Note that GDP growth is often measured in percentages comparing this year to the last: 10% growth means this years' GDP was 10% bigger than last year. So we are not only chasing eternal growth, but eternal exponential growth! Growing the economy by 2% now requires much more actual resources than it did fifty years ago. It is getting harder and harder to sustain the growth levels we've gotten used to, but that doesn't mean we're falling back.
@@FierceGDYT The percentage of growth isn’t exponential, but the raw numbers are. 10% of 100 is 10. 10% of 110 is 11. 10% of 121 is 12.1. 10% of 133.1 is 13.3. 10% of 146.4 is 14.6. Those numbers aren’t growing linearly, they’re growing exponentially.
Ehhh, I'm not so sure. True, it means that as things progress, we'll need a new way of measuring things. But measurements ALWAYS start out bad and get progressively better as we know more about what we're looking at. That's just the progression of time.
This is just how natural systems behave by default. A new gene emerging in evolution that is better than the previous one will grow exponentially in abundance. A new species emerging on a continent will grow exponentially and so will any organism if the conditions are right. If I invent something that improves the life for other people rather than just myself I also contributed to exponential growth. The only thing that stops exponential growth in nature is death.
This video basically said nothing concrete. It was just the same idealistic rhetoric of moving beyond chasing economic growth that we've heard for decades, and yet it hasn't happened partly because they rarely come with any concrete detailed proposals for how that would work - and this video was no different! It even used the same tired old cliche of the cancer metaphor. Also telling that it was sponsored by the WEF, that elite club that has the power to pursue this grand goal, and yet is curiously unwilling to actually do it.
@@alezrandom4146 we can both state this is a good qoute and acknowledge Ghandi was a flawed figure idk why you believe some people deserve to be absolved from criticisms, he was no more of man than you and I
@@alezrandom4146 Little people will always abuse great men. The more abuse one gets, the bigger he is. And every knowledgeable person knows Gandhi was even bigger than the big people in world history. His successes and mistakes have been from supreme ethical considerations, which makes his life transcendental.
Elite/corporate greed comes at the cost of human, animal, and plant life. Hopefully, we can stand up and not be continually bullied/oppressed/deceived by the rich/wealthy/powerful few before it's too late...
Less growth = less wealth for everyone. Since the elites hoard resorces, it probably means the poor bear the brunt of the hardship. We need growth. New technology that allows us to create more products while using less resources. We need to fight only unsustainable growth.
Now I have a question the amount of money someone has is the amount of leverage they have over society right ? A wealth gap is necessary for the wealthy to keep in power as this is where their power comes from correct ? 🤔 At the root an economy is transactional so the gap is almost always wanted by the wealthy 🤔
@@besknighter such “hopelessness”wouldn’t be cultivated if the amount of suffering this planet and its people are enduring was not becoming increasingly palpable - suffering fueled almost single-handedly by greed. But I don’t see it as a hopelessness. I see it as a grand motivation driven by empathy for others and care for the future of this world. Whatever the motivation inspires, however, is up to each individual.
I totally agree with her conclusion. Balance is always important for everything such as work, food, sleep, relationships with others and so on. I’m gonna always remember this theme for my whole life.
I just don't have that much hope for big countries changing to this strategy. No one would dare stop growing because they would be overtaken by the ones who keep growing, thus losing economic and political power. In other words, all major countries would need to make a collective decision, and I just can't see how the US, Russia, China, Indonesia, Japan, the UK, Germany and India could ever agree unanimously to stop growing.
This video basically said nothing concrete. It was just the same idealistic rhetoric of moving beyond chasing economic growth that we've heard for decades, and yet it hasn't happened partly because they rarely come with any concrete detailed proposals for how that would work - and this video was no different! It even used the same tired old cliche of the cancer metaphor. Also telling that it was sponsored by the WEF, that elite club that has the power to pursue this grand goal, and yet is curiously unwilling to actually do it.
This single video is the best thing I've seen on economics. It echoes so many thoughts that I hadn't found ways to express; growth isn't necessarily advancement, growth isn't necessarily development, and more importantly, welfare should come first before any new phase is explored.
I am intrigued by how this not only changes growth, but decline. Currently doing less in any area causes tremors throughout the system, threatens other areas, causes everyone to prepare for bad times. So say, a bottled water company has to always hope to sell more bottles of water, produce more to sell, even if that produces waste. But this doughnut approach allows us to recognize that maybe things will slacken, but we're still in the ideal range. So that bottled water company could produce less - say because they're switching from plastic bottles to reusable aluminum, at a smaller scale - but it's not damaging to the economy, no one panics, and the environment is better cared for.
I think people easily fail to realize just how amazing of a planet we live on. We tend to take everything we've experienced for granted because it's easy, and it can be quite hard to imagine a world where we actively care for thing we so heavily rely on. It's not like there's an Earth 2.0, so we might as well make it as homey as we can while we're here.
Yeh...it's so good of all the wef folk's to be so caring for us all and advise (nudge) us what is best for all... especially them. We all have to save the fuel for them to fly around the world in their private jets to give us the advice we need...thanks tedx (wef propaganda unit)
I always understood this aspiration for growht not only as doing things bigger, but also doing them better. Like for example, monitors. They used to be so big and expensive before, now they are better, slimmer and cheaper and there's more of them for everybody
That is the natural growth. But most nowadays companies can’t always work like that. Imagine a big monitor’s company. They’re trying to innovate and need, let’s say, five years to create that new great thing. Can they stay five years without launching a new monitor? Probably not. They need to grow in profits to increase their investors profits and keep their market alive. So most of the time they are struggling to be bigger not better. Only a few can have the luxury to invest in being better.
I feel this is a very individualistic concept that can be used to bring environmental concious behaviour and on the contrary, for countries to understand and adopt, it will need a bottom up approach which is completely opposite of one size fits all approach.
I've really come to love Ted-Ed. I discovered it several years ago when tutoring someone in K-12 - the intended audience for these videos. But, they are great for adults too! I just sent out its recent overview of schizophrenia, and certainly will send this one around - it captures Kate Raworth's Donut Economy in 5 minutes as well or better than her longer lectures and many white papers discussing this pariticular concept. Well done Ted-Ed, keep up the great work!
Is it the intended audience? This video doesn't feel like it is intended to be watched by any one type of person. I've seen media meant to be consumed for kids, educational and not, and it is. . . not great. This feels different. It doesn't take any assumptions about the intelligence or retention of the person watching. It sets out to give vital information along with beautiful artwork that visually backs up what they are talking about.
This is the reason Why I love Ted- ed.❤ They always try to answer such interesting questions! I am trying the same as well in my channel. Hope I will match their level some day!
Рік тому+3
No they don't try ti answer the question. They state the problems, and that's it.
They (as part of a bigger picture) actually create the problems. TedEd, is just another bs propaganda unit pushing the "huge problems" (notably humans) in order to cause the reaction and then the solution, which funnily enough never works out! Do we actually want the future generations to live in a perpetual state of fear the same as the past and present generation's...🤔
The narrator is Kate Raworth. If you like this TED-Ed, you may like her book Doughnut Economics. I had to read it for school and I thought it was brilliant!
