgroot2508]

You see this same problem with solar and wind energy. Wind energy is still a high cost/low output venture most of the time, but Solar especially is dirt cheap to set up and the energy is literally free - if it's there. Solar and wind aren't consistent so they're more dificult to squeeze a profit from. Now if we, say, only needed energy to just supply our needs rather than needing energy to overproduce for the sake of profit, this likely wouldn't be a problem. Interesting parallel either way.

[@kokofan50]

Yes, solar and wind struggle to produce more resources than they consume leaving everyone poor, except for the businesses who have the money to buy vast areas of land and paid off the government to create favorable regulations for them. Also, you clearly don’t understand what kind of energy it takes to produce the basic goods you take for granted.

[@Pertinaziuos]

@kokofan50 I think he was refering more to things like fast fashion, design to failure etc. Not the expenditure of energy per say but how many goods aren't build to last, so you buy more.

[@kokofan50]

@@Pertinaziuos yes, the dude who kept going on about energy isn’t talking about energy.

[@rickkroll]

​@@kokofan50Chill out

[@RobertMartin-s2v]

70% of human btus consumed right now of fossil energy by people is wasted as lost heat As people suvs idle in traffic at the drive through, getting caffeine so they can go make some money at the job they hate to afford more fuel for the SUV and coffee

[@lilithlives]

THIS is one of the most informative videos on the workings and dominance of early industry and capitalism I have ever seen. You are now my favorite YT channel and will repost where I can on social media. Please, keep up this phenomenal work for The People.

[@TheCarlinCoop]

⁠it’s because of capitalism and fuel and coal that brought millions out of poverty. If yall hate it so much move to a country where they have none of what we have and have no water safe to drink and no electricity. No one is stopping you. Yea that’s right yall don’t go there bc it’s a horrific way to live

[@OolTube02]

Well, it's not so much to exploit the worker but to maximize the production process. The problem with the water was obviously the intermittency. That's also the problem of today's main renewable energy sources. An energy source that you could use independent of time of day, weather, or seasons simply created more flexibility and more time maximization, so in the end it was cheaper after all. Which is an important issue we'll have to deal with if we wish to switch over to renewables.

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

Watch DW Planet A on wind turbines. They said there's different turbines that can spin from wind in any direction. And that Germany harvests plenty of green energy but it goes to waste cause they don't have a way to store the excess yet. Some people in sunny places still make excuses to not use solar.

[@someguy2135]

I am guessing that part 2 will discuss hydroelectric power and wind generated power. Interestingly, windmills were used to grind grain in Holland long before the battle between water and steam described in the video above. "Windmills are said to have appeared in the Netherlands as early as 1200 AD. These windmills would have been used to grind grains."- A brief history of windmills a.k.a. molens - IamExpat

[@michaelgolfetto9619]

Love this type of deep dive, hope to see more!

[@TheCarlinCoop]

⁠it’s because of capitalism and fuel and coal that brought millions out of poverty. If yall hate it so much move to a country where they have none of what we have and have no water safe to drink and no electricity. No one is stopping you. Yea that’s right yall don’t go there bc it’s a horrific way to live

[@MadrasB]

the deprogram sent me here and I expected a lot but this is even better, mad respect brother

[@TheCarlinCoop]

⁠it’s because of capitalism and fuel and coal that brought millions out of poverty. If yall hate it so much move to a country where they have none of what we have and have no water safe to drink and no electricity. No one is stopping you. Yea that’s right yall don’t go there bc it’s a horrific way to live

[@Doglover2016-u5q]

yet another great reading recommendation, thank you sir

[@katherandefy]

This clears up so much confusion. Thank you!

[@JME0676]

Good job, looking forward to watch part 2.

