Part 1: Noam Chomsky on Climate Change, Nukes, Syria, WikiLeaks & More
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2017
- democracynow.org - In this Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with the world-renowned linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky. In a public conversation we had in April, we talked about climate change, nuclear weapons, North Korea, Iran, the war in Syria and the Trump administration’s threat to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and his new book, "Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power."
Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET: democracynow.org
Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: democracynow.org/donate
FOLLOW DEMOCRACY NOW! ONLINE:
Facebook: / democracynow
Twitter: / democracynow
UA-cam: / democracynow
SoundCloud: / democracynow
Daily Email: democracynow.org/subscribe
Google+: plus.google.com/+DemocracyNow
Instagram: / democracynow
Tumblr: / democracynow
Pinterest: / democracynow
iTunes: itunes.apple.com/podcast/demo...
TuneIn: tunein.com/radio/Democracy-Now...
Stitcher Radio: www.stitcher.com/podcast/democ...
Such a scholar...so brilliant! Thank you for your wisdom Noam Chomsky! Love You!
What a pontificating pretentious piece of shit! 😃
Why every video with Noam volume nearly zero??? Always
Elderly man.
Skeeter Lima that's not true at all. His reach is huge across UA-cam.
@@davidaaa6427 couldn't his nigerian helpers put the mic closer?
I've been waiting to hear Chomsky's opinion on the current Economic climate. His perspective is always insightful.
Noam Chomsky muy bueno!!!
I am super attracted to Amy Goodman in the most respectful way possible. Peak quality journalist
I like Noam Chomsky, and I always appreciate his commentary. Having said that, my consistent reaction to him is that his "world view" is more of a statement about human nature than statism or imperialism. He strikes me as a fatalist, and, primarily, a "reporter" (again, congruent with both his world view, and his assessment of human nature), rather than a scholar or analyst. Unless pressed, which is seldom, he doesn't seem to advance any solutions or, even, any hope. Again, though, I appreciate his commentary.
_'He proposes anarchism, which is a well worked out solution.'_
He may propose it but he sure doesn't live it. MIT is a taxpayer funded institution. I don't blame him. Were it not for MIT, Noam would likely be living on the streets of Boston, no? Cheers:)
_'if you think working at mit makes him not an anarchist, then you do not understand anarchism'_
Crow, would you please enlighten me in regards to anarchism as you understand it? I would appreciate it.
cheerio:)
_|Crow the Timekeeper|_ Is Noam a part of the hierarchy at MIT? Does he vote? Does he pay his taxes? Does he have a pension fund? Does he have an IRA/401(k)? Does he obey?
My point was that Noam is not an anarchist. He is a statist. Nothing wrong with that. Most folks choose to go along to get along, no?
Crow the TimeKeeper
I suggest you examine the history of Noam's life long employer. While you are at it, look into one of MIT's massive money makers, known as the Lincoln Laboratory.
www.ll.mit.edu/about/about.html
cheers!
Chomsky: OG
Funny, just started reading an old one of his books: on power and ideology...
20 minutes is not an. hour. How do we get the hour?
We are being dragged down the dark road of perdition by a parade of intelligent fools.
I wouldn't really call him a dissident these days. He seems to have forgotten the very tenants he based his old arguments on.
Noam, what are your thoughts on WTC7 and Larry SilverStein?
_Pull It Baby_
terrible that even in the highest volume in a quiet room I can still barely hear him sometimes lol
Organized crime works the same way as Reps org. and others.
Reps dems whatever. Organised crime because CIA and numerous others....
By Republicanism Chomsky means capitalism.
Dexter Morgan Not only are you assumptive, but pedantic. Is the Republican Party without an ideology? Of course not. Captial R Republicanism in context speaks to that and is different from republicanism the same as Democrat is from democrat. The Republican Party and Democratic Party are the parties of capitalism. Again, all this is reducible to my original comment.
when everyone knows the democrats are every bit as bad,if not worse than the republicans! OH! some people just can't *handle* that truth!
Lame comeback.
tinfoilhatter
The entire point of my comment is that the sell-out and sell-off of the people and planet ISN'T partisan or American for that matter. The organization in theory and practice is capitalism or neoliberalism, financialization, globalization, imperialism etc. However you wish to term it, the existential threat is more systemic than one particular party.