@@mikevalera9550 I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking about just the narration and music. The actual video was good but no where near my fav haha.
There is a quote atributed to naturalist David Atenborough: "People who believe in infinte growth are either fools or economist." And this quote is quite a few decades old. I don't see the future with "Donut Economy" but "Tree Economy": a economy can grow very VERY big, just like a tree, BUT as it grows it must develop fruits (money) that come down to the ground (the rest of us) to make other & more trees grow.
I learned about the doughnut from an Australian documentary called 2040: it tells us about what we need to do to make the people of 2040 live a good life, and what their life will be like in the ideal situation if we work more for the planet and less for ourselves.
The first step we need to take is to acknowledge that the economy is not only bad, but in such a state that it needs to either be completely overhauled or replaced. This means figuring out the issues and then eradicating said issues. We must then focus on moving away from profits and instead move back to making sure everyone can thrive under it, because at the end of the day, the economy is only successful when the people can thrive in it and not how high the profits are.
Economists and governments using GDP as a standard for the entire country without realizing it doesn't take into account the welfare of citizens or the environment, kinda reminds me of how social security numbers are LITERALLY used for everything essential when they should really only be used for retirement benefits.
I've always wondered independently how there can be this unrealistic expectation of growth forever. In a finite world, there will come a point where there's no more goods and services needed. There must be a peak...right?
although resources are finite, needs (including what you want as a "need") are not. so there is always a push to produce something else. If for instance, everybody had all their basic needs met, and we had all the resources to satisfy them all the time, they quickly would try to satisfy wants (Like owning a yatch, or the new iphone, or etc). so even in this ideal world where everybody has what they need, there would be pressure to make more. And although resources on earth are finite, we don't actually have access to all of them at once. Let's say that we need metal for instance. As we ran out of it, the cost of making things out of metal rises. And 2 things happens. First, there is a push for alternatives, and second, there is a push to invest on more expensive, previously non viable ways to extract metal from deeper veins. So although the economy of metal made products would probably shrink, the economy of tools to extract ore, or alternatives would increase, and thus you may still experience some growth. And thats "On earth". Besides, in math there are multiple ways to make functions that are constantly growing, but constrained between a value (I.E: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 +1/16.... always increases, but it's limit would be 2) so there could be a peak, and we could be constantly growing towards it, but never reach it (Of course at some point the growth would be negligible, but it is technically still growing)
"....and the hole in the ozone layer and the extinction of the species.. Hang on! we are ignoring our planet... literally *undermining* the *life-supporting systems* on which we depend." Left me pondering! _How well-balanced depiction of the essence of the word "balance" is brought to limelight via the doughnut theory!_ Conveys a lot. #LoveTed_Ed
Is this a good time to buy stocks/crypto in the Europe? I know everyone is saying stocks are at a discount and all, but just how long will It take for us to recover, obviously there are strategies to manoeuvre in this present market but these strategies doesn't come common to the average folk, or am I better off putting my money elsewhere.
@Rose Allen I agree, that's the more reason I prefer my day to day investment decisions being guided by an inv-coach, seeing that their entire skillset is built around short & long term holdings for profit realisation, coupled with the exclusive analysis they possess, it's near impossible to not out-perform. I've been investing with a coach literally for 4years, and have accrued approx. $1.4m in net-profits thus far.
@Rose Allen I am guided by ASHLEY AIRAGAHI I found her on a CNBC interview where she was featured and reached out to her. She has since provided entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can look her up online if you care supervision.
The thing is, though, we solved the ozone layer problem--we can actually fix problems. And overall, things are getting much better for people, thanks to economic growth. It's the richest countries that invest the most in renewables, and it's the rich countries that can better manage national parks.... Growth does not necessarily come into conflict with nature.
@@leoelliondeux I recently noticed something in guardians of the galaxy. When they introduce gamora in the prison, on the left corner it says "Last surviving member of the Zehoberei people", which implies that after halving the population, the planet died off, and it wasn't the utopia he described. Or maybe something else conveniently killed them, but I doubt that.
A closed-minded, pessimistic video. I hope nobody confuses it with economics. Of course the GDP can grow continuously 📈, just look at what AI is bringing to global productivity.
Good point and a desirable goal, but firstly how will we know that we have exceeded our 'growth period' (there could be more discoveries and technologies which will seem vital to the people of the future) and secondly how will we transition the economy? Welfare states need constant growth to accommodate its citizens.
Why do you think welfare states need constant growth to accomodate it's citizens? They don't if citizens would be satisfied with a slightly slower growth in welfare. We might not be able to use more resources, but we could develop the art of doing more with less. Essentially just focusing on getting more efficient.
@@bobthegoat7090 growth-based economics is based on growing ever-more efficient. The largest way to create growth is through increasing output by decreasing the amount of input needed for each unit of output. Degrowth (what this video is parroting) is based on rejecting that, and saying that we should just be content with stagnation.
@@crymmt6329 But surely no one will have a problem with growing more efficient, if it does not affect input negatively. Of course, the main fact is that we should be content with 0% growth, but surely even people that support degrowth will be okay with an action that only increases efficiency. Let's say we have archived 0% growth and everything is sustainably run. In this imaginary world, we have a power plant that produces 1 GW of energy. Surely, everyone will agree it is a good thing if we can somehow produce 1.5 GWh if we found a more efficient way to use the resource that the plant uses?
And how would you implement this in companies and economies? Currently most companies survive based on having more growth than the opposition. Since the more money you have the more you can improve and compete in the market.
True. In a growthless economy, one man's growth is another's loss. So we are stuck with either no advancement in technology or advancement at the cost of another's bankruptcy
I think give the full interview a go: ua-cam.com/video/X6lC-7BIWts/v-deo.html We do doughnut economy in many places, raising families comes in circles for example. More and more people choose companies not because they are biggest but also because they stand for a better idea or better conduct. We need to do more of that. We don't need 100 new billionaires on top of cut throat companies whose employees don't sleep, this will make only very very few people happy, but creating 100 billion worth of goods and services for people currently in the 'hole' will bring so much opportunity for the world.
@@katarinajanoskova I am very convinced laws would change the moment it's to late and not a moment before. And by to late I mean when major cities start to be abandoned because of to many crisis like economically and climate wise.
That's not right. Companies survive when their income is greater than their expenses, that is, they have profits, and you do not need to be the apex predator of the market to make a profit; companies share different percentages of the market and when they have profit they can expand and innovate, they only disappear when their costs exceed their income.
I thank you so dearly for spreading these messages on such a large platform, I hope as you this more and more, it can lead to people to dig deeper into these kinda subjects.
Actually I had the same thoughts. The more people understand the economy, the more we can start questioning what is and exploring the possibility of what could be with our economic systems
Wow. A deep sense of hope (the actual realistic kind of suggestion that fundamentally humans have the intuition to get ourselves out of this capitalist mess) for the first time in a significant portion of my young life. Thank you greatly.