[@TheCarlinCoop]

⁠it’s because of capitalism and fuel and coal that brought millions out of poverty. If yall hate it so much move to a country where they have none of what we have and have no water safe to drink and no electricity. No one is stopping you. Yea that’s right yall don’t go there bc it’s a horrific way to live

[@coolioso808]

This is such a good video, I'm so glad you made this one. Very in depth and well researched! I wonder if you might do a future video related to Nikola Tesla's work on a free energy device called the Wardenclyffe Tower and his conflict with JP Morgan over the continued development of that project.

[@AWildBard]

"Loves" and "Needs" are close, but the most apt expression is that capitalism is addicted to fossil fuels. And even though we are being destroyed by it, we are mostly still in denial. There will be harsh withdrawal symptoms before we really start to recover.

[@The3Pragmatic]

The fossil energy is constantly available allowing the factories to run their machines anytime. You said it yourself in your video. So the advantage of fossil fuel energy is its consistent and predictable availability. This also makes possible to locate the factories anywhere since they are not tied to a water source. On the other hand, the factories running on water depend on the speed of the current. Which highlights the fact that the energy from water isn't always available. Today we have the same problem with renewable energy. It's not always available for our energy hungry civilization. When there is no wind and no sun, there is no energy available from renewable. The reason why we cannot move away from fossil fuels energy is our refusal to completely redesign our economy which will go against the interest of those who possess the capital.

[@kokofan50]

Nuclear is cleaner, safer, and more reliable than either fossil fuels or renewables

[@BladeValant546]

Nuclear energy

[@andy9735]

Your KZbin channel is actually fantastic

[@Skyler827]

I don't understand why this has to be such a big, scary thing. Water mills are inflexible and only produce energy in fixed locations at unpredictable times. Fossil fuels can be easily transported to where the energy is needed, and can be easily stored and burned at any time. It's not like it's a conspiracy.

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

But why can't there be a lot of water mills too? Why do people and businesses near rivers want to use coal when they can make water mills?

[@Skyler827]

@@user-gu9yq5sj7c because people don't like working 14 hours a day? or risking not having a job because it didn't rain? did you not watch the video?

[@erinrising2799]

Amazingly well done video, I learned so much.

[@sparkybob1023]

1:46 water or hydro electric power is also dependent on the sun. Fossil are simply stored solar energy that can be transported easily

[@zachweyrauch2988]

Yo, charlie from OCC, just caught your appearance on the deprogram. I doubt you remember my angry comments but most of them revolved around my awareness of the ideas you discuss above and on the deprogram. It might be worth revisiting some old topics in a more materialist lens. I bet some folks would appreciate it and you already have a bunch of research done. Low hanging fruit needn't be bitter.

[@Clint945]

James Watt did *NOT* invent the steam engine. Bolton and Watt formed a company to sell low pressure steam engines and definitely popularized them, but many earlier steam engines existed. The earliest generally accepted industrial steam engine was invented by Thomas Newcomen. The first Newcomen "atmospheric engine" was built in 1712 and was used to pump water out of coal mines. Watt wasn't even born until 1736...

[@gregorymalchuk272]

Watt used empiricism to increase the efficiency of the steam engine to the point that it could justifiably be used for power for purposes other than pumping out coal mines while burning slate contaminated mine waste.

[@kokofan50]

If commies understood things besides their ideology, they wouldn’t be commies

[@marxcherry]

The book mentions Newcomen

[@TheHonestPeanut]

The timeline and cause/effect of city labor link seems a little shady here. People moved to existing cities along with mills. It wasn't like everyone lived in a city and then mills went there to exploit them. I'm trying to remember who did a great deep dive video on this change from family farms to city industry a few years back. I don't think it was OCC. Maybe knowing better or absolute history?

[@visnuexe]

Remember, the potato famine had forced people off their lands. They could not pay their rent, therefore they were evicted. Plus, there saw the rise of goods and services to people in cities long before that, and the rise of a middle class. Many lords were in debted from living too well with high overhead costs for their life styles.

[@Aury]

Incredible, as always. It is so easy to lose track of the number of self focuses decisions, made by people in power over the years, which resulted in the web that we are stuck with today.