No he actually describes republicanism as radical statism/state-capitalism clearly very frequently!
there's no doomsday clock! but we surely don't have forever,that much is true!
Since when did Trump decide to go after Julian Assange? I close my eyes to blink and there's always something new...
You mean by calling him and his acts 'heroic'....? Sounds more like he's endorsing him.
I think you need to watch 0:18 and listen again or for the first time... Sounds more like you're just asking where I heard that so I can tell you without you asking like some dog begging but whatever.
My dyslexia wins again...thanks
for some reason, N. Chomsky interviews are always hard to hear. he is a soft talker...why dont you turn up his mike?
There is only so much you can turn up a mic. Maybe they need to start bringing more powerful microphones to his interviews and speeches.
To hell with this evil world. The sooner the better.
there oughta be a law against bombing dams,hospitals,civilians and infrastructure!
oh,wait, we tried that,and international law is optional at best!
I will address "deteriorating" trends much as I did last night
with a hardened, seasoned old military vet who
doesn't believe any "B.S." about anything,
especially near term extinction, unless they
can survey a battlefield or landscape and
poke, prod, stick, cut the pig and see it
bleed, hear it squeel, and know for certain
its a pig. I used the domino parable, as
one falls, others follow, and described
about 12 dominos all in a fragile state,
while they suggested - not me - Trump
could be the 13th domino and start a
nuclear war over N. Korea. I'll just
stick with what IS reality instead of
such speculation;
1. Anyone who denies global temps are
skyrocketing, or at least marching
upwards need only examine thinning
ice sheets soon to disappear, Greenland
melting 150-600 times faster, depending
on which science team/report you reference,
and in antarctica, huge ice shelfs like
the Larson iceshelf now going away. We
could skip the NOAA, NASA, Univ. of Alaska,
Univ. of Ottawa, Norwegian and Russian
reports and go straight to the Inuit,
who know it like you might know Kansas.
Its a catastrophic change. This domino
alone is the game changer that triggers
multiple tipping points and reflects
Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph,
which my other posts describe as simply
a quadratic equation - a model - describing
what IS TODAY (a point) and what is coming
based on trend lines reflecting thinning ice,
warmer air and ocean temps, snowfall in the
arctic/antarctic and other events we know
about today...not 10-200 years in thr future.
2. We knew what a warmer arctic might do;
and feared a large methane release, now
happening where kn size craters are blowing
and spewing CH4, and areas are fizzing like
gingerale. Thst means the gas that IS (not
MAYBE) 160 times worse than CO2 is now
spewing into the atmosphere and over 7000
methane pockets have been found in Siberia.
Ouch. Add Canada, Alaska, Norway and it
gets ugly fast. Good news; methane breaks
down faster than CO2 and if this factor
was isolated and temps weren't already
rising, maybe it'd be no big deal. No
such luck.
3. We already know what a blue arctic vs
ice cover will do, is doing and air temps
of 65 degrees in fkn winter means we're
screwed. Deny that all you want; its
catastrophic. Basically, urban centers
are heat engines, the arctic and oceans
are heat sinks just like aluminum on
a CPU and if you remove those the CPU
temp goes high almost instantly. With
the loss of arctic ice Greenland is
now taking the heat as never before;
like a 10 amp fuse in a 200 amp wire
and we know how that works.
So, just these factors, before discussing
drought, grain yields, ocean acidification
should be enough to get folks, govts, oil
companies to say "Hey; lets change course
and roll out renewables quickly, sequester
urban heat with co-gen systems, suck CO2
and CH4 from the atmosphere, repair forests,
jungles, habitats, fisheries with whatever
we can do. Again, no such luck and at
this point we're 10 years late and $500
trillion short.
4. Now we turn to effects in regions
we rely on. Lets move all our grain
production to the Sahara and see if
we can feed 7-8 billion people;
grain yields are fallkng, beef prices
rising sharply, produce going through
the roof and that trend will also
accelerate. Dominos 1 thru 3 are having
an effect.
5. Lets see how Trump's effect of sending
millions into the street combines with
higher food prices...its not just the
U.S. Russia lost a huge wheat harvest
and droughts/famines around the world
are expanding at an accelerating pace.
Go ahead and see what happens when 350m
Americans can't afford to eat. Kaboom;
the protests quickly get ugly and
infrastructure always takes a hit
making a dire situation worse.