The theory mixes degrowth and MMT into a pot or "doughnut", that's it. Note, Kate Rawoth doesn't actually present any mathematical model just emotional allusions to cancer (although admittedly, this is a youtube video). Her points like "GDP doesn't factor in "communities or the enviroment" but it kinda already does. Property value is usually associated with the quality of the community, for example, if it has parks nearby, or good schools or its safe. Moreover, Rawoth talks about the lack of decoupling GDP from C02 emissions, but that's already happening. The C02 output of developed economies has been consistently declining whilst GDP has been growing. "We need to radically reduce our use of Earth's resources" This would have to include austerity measures, not just for rich countries, but also developing and poor nations whose economies are dependant on trading resources, like oil. Nowhere does Kate present a model beyond a picture. She doesn't present how she wants to convince developing nations to stop consuming resources beyond moral panic.
Yep, this is moronic and doesn't propose anything new... really sad to think so many people think this video is profound, stopping economic growth also means stopping research and development and how does she expect to convince governments to handicap themselves by limiting growth, when the majority of countries haven't figured out proper healthcare access
@@cool.guy. The biggest issue is that no major economies, especially major developing economies, would accept this proposal. What do we do if everyone agrees but China or the US or India simply refused and chose to pursue maximising growth? Invade or sanction their economies? Activists like Rawoth don't have an answer.
@@cool.guy. how does stopping economic growth=stopping innovation? Stopping economic growth would just mean that we've reached market saturation. Frankly, a good chunk of industries have reached that point. Now, they're trying to create value out of nothing. From creating artificial shortages with oil and natural gas, creating paygates by that car company that charged users $100/month so they could drive faster, to creating products with planned obsolesence so they could keep selling it. Endless growth is a delusion
The problem is that society needs to change that way of thinking now, and pragmatically speaking i really doubt that the big companies are willing to completely rethink their form of doing bussiness. With no real change from the private sector this world is faded to disaster and i'm really pessimist about it.
When we produce too much food the government burn down fields. When we use too much energy we get adjusted crises. The reality, the only truth is that we either got or we don't have.
So basically we need balance which is something that probably everyone already is aware of.... But the question is HOW DO WE ACHIEVE A SUSTAINABLE STATE OF BALANCE?
We could start by not constantly trying to screw each other over. Stop speculation on essential needs like food and housing. Stop the quasi-colonialism of large corporations like Nestlé. Educate. Grant equal rights to women everywhere. Stop heroizing billionaires. Rethink (or rather demolish) intellectual property. Separate income from work, at least to some extent.
The free-to-play video game model, essentially. Necessities would be guaranteed; superfluous amenities, entertainment, and other such non-necessities would still require payment.
@@rafetizer How would you keep a continuous workflow from every person? If needs are satiated, then more permanent wants like a computer that has access to the internet will be enough to massively decrease a person's work output.
You know I think one of the main problems is that humans work for themselves, not to better humanity, but to make money so they can live a comfortable life. Humans just aren't righteous enough to actually create a donut economy, there will always be people who want more and more and more. I never really understood why rich people just want more money, they've got enough money to live a relaxing life and could basically retire right then and there...but they just want more money for some reason
wow this came so close to having even one useful suggestion and then just ended before identifying even one idea that could be used . Its like saying we should end war without giving any idea how to do that !
Honestly, to end war you would have to modify the human genome itself, humans love to kill eachother, and we should stop war exactly because we are good at killing eachother
What do you mean? The solution is extremely simple. Countries just need to stop growing and be content with that. It's not like it's hard to do that if you just make the decision. The hard part is getting EVERY country to agree to it. Maybe that was also what you were getting at.
@@woltews What a thoughtful and constructive comment, filled with well worded arguments. I am sorry I just have no counterarguments as your own are bulletproof. Really shows the sheer magnitude of your intelligence.
@@bobthegoat7090 the main point I was making is that although you guessed at a solution they presented non . You are guessing at what a solution might be but they presented nothing other than a general idea of what might be nice . As someone who grew up around Cambodian refugees in the late 70s and early 80s the solution I gave you is not without president from the real world . Sadly as the people who created the video presented no solution we are left to only guess at what have been the idea they had in mind .. A thought on your idea is if one nation decided to abandon no growth it will quickly rise to the point of being able to dominate all others who do not completely give up on growth and may impose its will on the others by the fact they face a limiton it dos not face .
"Of all tyrannies, one sincerely exercised for the good of it's victims might be the most opressive. It would be preferable to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies. The Baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, their cupidity might be sated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us with no end, for they do so with the approval of their own consciences". C.S. Lewis.
It is possible to achieve growth without damaging the environment. The oversimplification of growth = environment degradation, presented here is a very dangerous and wrong ideal that greatly undermines the struggle to preserve our planet. Many in developing countries are saying they need to damage the environment because their economies haven't grown yet to the rich country levels and that the currently rich countries grew that way. This makes it an ethical necessity to keep damaging the environment since you can't ask poor nations to keep their populations impoverished to preserve the planet while suffering from the fact that the citizens of rich nations have already damaged the planet. We must accept that the world population is still growing and most of the world population is struggling too much to care for the environment. The way forward should be by focusing on making our growth environmentally sustainable.
As much as I understand the idea that too much greed as a side-effect of growth IS a problem, I do not see a solution in this video. It just touches on a popular/woke theme. Growth does not have negative side-effects only - if correctly applied it reduces wealth loss by inflation (from which society does profit) Wealth distribution (mentioned in the video) is not a problem of growth, but of corruption! Growth does work if applied correctly, meaning that we pursue growth by technological means while we use limited resources wisely. If used unwisely, greed+corruption leads to the mentioned problems as spreading inquality or environmental problems - not growth per se.
Here’s a concept. The point of the economy is the flow of goods and services to where they are needed, the dollar represents trade value to avoid the trade of goods on hand. Thus, it represents the ideal of a “fair trade”. Gold backed it as a contingency because people saw it for what it was… worthless. Nowdays, the notes hold value because there is confidence in these notes. Instead of goods going to where they are needed, however, the goods flow to the highest bidder. Doing away with profit as the driving force, it would need to be replaced by another kpi and social perception would need to shift from hyper consumerism to moderation. Allow the diversification of economic forces and protect the individual’s ability to create. Not every idea should persist, but allowing ideas to flourish would see a strengthening of the economy.
I don't think the ozone layer is that big of a problem now. I'm fairly sure that has been fixed. Search it up if you want more info. I absolutely loved this video, her voice is so good and they way she talks, passionate and smart.