[@TheCarlinCoop]

⁠it’s because of capitalism and fuel and coal that brought millions out of poverty. If yall hate it so much move to a country where they have none of what we have and have no water safe to drink and no electricity. No one is stopping you. Yea that’s right yall don’t go there bc it’s a horrific way to live

[@letransformateur6477]

Awesome episode!

[@bofty]

Water is only available in some locations, steam could be built anywhere

[@nekopop8159]

Which is way they started using steam engines to be able to create ‘power’ almost anywhere that doesn’t need a running water source.

[@jbone877]

Great work, dude

[@Goofy8907]

I don't understand, why were water powered factories affected worse if their energy was cheaper? This should've meant they weren't as affected by the regulations as much

[@martinarnsten4203]

Interesting! In Sweden a part of the corporate/capitalist claim on power is also interconnected with the international fossil fuel industry. The working rights movement grew a bit later in Sweden than other countries. And also following that also a little bit later grew the demand for universal voting rights. This rise of workers and voting rights made corporations and capitalists to start an organization to defend themselves. This organization still exists today. Following a violent response of a strike this organization for the corporations struck a deal with the workers organization and there was a period of consensus to negotiate between them. And also politically there was a period of subsequent left governments. So in the early 70ies this organization started a propaganda department as response to reclaim its majority of power. And in the late 70ies / early 80ies they also started networking with the organizations that just started with fossil fuel funded market fundamentalism as propaganda. And my personal view is that this relationship with these international fossil fuel funded network gave the Swedish organization tools to change course to sway the political ideas and parties in their preferred direction. And also the age of untransparent PR in politics has grown during this time in Sweden.

[@TheDoomWizard]

Yeah and we can't capitalism our way out of the crisis.

[@zinjanthropus322]

What crisis?

[@Jc-ms5vv]

@@zinjanthropus322near term human extinction

[@zinjanthropus322]

@@Jc-ms5vv There are no signs of that happening any time soon, in fact there are signs to the contrary. The population is just growing.

[@Jc-ms5vv]

@@zinjanthropus322 you must be blind then. Enjoy denial while it last

[@charliebrown1134]

@@zinjanthropus322THATS THE PROBLEM

[@matthewleitch1]

But everyone benefited from cheap power, not just factory owners. I expect there were governments that used it, even charities that used it. Most of us still use vehicles for our personal convenience and freedom that use it.

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

Like how people benefited the labor from slaves, exploited workers, and exploited child workers. Doesn't mean they and pollution doesn't harm people. Check out DW Planet A on pollution harming and making people die sooner. Not to mention destroying the environment destroys our home and resources and causes extinction. There are green solutions. Watch Not Just Bikes and look at the comments there. Many people are forced to drive when they don't want to cause there is lacking noncar infrastructure in some places. So no, they are not thankful for gas for cars when they didn't want to drive in the first place.

[@TrepidDestiny]

It's always fascinating when companies and people/governments go hard into one resource or method of energy. We're constantly told one of the basics of economics is to diversify. Why do we cling to fossil fuels for just about every thought of energy? Monocrops like Corn and Soy? Fossil fuels definitely have their place in the food chain of energy production, but is mind boggling that it became the monopoly on energy for so long. Also, i'll stan Nuclear energy any day of the year.

[@CoffeeLyfe]

Can’t wait for the next video

[@samlubbe6032]

every time you said "Malm" I heard "Mom" and had to remind myself you weren't talking about your ecologist mother

[@letransformateur6477]

Maybe Malm is in fact a woman, and his mom :o

[@juliantotriwijaya9208]

What I found weird is that the early-victorian factory architect thought up of using medieval watermill system, but considering it's seasonal cons such as drought, they never seem to thought about medieval windmill do they? There will always be wind up there and there are a lot of windmill in the UK by that point but most of them seems for be for small things, even the Dutch only use it for sawmill/cutting wood at best, maybe the push is not strong enough for a huge machine? but if that's the case won't they just need to make the turbine/sail bigger? idk I'm not a traditional windmill engineer.

