What an insighftul discussion, thank you for organising this. It's not often that geniuses are able to communicate their thoughts, Nikos delivers every time.
Many thanks Christos ! It was great to have Nikos on the podcast. He developed some very interesting concepts that help to understand the urban phenomenon.
@@MetabolismofCities Fair enough. Is this the main reason that prevents you from interviewing him? I have watched a few of his recent lectures, and I personally was not shocked by the way he mentions the topic of population and although a bit taboo, it is clearly part of our predicament (i.e. the Kaya Identity). I think he has some valid points with regards to the overshoot situation we are in, and I see very few people talking with such a perspective (maybe besides Vincent Mignerot who you had a talk with)
Yes partly. Although it is undeniable that population plays a big role, It is clearly not what is defining our "predicament". Actually the Kaya identity hides inequalities (both at a global and local level). Most of global population live with a GDP per capita that is extremely low and has little impact. And even if we were to apply drastic population measures today their effects will only be in place in some decades which is too late (see ua-cam.com/video/xITfaSfYAJo/v-deo.html). It is clearly a very very small part of the population that is responsible for our predicament and therefore it would be interesting to understand how to reduce that impact and redistribute resources more equally. I'll have to watch some more lectures to make a more informed decision. Thanks for the suggestion and don't hesitate if you have others.
@@MetabolismofCities I see where you come from. I think I disagree a bit with you in the sense that yes of course theoretically if all western people agreed to lower their standard of living, it could be possible for the planet to host 8-10 billion people (and of course the challenge is to recenter the debate on the "good life", hence the importance of the Degrowth movement). BUT, I think the assumption behind is that we can overcome "social dilemma / collective action problem" (and we have to do it at a global scale). My current understanding is that this is generally achieved at a lower scale by tapping on the "in-group" vs "out-group" dynamics. Yet, I believe we lack evidence that this is achievable at such a global scale (at least on critical topics like energy and overshoot that require radical transformation of our lifestyles). I sincerely hope to be wrong, but where is the supporting evidence? On that topic, maybe you would find interesting to look into the work of Simon Levin from the Princeton university.
You are right of course it is not as easy answer. From the current UN projections, the population will "probably" even out or decrease at a medium-term future (whether planned or not). That does not mean much but I think birth rates will decrease over time. Now even if we suggest that population is not (the immediate or right) problem, you are right that we don't seem to have a good track record of collaboration and diplomacy at a global level which is absolutely crucial for the whole endeavour. I will have a look at the work of Simon Levin, I hadn't heard of him, thanks.
What an insighftul discussion, thank you for organising this.
It's not often that geniuses are able to communicate their thoughts, Nikos delivers every time.
Many thanks Christos ! It was great to have Nikos on the podcast. He developed some very interesting concepts that help to understand the urban phenomenon.
Is that "Terra Forma: A Book of Speculative Maps" by Frédérique Aït-Touati, what I see on Neil Brenner's desk? What an amazing book!
looking forward to listening
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
@@πανταπεριμενω Efxaristo 🙏🙏
Have you ever thought of a conversation with William Rees?
Thanks Adrien. Yes have considered it. Not very comfortable with the proposed reduction of population at this stage.
@@MetabolismofCities Fair enough. Is this the main reason that prevents you from interviewing him?
I have watched a few of his recent lectures, and I personally was not shocked by the way he mentions the topic of population and although a bit taboo, it is clearly part of our predicament (i.e. the Kaya Identity).
I think he has some valid points with regards to the overshoot situation we are in, and I see very few people talking with such a perspective (maybe besides Vincent Mignerot who you had a talk with)
Yes partly. Although it is undeniable that population plays a big role, It is clearly not what is defining our "predicament". Actually the Kaya identity hides inequalities (both at a global and local level). Most of global population live with a GDP per capita that is extremely low and has little impact. And even if we were to apply drastic population measures today their effects will only be in place in some decades which is too late (see ua-cam.com/video/xITfaSfYAJo/v-deo.html). It is clearly a very very small part of the population that is responsible for our predicament and therefore it would be interesting to understand how to reduce that impact and redistribute resources more equally.
I'll have to watch some more lectures to make a more informed decision. Thanks for the suggestion and don't hesitate if you have others.
@@MetabolismofCities I see where you come from. I think I disagree a bit with you in the sense that yes of course theoretically if all western people agreed to lower their standard of living, it could be possible for the planet to host 8-10 billion people (and of course the challenge is to recenter the debate on the "good life", hence the importance of the Degrowth movement).
BUT, I think the assumption behind is that we can overcome "social dilemma / collective action problem" (and we have to do it at a global scale). My current understanding is that this is generally achieved at a lower scale by tapping on the "in-group" vs "out-group" dynamics. Yet, I believe we lack evidence that this is achievable at such a global scale (at least on critical topics like energy and overshoot that require radical transformation of our lifestyles).
I sincerely hope to be wrong, but where is the supporting evidence? On that topic, maybe you would find interesting to look into the work of Simon Levin from the Princeton university.
You are right of course it is not as easy answer.
From the current UN projections, the population will "probably" even out or decrease at a medium-term future (whether planned or not). That does not mean much but I think birth rates will decrease over time.
Now even if we suggest that population is not (the immediate or right) problem, you are right that we don't seem to have a good track record of collaboration and diplomacy at a global level which is absolutely crucial for the whole endeavour.
I will have a look at the work of Simon Levin, I hadn't heard of him, thanks.
It must be exhausting undermining the majority.