A healthy economy is when our social system provides everybody with a satisfactory way of life, where they can share equal opportunities to earn, reside and enjoy what nature has to offer. This is not only from nature itself, but for the unwasteful use and employment of natural resources as one of the 3 factors of production, as explained by Adam Smith is 1776 in his clasic book "Wealth of the Nations". These factors are Land (the natural resource which is most significant), Labour (ourselves) and Capital (invested durable goods for making other produce). In common with Kate's ideas, we need to better understand of what our social system REALLY comprises and ACTUALLY how it works. Firstly it must be understood to comprise of a system of functioning sectors, each of which makes a contribution to the whole system. This understanding is not yet an ethical one, but before this idea is accepted we will never begin to identify where the unethical bits are to be found (and changed or eliminated). In my 310 page book "Consequential Macroeconomics" I succed in explaining how to convert from the past ideas (which were a complicated and confusing mess for explaing this topic) which the experts sometimes recognize as a pseudo-science, into what is far more logical and organised as a true science, instead. We need to get a proper understanding about it before looking for the parts that we should improve and change. I could explain it immediately, but this topic needs some serious study so please ask me for an e-copy and I will gladly send one to you for free. chestdher@gmail.com😎
It's easy for people that come from developed countries to judge how certain civilization must use their natural resources But for the most of the country that not yet developed , it's their only chance to be developed to keep up with other nations to be developed one...but unfortunately for them when they try to develop their country people that never know their struggle and suffering.lecture them tomstopmehat they're doing because they damaging the nature, they get sanctions, they get embargo, they get isolated from international community Then they think everyone want to annihilated them so they go into defense mode try to protect their freedom amd sovereignty with anything they can
Not to diminish this brilliant author's work, but what she preaches is actually something that used to be common sense. If we look into the history of human thoughts, we can see different versions of this wisdom across many cultures. It only seem to be novel because what we call Economics today, is but a thinly veiled, sophisticated elaboration of colonialism.
Growth is not about method, it’s about nature. The fundamentals of nature is rooted in thought. Good thoughts create good economies. Not good intentions, Good thoughts.
We have systems to deal with timeframes like the economic cycle. If individuals could somehow envision and plan beyond a single generation that would then improve the systems we build to avert collapse.
To solve this problem of the lack of resources we actually need to replace our resources acquiring source from a single planet(earth) to the outer space planets and asteroids, earth has limited resources but on outer space there are planets with unestimated resources enough to sustained the economic growth for thousands years.
Unfortunately not only are we reducing our resources but we also are destroying what of them is left, due to the greed for national progress, without regard to others (and even to ourselves in a longer run). What we need is a international body which has respect for those living in other nations and are less well-off than ourselves, one who willing shares its opportunites without damaging them beyond the way nature can recover by itself.
we're centuries far from having the technological capacity to mine on extraterrestrial bodies, let alone the logistical capacity of transporting tons of raw materials back here. it's better at the moment to just focus on what we have here.
You can’t be too healthy, just like you can’t be too rich It’s okay to compare one part of health to one part of wealth But comparing one part of health to all wealth doesn’t make sense
Despite the U.S economy being as big as it ever was. The standard of living have remained stagnant or declining. 40 years ago you could work full time and afford rent and extra expenses. Today, you can't even afford rent working full-time at minimum wage jobs.
I deeply disagree with her conclusion. Humanity is nowhere near the limit of our potential. Our quest for progress and the betterment of our species SHOULD be eternal. The minute we stop because some people decide "this is good enough", we condemn our future.
According to the 1972 MIT study "Limits to Growth", we are within decades of reaching complete catabolic collapse due to having grown beyond what our planet can sustain. The study has been redone several times, with the methodologies and variables being updated due to better knowledge being acquired in the previous decades since the last, and they keep forecasting that shortly after 2040, we're all screwed.
I'm new to stock market /Crypto and would like to invest but I've go no idea on how to make good profits. Pls what's the best approach you'd recommend?
The fundamental problem with her theory is that in history most ecological catastrophes that have ever been solved have been solved through innovation. Whales being hunted to extinction stopped being hunted not because everybody turned down their lamps but because kerosene was invented and everyone was better off. The lowest hanging fruit of innovation, however, has already been plucked and in order to get higher and higher we need more and more complexity and specialization and you can't have either of those without size, so economic growth is more likely to help in the fight to maintain Earth's ecology.
La semana pasada un maestro nos dijo en una charla que para mantener el nivel de vida que tenemos debemos explotar a otros. Dijo que solo la desigualdad puede mantener nuestro actual estilo de vida. Que desilusión. Sí reconozco que inesperadamente pagar justo por unos neumáticos por ejemplo haría más difícil su adquisición pero en lugar de inspirar a crear alternativas para que el pago justo y la producción de bienes sean sostenibles nos dijo que no hay éxito sin crimen. Lo que me preocupa es la falta de idealismo o mínimo de hipocresía.
Siendo justos, eso ya no es necesariamente cierto. Con los avances en automatización e inteligencia artificial que se están haciendo se podría aumentar la productividad lo suficiente para que todo el mundo tenga una vida digna. Otra cosa distinta es cuánta gente viviendo una vida digna puede soportar el planeta... Esa es una discusión que nadie quiere tener.
It’s incorrect to think that economic growth means using more, which is not always the case. Economic growth also means using our resources more efficiently We need economic growth and innovation to create technologies like direct air capture to reduce our carbon footprint Economic growth and ecological preservation are not mutually exclusive
How to create a better economy Step 1 remove lobbying Step 2 remove corrupt politicians that make laws that affect the economy Step 3 stop monopolies like apple and google
I think that first bit is the most crucial and serious part. People bash me for suggesting more regulations but it's actually what enables free, competitive environments. It combats monopolies, legal loopholes, and corruption.
So instead of shared growth and stimulating innovation to address climate issues, you’d rather have shared poverty and limited growth which will stifle any hope of innovation. Brilliant.
economy should keep growing to make life possible on mars and outer space which means people should keep learning or upskill and upgrade their knowledge. There is need for roadmap to slowly transition to knowledge based economy and also internalize the externalities in the economy like the waste management
this is the first time anyone has compared economic growth to a malignant tumor, and it makes so damn much sense to me! but can we please declare greed as a mental illness NOW???
What's the difference between greed and ambition? Who made you king? It's only because your ancestors were greedy that your even alive today. Lack of ambition is not a virtue.
It's not just the wealthy that want more, it's everyone wanting more clothes or more toys, things that we don't really need. Look up what it takes to just make one t-shirt and then decide if you're wanting more than you need. I'm just as guilty but trying to change.
in a lot of models, growth is equal to the productivity of an economy, that is how workers can produce more with less or perform more difficult tasks. Growth and the environment are apples and oranges. She is using "growth" in a very loose way.
How would this proposed economic model measure the inner and outer rings? Is this model saying we (humans as a whole) have reached the outer ring already? Because the number of people continues to grow (by our choice) and even if we spread the world's wealth equally, i don't think there is enough to sustain our desired lifestyle. Lastly, how does this model account for human ingenuity and innovation? The invention of the smartphone has produced more goods and services than say dishwashers but produced far less pollution.
Note that GDP growth is often measured in percentages comparing this year to the last: 10% growth means this years' GDP was 10% bigger than last year. So we are not only chasing eternal growth, but eternal exponential growth! Growing the economy by 2% now requires much more actual resources than it did fifty years ago. It is getting harder and harder to sustain the growth levels we've gotten used to, but that doesn't mean we're falling back.
huh?