[@geoffdavids7647]

This is a great video, but I can't help thinking that all the important content could really have been conveyed in less than a minute. Steam won because 1. It was possible to guarantee consistent power whenever you needed it, better fitting the working hours demanded by workers 2. was cheaper and more flexible to initially build the factory because it wasn't required to be build near streams, often in rural and inaccessible places 3. Was far cheaper to staff with workers, due to the ability to build factories in city centres, where there were large and often desperate pools of people seeking work, driving down wages through harsh competition 4. Was also cheaper because not only were potential employees plentiful, but because they were also freely disposable (compared to workers living in a factory town around watermills, who were limited in number, purpose-brought to the area, and had to be kept happy)

[@platin2148]

It’s just that basically everything around you needs it and if you think it works without you pretty much have no clue for what crude oil is used.

[@kenari5763]

Great video! Important history.

[@BoonBreyne]

Your message is great and an important contribution to the social and ecological struggles, but mate, that could have been a 4 minute video too... I hope your next works will have less repitition, making it easier to watch in its entirety.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Steam power also requires water, albeit not flowing water. Indeed, water is not only required for the boiler, but also for cooling.

[@vijayanchomatil8413]

This is the most important video of our time. Ask yourself, what's behind all of the anti ev and anti solar and wind discourse? This video is an enlightenment on that.

[@derrickjohnson4952]

Aren’t the ones providing the solar & wind also capitalist ? This video acts as if there aren’t capitalist that have renewable sources of energy. Capitalist has profits AND loses you want to minimize your lose so things like recycling or even getting more out of less of a material is what you would want. His claim is that capitalism loves this one thing & only pushes to fossil fuels, yet competition in the market benefit greatly from more “greener” technologies cause it allows them to enter the market they may have had a hard time in entering. It’s hard to say that all Capitalist only want fossil fuels when you have literally tesla making money off the opposite.

[@vijayanchomatil8413]

@@derrickjohnson4952 I NEVER SAID ANYTHING about capitalism.... I am refering to the fact that business owners have circumvented labor empowerment through more expensive and yet more flexible energy sources. What can that say about all of the naysayers discounting renewable energy and evs? What are their underlying motives? What is their agenda? That what i'm saying...

[@BoxheadRoss]

I always find myself wanting to watch these videos but not being able to finish because of the dread they fill me with

[@slevinchannel7589]

FIY, Climate-Change was covered by UpisnotJump, Hbomberguy, OCC

[@XenoRaptor-98765]

Is anyone else thinking of making a Time Machine to go back in time to permanently solve modern day problems where/when it started or before it started?

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

Idk because without educating the people on these things there might still be people to do bad, destructive, and inefficient ideas. So it's not just simple as enforcing your idea on past people who are naive or don't support you idea.

[@jimgraham6722]

Big capital loves fossil fuels because they equal big profits for minimal investment. For the fossil fuel industry, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear are all the industry's worst nightmares come true.

[@clarizze6600]

I just want to share a thought here: the fact that they switched from water steam doesnt seem like it was only about controlling the laborers even though the industrial era surely is known for overworking its laborers to un ethical extents. Didnt the switch to steam seem to be the natural solution to the laborer problems as well? It allowed for more consistency with their work hours and also allowed them to cut their hours shorter? Water power forced them to work unpredictably and for even 16 hours!!? The machines can be made to move faster probably allowing for more production to meet demands in a shorter amount of time( like 8 hours if the capitalists were willing to stop growing, too fast) you know? So to me it seems like it couldn't just be bad that the capitalists chose steam over water-- when it gave their workers more time and stability with their work hours. Maybe they did still push those workers way past their limits and maybe those machines could have been slower and still produced enough products and that's the problem?? They had the opportunity to lessen the extreme burden of their workers more when they chose steam but didnt actually take enough away that makes it worth it and ethical in general. Does that make sense?