6. Then the other effects of rising
temps, forest/jungle fires, dustbowls,
record tornados, hurricanes; kiss the
eastern seaboard goodbye. Look what
Ottawa/Montreal just endured, or what
Ft. McMurray, the Amazon, Calif. forests;
the list is growing rapidly and the strain
on communities, natl. budgets is enormous.
Germany, India, Peru, Oz, S. Africa; its
hard to find a nation not eating a catastrophe.
7. If this wasn't enough to trim 7billion
lets cut off their oxygen. 70-8O% of that
comes from plankton struggling with temps
and cabonic acid. If the ocean goes anoxic,
which it is doing now...not in 10-200 years
we are likely to see increasing plumes of
hydrogen sulfide; more toxic than cyanide.
L.A. is toast even before oceans rise.
8. Fisheries are dwindling, grains dwindling,
reservoirs, aquifers; the endless list of
all the factors that support 7b people are
going away. Its a lot easier to kill 7b
than make 7b; though surely more fun to
make babies, but viewed as an organism
that needs food, water, ag, reasonable
temps, we're screwed. The question of
exactly WHEN we endure a mass die off
is NOT a sure thing, but a decade is
optimistic, given the accelerating pace
and multiple factors converging to
take us down, with little or no hope
of any global body coordinating any
effective response, which would cost
hundreds of trillions and rely on
technology we haven't even invented
short of "a nuclear winter" or pixie
dust to block the sun. If we did that,
how would crops fare?
12. Skip a domino/factor or two and ask
yourself if the 1200 nuclear reactors
and 400 spent fuel facilities would be
safer or experience more frequent failures
if utilities, governments, communities
experienced even a minor collapse; say
7b to 5b, with 2b dead in a year. I worked
in the nuclear sector; they fail every week
and those folks commonly say "Whew, we
avoided that nightmare." It is the single
worst technology on earth today and if
it didn't exist a few million people
might survive the meltdown of civjlization
and loss of the industrial society we enjoy
today. Again, no such luck, and when 1600
facilities begin burning and spewing radioactive
gas the air on earth will get ugly fast.
This is a huge pillar in Guy's collapse/extinction
math and he's spot on. Its already happening
and we can't even keep these facilities
from destroying huge regions today when
civilization is still sort of firing on
all cylinders.
So...will all life be extinct in under a
decade? I doubt it will take that long;
die offs are notoriously fast and this
one has already begun. Will any breeding
humans survive? Um...doubtful. Diffusion
of toxic gas and dead oceans is already
happening. Once contaminated with fairly
high levels of radioactive waste, along
with loss of ozone, its near impossible
to assume any higher life forms will
survive. Will technology save the day?
We can't even get the greatest high
tech nation on earth to rapidly switch
to solar/wind. let alone ramp up desal
or sequester heat; as George Carlin
said, "We can't even take care of ourselves
and we're gonna SAVE A PLANET?!"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YEAH ... RIGHT.
Global warming could destroy civilization and drop the human population to less than a million worldwide, but humans are incredibly adaptable. Small bands of people would still find ways to live all around the world, even if it was at a stone age or bronze age technological level.
_'Anyone who denies global temps are skyrocketing, or at least marching upwards need only examine thinning ice sheets '_
OwlNationLegal | When was the last time you observed thinning ice sheets?
Are you able to define 'skyrocketing'?
When was the last ice age? Has the Earth emerged from the last ice age?
Does the Sun contribute to warming? Is immortality possible?
cheerio:)
Call me naive but wouldn’t it be possible to stop America in
its tracks by the world governments refusing to participate in USA’s war calls
and withdrawing all support for NATO. It’s what all people desire - an end to
war mongering, an end to the ever increasing military hoarding and it’s phenomenal
cost which is at the expense of any effort towards world peace, and care of this planets environment.
Would love to watch this video but I just can't listen to the f****ing audio!!!
God control the earth not man
One very disturbing and repeating things I've noticed when Chomsky speaks to an american audience, is how often people laugh at disturbing facts about their own country. Better laugh it off instead of doing something about it I guess...
like him...but he says the same damn thing....every damn time
I know. He's an idiot for repeating the climate change stuff all the time.
It's all we ever hear about in the media. And it's just lame to talk about the biggest problems facing us.
I tend to prefer the old 'fingers in the ears' trick.