@@FierceGDYT The percentage of growth isn’t exponential, but the raw numbers are. 10% of 100 is 10. 10% of 110 is 11. 10% of 121 is 12.1. 10% of 133.1 is 13.3. 10% of 146.4 is 14.6. Those numbers aren’t growing linearly, they’re growing exponentially.
Ehhh, I'm not so sure. True, it means that as things progress, we'll need a new way of measuring things. But measurements ALWAYS start out bad and get progressively better as we know more about what we're looking at. That's just the progression of time.
This is just how natural systems behave by default. A new gene emerging in evolution that is better than the previous one will grow exponentially in abundance. A new species emerging on a continent will grow exponentially and so will any organism if the conditions are right. If I invent something that improves the life for other people rather than just myself I also contributed to exponential growth.
The only thing that stops exponential growth in nature is death.
This video basically said nothing concrete. It was just the same idealistic rhetoric of moving beyond chasing economic growth that we've heard for decades, and yet it hasn't happened partly because they rarely come with any concrete detailed proposals for how that would work - and this video was no different! It even used the same tired old cliche of the cancer metaphor. Also telling that it was sponsored by the WEF, that elite club that has the power to pursue this grand goal, and yet is curiously unwilling to actually do it.
Mahatma Gandhi once famously said: “The Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed.”
Here before people starts saying how bad Gandhi was
10th geo eh xd
@@alezrandom4146 well it's worth saying
@@alezrandom4146 we can both state this is a good qoute and acknowledge Ghandi was a flawed figure idk why you believe some people deserve to be absolved from criticisms, he was no more of man than you and I
@@alezrandom4146 Little people will always abuse great men. The more abuse one gets, the bigger he is. And every knowledgeable person knows Gandhi was even bigger than the big people in world history. His successes and mistakes have been from supreme ethical considerations, which makes his life transcendental.
Imagine giving an answer so good that it’s used to narrate a whole Ted-Ed video
Wow! Imma go listen to the whole interview!
Nerd
@@oliverbristow4230 😂
The major problem with this is less growth = less wealth for elites. They will never allow such a situation to occur.
Elite/corporate greed comes at the cost of human, animal, and plant life. Hopefully, we can stand up and not be continually bullied/oppressed/deceived by the rich/wealthy/powerful few before it's too late...
Less growth = less wealth for everyone. Since the elites hoard resorces, it probably means the poor bear the brunt of the hardship.
We need growth. New technology that allows us to create more products while using less resources. We need to fight only unsustainable growth.
Now I have a question the amount of money someone has is the amount of leverage they have over society right ? A wealth gap is necessary for the wealthy to keep in power as this is where their power comes from correct ? 🤔 At the root an economy is transactional so the gap is almost always wanted by the wealthy 🤔
This generalization tells more about the dark tinted glasses that you have upon yourself. Either that or learned hopelessness.
@@besknighter such “hopelessness”wouldn’t be cultivated if the amount of suffering this planet and its people are enduring was not becoming increasingly palpable - suffering fueled almost single-handedly by greed.
But I don’t see it as a hopelessness. I see it as a grand motivation driven by empathy for others and care for the future of this world. Whatever the motivation inspires, however, is up to each individual.
I totally agree with her conclusion. Balance is always important for everything such as work, food, sleep, relationships with others and so on. I’m gonna always remember this theme for my whole life.
Also remember this is called "Doughnut theory" and ironically 0 facts or metrics were cited.
I just don't have that much hope for big countries changing to this strategy. No one would dare stop growing because they would be overtaken by the ones who keep growing, thus losing economic and political power. In other words, all major countries would need to make a collective decision, and I just can't see how the US, Russia, China, Indonesia, Japan, the UK, Germany and India could ever agree unanimously to stop growing.
This video basically said nothing concrete. It was just the same idealistic rhetoric of moving beyond chasing economic growth that we've heard for decades, and yet it hasn't happened partly because they rarely come with any concrete detailed proposals for how that would work - and this video was no different! It even used the same tired old cliche of the cancer metaphor. Also telling that it was sponsored by the WEF, that elite club that has the power to pursue this grand goal, and yet is curiously unwilling to actually do it.
Yin Yang?
This single video is the best thing I've seen on economics. It echoes so many thoughts that I hadn't found ways to express; growth isn't necessarily advancement, growth isn't necessarily development, and more importantly, welfare should come first before any new phase is explored.
I am intrigued by how this not only changes growth, but decline. Currently doing less in any area causes tremors throughout the system, threatens other areas, causes everyone to prepare for bad times. So say, a bottled water company has to always hope to sell more bottles of water, produce more to sell, even if that produces waste.
But this doughnut approach allows us to recognize that maybe things will slacken, but we're still in the ideal range. So that bottled water company could produce less - say because they're switching from plastic bottles to reusable aluminum, at a smaller scale - but it's not damaging to the economy, no one panics, and the environment is better cared for.
I like this visualization theory of the stability range concept. Thanks as always TED-ED
I think people easily fail to realize just how amazing of a planet we live on. We tend to take everything we've experienced for granted because it's easy, and it can be quite hard to imagine a world where we actively care for thing we so heavily rely on. It's not like there's an Earth 2.0, so we might as well make it as homey as we can while we're here.
Yeh...it's so good of all the wef folk's to be so caring for us all and advise (nudge) us what is best for all... especially them. We all have to save the fuel for them to fly around the world in their private jets to give us the advice we need...thanks tedx (wef propaganda unit)
I always understood this aspiration for growht not only as doing things bigger, but also doing them better. Like for example, monitors. They used to be so big and expensive before, now they are better, slimmer and cheaper and there's more of them for everybody
though the cats are no longer able to find a nice, warm box to sit upon when they desire.
That is the natural growth.
But most nowadays companies can’t always work like that.
Imagine a big monitor’s company. They’re trying to innovate and need, let’s say, five years to create that new great thing.
Can they stay five years without launching a new monitor?
Probably not. They need to grow in profits to increase their investors profits and keep their market alive.
So most of the time they are struggling to be bigger not better.
Only a few can have the luxury to invest in being better.
Without that company or profit you wouldnt have the first tv......
@@mikevalera9550 how do you know?
I feel this is a very individualistic concept that can be used to bring environmental concious behaviour and on the contrary, for countries to understand and adopt, it will need a bottom up approach which is completely opposite of one size fits all approach.
kinda crazy that The World Economic Forum, a group of the worlds biggest capitalists, create a video like this
I've really come to love Ted-Ed. I discovered it several years ago when tutoring someone in K-12 - the intended audience for these videos. But, they are great for adults too! I just sent out its recent overview of schizophrenia, and certainly will send this one around - it captures Kate Raworth's Donut Economy in 5 minutes as well or better than her longer lectures and many white papers discussing this pariticular concept. Well done Ted-Ed, keep up the great work!
Is it the intended audience? This video doesn't feel like it is intended to be watched by any one type of person. I've seen media meant to be consumed for kids, educational and not, and it is. . . not great. This feels different. It doesn't take any assumptions about the intelligence or retention of the person watching. It sets out to give vital information along with beautiful artwork that visually backs up what they are talking about.
Its 2 AM, I have a microbiology exam tomorrow, and I'm watching a Ted ed video on economy.