[@magician77-c8h]

charlie..I will help you realize your burning heart in this world.

[@Kannot2023]

Soviet Union used a lot oil too. Not only the capitalism needs oil.

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

What about it? Maybe the Soviet Union were using what they had or didn't really care about the environment. But now, many modern people care about the environment, and it's undeniable that much destruction to the environment and not caring about the environment comes from people greedy for profits. And that we might need social policy changes to help the environment.

[@michelangelobuonarroti4958]

Sooooo Water lost because it was an inferior source of energy due to its unreliability? Got it. Funny how ur trying to make this about the workers when really all you had to say was "the seasonal cycle made water unreliable and forced factories to be built near larger rivers which often meant being away from urban centers and thus having higher transport costs". Coal won because of flexibility and reliability. It'a also fairly easy to see that water limited the size a factory could grow to but yeah sure the workers were the only reason...

[@visnuexe]

Greatest group for addressing climate change are the public at large. It's potential are tremendous, but its effects now are divided and nascent.

[@melusine826]

Ev/battery powered vehicles existed 100 years ago... similar reason

[@TripleGia]

This comment section is even worse than the typical ones I've seen. Safe scrolling out there.

[@janlaag]

Please elaborate

[@christopherdonahue6594]

What about the places that had no access to water? What happened when the water froze or the water flow diminished?

[@turizmishqibozlari4574]

Hello can you please give me the pdf version of the book of fossil capital

[@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear]

Thanks for the video

[@CharlesBrown-xq5ug]

《Infinite paired electricity+cooling》 Civilization may have progressed enough to conquer the second law of thermodynamics. Civilization needs to strive for this goal with synergistic interdisciplinary teams.The outcome would be perpetually changeable never gained or lost energy. Conservation of energy says nothing about energy distribution. With this principe only, the heat in a pair of similar medium temperature thermal energy reservoirs can be shifted at no cost to become held in a hot reservoir, cold reservoir pair. This can be done if micro volumes with a natural range of temperature can be deterministically routed in normal time to become sortewhere time, and energy are different atributes. Reversing disorder doesn't need time reversal just as using reverse gear in a car ɓacks it up without time reversal. The second law of thermodynamics had a distinct begining with Sir Isaac Newton's correct professional scientific observation that the heat of a fire in a fireplace always flows towards the cold room beyond. Victorian England became enchanted with steam engines and their cheap, reliable, and easy to position physical power. Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius, Lord Kelven, and, one source adds, Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot, formulated the Second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy using evidence from steam engine development. These men considered with acceptance [A+] Inefficiently harnessing the flow of heat from hot to cold or [B+] Using force to Inefficiently pump heat from cold to hot. They considered with rejection [A-] Waiting for random fluctuation to cause a large difference in temperature or pressure. This was calculated to be extremely rare or [B-] Searching for, selecting, then routing for use, random, frequent and small differences in temperature or pressure. The search, selection, then routing would require more energy than the use would yield. These accepted options, lead to the consequence that the universe will end in stagnant heat death. This became support for a theological trend of the time that placed God as the initiator of a degenerating universe. Please consider that God could also be supreme over an energy abundant civilization that can absorb heat and convert it into electricity without energy gain or loss in a sustained universe. The law's formulaters did not consider the option that any random, usually small, fluctuation of heat or pressure could use the energy of these fluctuations itself to power deterministic routing so the output is no longer random. Then the net power of many small fluctuations from many replicant parts can be aggregated into a large difference in temperature, pressure, or electricity's amperes and volts Heat exists as the randomly directed kinetic energy of gas molecules or mobile electrons. In gasses this is known as Brownian motion. In electronic systems this is carefully labeled Johnson Nyquist thermal electrical noise for AI readability. Hypothetically, diode depletion regions are practical sites for enabling mobile electrons energized into motion by heat to deterministically alter the electrical resistance of the depletion region according to the moment by moment direction they are carrying electricity. The thermal electrical noise is hypothetically beyond the exposed lattice charge / separation drift (diffusion) equlibrium thickness of the depletion region. After all, thermal noise exists in a resistance path of one material. Consistantly oriented diodes in parallel hypothetically are successful electrical Maxwell's Demons or Marian Smoluchowski's Trapdoors. The energy needed to shift the depletion region's deterministic role is paid as a burden on the moving electrons. There would therefore be usable net rectified power from each and every diode connected together into a consistantly oriented parallel group. The group would aggregate the net power of its members. Any diode efficiency at all produces some energy conversion from ambient heat, more efficiency yields higher performance. A diode array that is switched off has no energy conversion and no performance. The power from a single diode is poorly expressed. Several or more diodes in parallel are needed to overcome the effect of a load resistor's own thermal noise. A plurality of billions of high frequency capable diodes is needed for practical power aggregation. For reference, there are a billion (10^9) 1000 square nanometer cells per square millimeter. Modern nanofabrication can make simple identical diodes surrounded by insulation smaller than this in a slab as thick as the diodes are long. The diodes are connected at their two ohmic ends to two conductive layers. Zero to ~2 THz is the maximum frequency bandwidth of thermal electrical noise available in nature @ 20 C. THz=10^12 Hz. This is beyond the range of most diodes. Practicality requires this extreme bandwidth. The diodes are preferably in same orientation parallel at the primary level. Many primary level groups of diodes should be in series for practical voltage. Ever since the supposedly universal second law of thermodynamics was formulated, education has mass produced and spread the conventional wisdom throughout society that the second law of thermodynamics is absolute. It is an old paradigm. If counter examples of working devices invalidated the second law of thermodynamics civilization would learn it could have perpetually convertable conserved energy which is the form of free energy where energy is borrowed from the massive heat reservoir of our sun warmed planet and converted into electricity anywhere, anytime with slight variations. Electricity produces heat immediately when used by electric heaters, electromechanical mechanisms, and electric ligts so the energy borrowed by these devices is promply returned without gain or loss. There is also the reverse effect where refrigeration produces electricity equivalent to the cooling, This effect is scientifically elegant. Cell phones wouldn't die or need power cords or batteries or become hot. They would cool when transmitting radio signal power. The phones could also be data relays and there could also be data relays without phone features with and without long haul links so the telecommunication network would be improved. Computers and integrated circuits would have their cooling and electrical needs supplied autonomously and simultaniously. Integrated circuits wouldn't need power pinouts. Refrigeration for superconductors would improve. Robots would have extreme mobility. Digital coin minting would be energy cheap. Frozen food storage would be reliable and free or value positive. Storehouses, homes, and markets would have independent power to preserve and pŕepare food. Medical devices would work anywhere. Vehicles wouldn't need fuel or fueling stops. Elevators would be very reliable with independent power. Shielding and separation would provide EMP resistance. Water and sewage pumps could be installed anywhere along their pipes. Nomads could raise their material supports item by item carefully and groups of people could modify their settlements with great technical flexibility. Many devices would be very quiet, which is good for coexisting with nature and does not disturb people. Zone refining would involve little net power. Reducing Bauxite to Aluminum, Rutile to Titanium, and Magnideetite to Iron, would have a net cooling effect. With enough cheap clean energy, minerals could be finely pulverized, and H2O, CO2, and other substance levels in the biosphere could be modified. A planetary agency needs to look over wide concerns. This could be a material revolution with spiritual ramifications. Everyone should contribute individual talents and fruits of different experiances and cultures to advance a cooperative, diverse, harmonious and unified civilization. It is possible to apply technlology wrong but social force should oppose this. I filed for patent us 3890161A, Diode Array, in 1973. It was granted in 1975. It became public domain technology in 1992. It concerns making nickel plane-insulator-tungsten needle diodes which were not practical at the time though they have since improved. the patent wasn't developed partly because I backed down from commercial exclusitivity. A better way for me would have been a public incorruptable archive that would secure attrbution for the original works of creators. Uncorrupted copies would be released on request. No further action would be taken by this institution. Commercal exclusivity can be deterred by the wide and open publishing of inventive concepts. Also, the obvious is unpatentable. Open sharing promotes mass knowlege and wisdom. Many financially and procedurally independent teams that pool developmental knowlege, and may be funded by many separate noncontrolling crowd sourced grants should convene themselves to develop proof-of-concept and initial-recipe-exploring prototypes to develop devices which coproduce the release of electrical energy and an equivalent absorbtion of stagnant ambient thermal energy. Diode arrays are not the only possible device of this sort. They are the easiest to explain generally. These devices would probably become segmented commodities sold with minimal margin over supply cost. They would be manufactured by AI that does not need financial incentive. Applicable best practices would be adopted. Business details would be open public knowledge. Associated people should move as negotiated and freely and honestly talk. Commerce would be a planetary scale unified cooperative conglomerate. There is no need of wealth extracting top commanders. We do not need often token philanthropy from the wealthy if people simply can be more generous if consumer commodities are inexpensive. Aloha Charles M Brown lll Kilauea, Kauai, Hawaii 96754 1 808 651 📞📞📞📞