Its 11am, I have an exam in Math in less than 10min , and I'm watching a Ted ed video on economy.
Good luck to both of you, and you the first lad GO SLEEP!
All the best👍
Good luck my guy, you got this💪! Let us know how it goes
This is the reason Why I love Ted- ed.❤
They always try to answer such interesting questions!
I am trying the same as well in my channel. Hope I will match their level some day!
No they don't try ti answer the question. They state the problems, and that's it.
They (as part of a bigger picture) actually create the problems. TedEd, is just another bs propaganda unit pushing the "huge problems" (notably humans) in order to cause the reaction and then the solution, which funnily enough never works out! Do we actually want the future generations to live in a perpetual state of fear the same as the past and present generation's...🤔
I think this is my favourite TED-Ed video just looking at the narration/music. The narrator is so charismatic and passionate!
The narrator is Kate Raworth. If you like this TED-Ed, you may like her book Doughnut Economics. I had to read it for school and I thought it was brilliant!
Really! Id say this has to be the worst yet. Ironically its called doughnut theory and 0 references to stats were made.
@@mikevalera9550 I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking about just the narration and music. The actual video was good but no where near my fav haha.
This is the first Ted Ed video I’ve seen that doesn’t sound scripted. Well done!
Cuz it's from a TED Talk.... and they made an animation for it...
Yeah and they made 0 stat references to support the argument. This is the worst ted yet.
@@mikevalera9550 I mean, is there anything that needs statistics here? I'd argue it's more transparent in this way.
There is a quote atributed to naturalist David Atenborough: "People who believe in infinte growth are either fools or economist." And this quote is quite a few decades old.
I don't see the future with "Donut Economy" but "Tree Economy": a economy can grow very VERY big, just like a tree, BUT as it grows it must develop fruits (money) that come down to the ground (the rest of us) to make other & more trees grow.
I learned about the doughnut from an Australian documentary called 2040: it tells us about what we need to do to make the people of 2040 live a good life, and what their life will be like in the ideal situation if we work more for the planet and less for ourselves.
What a great video. Easy to understand and definitely a video I would show if I ever encountered the leaders of the world
Share it with everyone else and eventually someone will show it to them.
Not that it would change anything.
@@prabalmishra9528 Yes it does. At a small degreee. Better a litlle bit than nothing.
Thank you. I do see now that a better planet is the first thing for a better economy
“Partnered with the World Economic Forum”
Tells me all I need to know about TED
The first step we need to take is to acknowledge that the economy is not only bad, but in such a state that it needs to either be completely overhauled or replaced. This means figuring out the issues and then eradicating said issues. We must then focus on moving away from profits and instead move back to making sure everyone can thrive under it, because at the end of the day, the economy is only successful when the people can thrive in it and not how high the profits are.
Economists and governments using GDP as a standard for the entire country without realizing it doesn't take into account the welfare of citizens or the environment, kinda reminds me of how social security numbers are LITERALLY used for everything essential when they should really only be used for retirement benefits.
Still strange to me that the states doesn’t have ID numbers/ cards specific unique identification of individuals
You use your ssn your entire life to determine how much retirement benefits you will be entitled to based on how much taxes you paid in your lifetime.
I've always wondered independently how there can be this unrealistic expectation of growth forever. In a finite world, there will come a point where there's no more goods and services needed. There must be a peak...right?
People seem to forget that our economies depend on the ecosystem. Economics is at the end of the day - a study of how we use our finite resources.
although resources are finite, needs (including what you want as a "need") are not. so there is always a push to produce something else. If for instance, everybody had all their basic needs met, and we had all the resources to satisfy them all the time, they quickly would try to satisfy wants (Like owning a yatch, or the new iphone, or etc). so even in this ideal world where everybody has what they need, there would be pressure to make more.
And although resources on earth are finite, we don't actually have access to all of them at once. Let's say that we need metal for instance. As we ran out of it, the cost of making things out of metal rises. And 2 things happens. First, there is a push for alternatives, and second, there is a push to invest on more expensive, previously non viable ways to extract metal from deeper veins. So although the economy of metal made products would probably shrink, the economy of tools to extract ore, or alternatives would increase, and thus you may still experience some growth.
And thats "On earth".
Besides, in math there are multiple ways to make functions that are constantly growing, but constrained between a value (I.E: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 +1/16.... always increases, but it's limit would be 2) so there could be a peak, and we could be constantly growing towards it, but never reach it (Of course at some point the growth would be negligible, but it is technically still growing)
A healthy economy is not one that grows for eternity, it’s one that has stability and balance, minimizing poverty and controlling the rich.
"....and the hole in the ozone layer and the extinction of the species.. Hang on! we are ignoring our planet... literally *undermining* the *life-supporting systems* on which we depend."
Left me pondering!
_How well-balanced depiction of the essence of the word "balance" is brought to limelight via the doughnut theory!_
Conveys a lot. #LoveTed_Ed
Is this a good time to buy stocks/crypto in the Europe? I know everyone is saying stocks are at a discount and all, but just how long will It take for us to recover, obviously there are strategies to manoeuvre in this present market but these strategies doesn't come common to the average folk, or am I better off putting my money elsewhere.
@Rose Allen I agree, that's the more reason I prefer my day to day investment decisions being guided by an inv-coach, seeing that their entire skillset is built around short & long term holdings for profit realisation, coupled with the exclusive analysis they possess, it's near impossible to not out-perform. I've been investing with a coach literally for 4years, and have accrued approx. $1.4m in net-profits thus far.
@Rose Allen I am guided by ASHLEY AIRAGAHI I found her on a CNBC interview where she was featured and reached out to her. She has since provided entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can look her up online if you care supervision.
The thing is, though, we solved the ozone layer problem--we can actually fix problems.
And overall, things are getting much better for people, thanks to economic growth. It's the richest countries that invest the most in renewables, and it's the rich countries that can better manage national parks.... Growth does not necessarily come into conflict with nature.
"Perfectly balanced, as all things should be... "-Thanos
He was right, we all know it.
@@leoelliondeux I recently noticed something in guardians of the galaxy. When they introduce gamora in the prison, on the left corner it says "Last surviving member of the Zehoberei people", which implies that after halving the population, the planet died off, and it wasn't the utopia he described.
Or maybe something else conveniently killed them, but I doubt that.
@@federicocaputo9966 As I remember Thanos massacred them all
A closed-minded, pessimistic video. I hope nobody confuses it with economics. Of course the GDP can grow continuously 📈, just look at what AI is bringing to global productivity.
Good point and a desirable goal, but firstly how will we know that we have exceeded our 'growth period' (there could be more discoveries and technologies which will seem vital to the people of the future) and secondly how will we transition the economy? Welfare states need constant growth to accommodate its citizens.
Why do you think welfare states need constant growth to accomodate it's citizens? They don't if citizens would be satisfied with a slightly slower growth in welfare. We might not be able to use more resources, but we could develop the art of doing more with less. Essentially just focusing on getting more efficient.