[@VyvienneEaux]

Fossil fuels are a subscription service, while hydroelectric is a one-time purchase.

[@rjserra5535]

The video is idiotic. It completely misses the point of the benefits of consistent reliable power in running a factory. The presenter obviously has no understanding of manufacturing. Additionally, consistent and reliable power resulted in the end of irregular work schedules that were the result of irregular water power that was provided by local rivers. Also, fossil fuels enabled factories to be constructed in areas with larger labor forces that did not have big rivers and/or water falls thereby enabling greater employment opportunities across the entire country. Your deviation into the labor abuses prevalent in the 19th century is not the result of power sources as much as it was the result of business practices of the time. Similar conditions were present in other European countries and the United States and had nothing to do with water power vs fossil fuel. Stopped watching after 12 minutes. Not worth going any further.

[@kevincrady2831]

13:57 - "Machinery doesn't just act as a superior competitor to the worker, always on the point of making him superfluous. It is a power inimical to him... It is the most powerful weapon for suppressing strikes, those periodic revolts of the working class against the autocracy of capital." --Marx We should keep this at the forefront of our minds as the AI revolution comes to fruition over the next few years.

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

Check out Second Thought. Socialists and communists like more machines and automation so people don't have to work so much or do unwanted or dangerous jobs. It's in capitalism that people worry about jobs for a livelihood. You benefit from using machines, like the internet. Machines have saved lives.

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

Fossil fuels are indispensable for maintaining our way of life. The only downsides are that they are finite and their use has triggered abrupt climate change which will likely wipe out most if not all of humanity, soon.

[@dalethomasdewitt]

1000 to one defines the reason that-a-way instead of that way. Electron as atomic constituent repells - - as gas, against that solid piston wall, allowing work to be made from that repulsive force. It's the massive change in volume similarly akin to that massive bond dissociation with the nuclear forces. But that's another issue.

[@melusine826]

The days when water was a stable, reliable and consistent source in uk.... a tiny island had such huge impact on the planet

[@wastelandranger6021]

Great video!

[@micosstar]

9:13 a partial 69 separated by 1. (61.9%)

[@joecummings1260]

Yeah water power is great where it's available. But there just isn't enough of it. And the locations where it is available are not necessarily where it's needed. So then you have to transport the raw materials and finished goods even farther, increasing your need for energy. And not every water location is viable for harvesting water power. That little babbling brook behind your house is lucky if it makes enough power to charge your phone

[@Coldbird1337]

oh man, looking at the industrial revolution after watching this vid, it kinda validates my thoughts about how much of a nightmare it was.

[@importantnotimportant]

Amazing and important video!

[@ahmadhadi177]

What does anybody think of Proton 64's Uranium Fever video?

[@AWildBard]

Great video.

[@Leonard-td5rn]

Things we never needed before like food shelter clothes transportation

[@h4Q6e]

When I heard Johnny Harris I loudly grunted in disapproval, waking up my cat that was peacefully sleeping,

[@joshmorcombe4907]

12:25 is that Trotsky? Maybe I'm crazy and it just looks like him but using stock footage of Leon Trotsky while talking about British factory owners is... an interesting choice lol

[@edbollett9083]

Look at one of the very first known players in capitalism. Is or isn't Rockefeller the granddaddy of capitalism as well as granddaddy of fossil fuels. And if this wasn't enough along came the United Nations.. Believe he was the biggest player in the starting of the UN as well. Unfortunately big oil is very financially capable of lobbying just about any group or organization or particular individual they care to. And as long as we keep making them even more wealthy by consuming their products they will always prevail.. There is an alternative to nearly everything we consume.

[@shanefoster2132]

Outsourcing, steam enabled outsourcing.

[@zinjanthropus322]

According to this channel it's a bad thing that places without flowing rivers could have industry and energy on demand. No mention of the higher energy density, portability or the fact that nuclear fission reactors are fundamentally steam engines.

[@JasonAtlas]

If you could give me the time stamp for this in the video. I must have missed it. Thanks in advance.

[@ladanjiracek279]

When I heard this I actually thought that it was government regulation that caused the shift to coal, not the greed of factory owners

[@EayuProuxm]

Control, enslave, exploit is the name of their game.

[@bobbyc1120]

It sounds to me like steam power allowed the factory owners to accommodate the demands of the workers. Under a water powered economy, the 10 hour workday might not even have happened, because it would've been too objectionable to the factory owners.

[@RichardLewisCaldwell]

It sounds like coal won because nobody figured out that three 8-hour shifts can keep a factory running 24 hours a day.

[@kokofan50]

Factories were dependent on natural light well into the 1900s.

[@RichardLewisCaldwell]

@@kokofan50 I pondered that, too. How dim can a safety-free workplace be? I came down on the side of invention: If power was available there was a way to use it. Perhaps a more dark-friendly half, maybe a mill could do the night shift. So the expensive powerplant gets full-time use.

[@kokofan50]

@@RichardLewisCaldwell Alot of work requires complex and detailed movements that can’t be done without looking for most people, so the solution to the problem was improving lighting, which has only improved to the point to justify nightshifts in the middle of last century

[@RichardLewisCaldwell]

@@kokofan50 I lived through the transition. Back in the late 70s and early 80s I was constantly lamenting/raging against society's discrimination against night owls. So "coulda shoulda woulda" is my response to "it was the only way possible". Equality justifies itself. 🤪 And I'm a world-class inventor with enough excess self-confidence to believe that if I had been around and latched onto the issue I'd have solved the issue, and you'd be here (not me, I'd be dead by now) discussing distributed water power, or something.

[@EricPham-gr8pg]

Drop the income tax and raise sale tax to 7% and property tax to 6% would improve America outlook tremendously on trade deficit

[@TheUnatuber]

The 10-hour workday contributed to the outcome.

[@UjjwalKumar_234]

Thanks. It was something new, albeit unnecessarily long due to being highly repetitive.

[@Epidian]

Watt didn't actually invent the steam engine. He just improved it.

[@chancefoxhauck475]

So, can we please go back to using water mills with the new labor laws? Ill work the night shift

[@AlanRPaine]

Water power is not unlimited and is not available everywhere

[@jacksonc]

Average people who invented new technology throughout human history was never the great men, but those who are greedy take the credit of using that technology for their personal gains. It has always been like this.