@@bobthegoat7090 yea but inflation
@@bobthegoat7090 growth-based economics is based on growing ever-more efficient. The largest way to create growth is through increasing output by decreasing the amount of input needed for each unit of output. Degrowth (what this video is parroting) is based on rejecting that, and saying that we should just be content with stagnation.
@@crymmt6329 But surely no one will have a problem with growing more efficient, if it does not affect input negatively. Of course, the main fact is that we should be content with 0% growth, but surely even people that support degrowth will be okay with an action that only increases efficiency. Let's say we have archived 0% growth and everything is sustainably run. In this imaginary world, we have a power plant that produces 1 GW of energy. Surely, everyone will agree it is a good thing if we can somehow produce 1.5 GWh if we found a more efficient way to use the resource that the plant uses?
And how would you implement this in companies and economies?
Currently most companies survive based on having more growth than the opposition. Since the more money you have the more you can improve and compete in the market.
True. In a growthless economy, one man's growth is another's loss. So we are stuck with either no advancement in technology or advancement at the cost of another's bankruptcy
I think give the full interview a go: ua-cam.com/video/X6lC-7BIWts/v-deo.html
We do doughnut economy in many places, raising families comes in circles for example. More and more people choose companies not because they are biggest but also because they stand for a better idea or better conduct. We need to do more of that.
We don't need 100 new billionaires on top of cut throat companies whose employees don't sleep, this will make only very very few people happy, but creating 100 billion worth of goods and services for people currently in the 'hole' will bring so much opportunity for the world.
@@katarinajanoskova I am very convinced laws would change the moment it's to late and not a moment before.
And by to late I mean when major cities start to be abandoned because of to many crisis like economically and climate wise.
Implement what? It is not the job of government to implement any of this into a company. Who decides what balance in a company is?
That's not right. Companies survive when their income is greater than their expenses, that is, they have profits, and you do not need to be the apex predator of the market to make a profit; companies share different percentages of the market and when they have profit they can expand and innovate, they only disappear when their costs exceed their income.
I thank you so dearly for spreading these messages on such a large platform, I hope as you this more and more, it can lead to people to dig deeper into these kinda subjects.
Actually I had the same thoughts. The more people understand the economy, the more we can start questioning what is and exploring the possibility of what could be with our economic systems
MOST FASCINATING VIDEO I HAVE EVER SEEN . IT SHOULD BE SHOWN TO EACH AND EVERY PERSON IN THIS WORLD
Our health lies in balance ❤
Wow. A deep sense of hope (the actual realistic kind of suggestion that fundamentally humans have the intuition to get ourselves out of this capitalist mess) for the first time in a significant portion of my young life. Thank you greatly.
Masterfully simplified and explained!
5:34 I just love "Have enough but not too much", it sounds like a chorus of a song, like "If not now, then when?"
The theory mixes degrowth and MMT into a pot or "doughnut", that's it. Note, Kate Rawoth doesn't actually present any mathematical model just emotional allusions to cancer (although admittedly, this is a youtube video). Her points like "GDP doesn't factor in "communities or the enviroment" but it kinda already does. Property value is usually associated with the quality of the community, for example, if it has parks nearby, or good schools or its safe.
Moreover, Rawoth talks about the lack of decoupling GDP from C02 emissions, but that's already happening. The C02 output of developed economies has been consistently declining whilst GDP has been growing.
"We need to radically reduce our use of Earth's resources"
This would have to include austerity measures, not just for rich countries, but also developing and poor nations whose economies are dependant on trading resources, like oil.
Nowhere does Kate present a model beyond a picture. She doesn't present how she wants to convince developing nations to stop consuming resources beyond moral panic.
Yep, this is moronic and doesn't propose anything new... really sad to think so many people think this video is profound, stopping economic growth also means stopping research and development and how does she expect to convince governments to handicap themselves by limiting growth, when the majority of countries haven't figured out proper healthcare access
@@cool.guy. The biggest issue is that no major economies, especially major developing economies, would accept this proposal. What do we do if everyone agrees but China or the US or India simply refused and chose to pursue maximising growth? Invade or sanction their economies? Activists like Rawoth don't have an answer.
It's sort of stated on the video that this is a fringe theory but I wish there was more balance and you'd expect from this channel.
@@cool.guy. how does stopping economic growth=stopping innovation? Stopping economic growth would just mean that we've reached market saturation. Frankly, a good chunk of industries have reached that point. Now, they're trying to create value out of nothing. From creating artificial shortages with oil and natural gas, creating paygates by that car company that charged users $100/month so they could drive faster, to creating products with planned obsolesence so they could keep selling it. Endless growth is a delusion
The way she articulates her points is so simple and clear im impressed
The problem is that society needs to change that way of thinking now, and pragmatically speaking i really doubt that the big companies are willing to completely rethink their form of doing bussiness. With no real change from the private sector this world is faded to disaster and i'm really pessimist about it.
When we produce too much food the government burn down fields. When we use too much energy we get adjusted crises. The reality, the only truth is that we either got or we don't have.
WEF, please leave Ted-Ed alone. You have your own channel.
So glad to hear economists talk on saving the planet.
Economists don’t know anything about saving the planet. This sounded like activism, not economics.
Greatest channel in UA-cam... For me
So basically we need balance which is something that probably everyone already is aware of....
But the question is HOW DO WE ACHIEVE A SUSTAINABLE STATE OF BALANCE?
We could start by not constantly trying to screw each other over. Stop speculation on essential needs like food and housing. Stop the quasi-colonialism of large corporations like Nestlé. Educate. Grant equal rights to women everywhere. Stop heroizing billionaires. Rethink (or rather demolish) intellectual property. Separate income from work, at least to some extent.
@@lonestarr1490 how would those things help?
The free-to-play video game model, essentially. Necessities would be guaranteed; superfluous amenities, entertainment, and other such non-necessities would still require payment.
@@rafetizer How would you keep a continuous workflow from every person? If needs are satiated, then more permanent wants like a computer that has access to the internet will be enough to massively decrease a person's work output.
You know I think one of the main problems is that humans work for themselves, not to better humanity, but to make money so they can live a comfortable life. Humans just aren't righteous enough to actually create a donut economy, there will always be people who want more and more and more. I never really understood why rich people just want more money, they've got enough money to live a relaxing life and could basically retire right then and there...but they just want more money for some reason
"We think that endless growth is progress"
Well I certainly never believed that and I would even dare say most people don't believe it either
wow this came so close to having even one useful suggestion and then just ended before identifying even one idea that could be used . Its like saying we should end war without giving any idea how to do that !
Honestly, to end war you would have to modify the human genome itself, humans love to kill eachother, and we should stop war exactly because we are good at killing eachother
What do you mean? The solution is extremely simple. Countries just need to stop growing and be content with that. It's not like it's hard to do that if you just make the decision. The hard part is getting EVERY country to agree to it. Maybe that was also what you were getting at.
@@bobthegoat7090 we shall start the reduction with your life - thank you for volunteering comrade
@@woltews What a thoughtful and constructive comment, filled with well worded arguments. I am sorry I just have no counterarguments as your own are bulletproof. Really shows the sheer magnitude of your intelligence.
@@bobthegoat7090 the main point I was making is that although you guessed at a solution they presented non . You are guessing at what a solution might be but they presented nothing other than a general idea of what might be nice .
As someone who grew up around Cambodian refugees in the late 70s and early 80s the solution I gave you is not without president from the real world . Sadly as the people who created the video presented no solution we are left to only guess at what have been the idea they had in mind ..
A thought on your idea is if one nation decided to abandon no growth it will quickly rise to the point of being able to dominate all others who do not completely give up on growth and may impose its will on the others by the fact they face a limiton it dos not face .
I am glad this speaker confirms what I thought all along. In a world of finite resources, infinite growth is a myth.
Infinite for a few... very few...!
0:35.....5:40 this is just beautiful and satisfying
"Of all tyrannies, one sincerely exercised for the good of it's victims might be the most opressive. It would be preferable to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies. The Baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, their cupidity might be sated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us with no end, for they do so with the approval of their own consciences".
C.S. Lewis.
So how do we implement that into the stock market? Should stable companies be more rewarded?
It is possible to achieve growth without damaging the environment. The oversimplification of growth = environment degradation, presented here is a very dangerous and wrong ideal that greatly undermines the struggle to preserve our planet.
Many in developing countries are saying they need to damage the environment because their economies haven't grown yet to the rich country levels and that the currently rich countries grew that way. This makes it an ethical necessity to keep damaging the environment since you can't ask poor nations to keep their populations impoverished to preserve the planet while suffering from the fact that the citizens of rich nations have already damaged the planet. We must accept that the world population is still growing and most of the world population is struggling too much to care for the environment. The way forward should be by focusing on making our growth environmentally sustainable.
Great explanation, so true so important, we need balance and harmoney to survive
As much as I understand the idea that too much greed as a side-effect of growth IS a problem, I do not see a solution in this video. It just touches on a popular/woke theme.
Growth does not have negative side-effects only - if correctly applied it reduces wealth loss by inflation (from which society does profit)
Wealth distribution (mentioned in the video) is not a problem of growth, but of corruption!
Growth does work if applied correctly, meaning that we pursue growth by technological means while we use limited resources wisely.
If used unwisely, greed+corruption leads to the mentioned problems as spreading inquality or environmental problems - not growth per se.
well i mean she never said it was a bad thing either she just said that too much is when it becomes unhealthy for the economy
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey
Edit: and it's usually fatal.
Both for its victim(earth) and itself.(humanity)
Here’s a concept. The point of the economy is the flow of goods and services to where they are needed, the dollar represents trade value to avoid the trade of goods on hand. Thus, it represents the ideal of a “fair trade”. Gold backed it as a contingency because people saw it for what it was… worthless. Nowdays, the notes hold value because there is confidence in these notes. Instead of goods going to where they are needed, however, the goods flow to the highest bidder.
Doing away with profit as the driving force, it would need to be replaced by another kpi and social perception would need to shift from hyper consumerism to moderation. Allow the diversification of economic forces and protect the individual’s ability to create. Not every idea should persist, but allowing ideas to flourish would see a strengthening of the economy.
I don't think the ozone layer is that big of a problem now. I'm fairly sure that has been fixed. Search it up if you want more info.
I absolutely loved this video, her voice is so good and they way she talks, passionate and smart.
A good example of an issue we created, noticed, and then fixed through policy.
Best video of current time!
A healthy economy is when our social system provides everybody with a satisfactory way of life, where they can share equal opportunities to earn, reside and enjoy what nature has to offer. This is not only from nature itself, but for the unwasteful use and employment of natural resources as one of the 3 factors of production, as explained by Adam Smith is 1776 in his clasic book "Wealth of the Nations". These factors are Land (the natural resource which is most significant), Labour (ourselves) and Capital (invested durable goods for making other produce). In common with Kate's ideas, we need to better understand of what our social system REALLY comprises and ACTUALLY how it works.
Firstly it must be understood to comprise of a system of functioning sectors, each of which makes a contribution to the whole system. This understanding is not yet an ethical one, but before this idea is accepted we will never begin to identify where the unethical bits are to be found (and changed or eliminated).
In my 310 page book "Consequential Macroeconomics" I succed in explaining how to convert from the past ideas (which were a complicated and confusing mess for explaing this topic) which the experts sometimes recognize as a pseudo-science, into what is far more logical and organised as a true science, instead. We need to get a proper understanding about it before looking for the parts that we should improve and change.
I could explain it immediately, but this topic needs some serious study so please ask me for an e-copy and I will gladly send one to you for free. chestdher@gmail.com😎
Balanced economy is something that everyone wants
Excited for your video funded by the World Economic Forum about trickle down economics!!!
Thank you for sharing
It's easy for people that come from developed countries to judge how certain civilization must use their natural resources
But for the most of the country that not yet developed , it's their only chance to be developed to keep up with other nations to be developed one...but unfortunately for them when they try to develop their country people that never know their struggle and suffering.lecture them tomstopmehat they're doing because they damaging the nature, they get sanctions, they get embargo, they get isolated from international community
Then they think everyone want to annihilated them so they go into defense mode try to protect their freedom amd sovereignty with anything they can
Why do I love watching something of that kind
Please we need to push this video out to people
"Trees don't grow to the sky" - German Proverb
Balance is Key
*_I hope TED-ED never ends and keeps on spreading all the love and happiness_* 💓
bot
Not to diminish this brilliant author's work, but what she preaches is actually something that used to be common sense. If we look into the history of human thoughts, we can see different versions of this wisdom across many cultures. It only seem to be novel because what we call Economics today, is but a thinly veiled, sophisticated elaboration of colonialism.
You are being very diplomatic 🙏
Growth is not about method, it’s about nature. The fundamentals of nature is rooted in thought. Good thoughts create good economies. Not good intentions, Good thoughts.
This was amazing
What we desperately need is an economy based on "enough".
Thanks ted ed
Love from india 💙🇮🇳
@@nabanildas5819 bhadwe log hn pata nahi itna narcissism kaha se aata hn
We have systems to deal with timeframes like the economic cycle. If individuals could somehow envision and plan beyond a single generation that would then improve the systems we build to avert collapse.
So helpful , Thanks.
To solve this problem of the lack of resources we actually need to replace our resources acquiring source from a single planet(earth) to the outer space planets and asteroids, earth has limited resources but on outer space there are planets with unestimated resources enough to sustained the economic growth for thousands years.
Unfortunately not only are we reducing our resources but we also are destroying what of them is left, due to the greed for national progress, without regard to others (and even to ourselves in a longer run). What we need is a international body which has respect for those living in other nations and are less well-off than ourselves, one who willing shares its opportunites without damaging them beyond the way nature can recover by itself.
we're centuries far from having the technological capacity to mine on extraterrestrial bodies, let alone the logistical capacity of transporting tons of raw materials back here. it's better at the moment to just focus on what we have here.
You can’t be too healthy, just like you can’t be too rich
It’s okay to compare one part of health to one part of wealth
But comparing one part of health to all wealth doesn’t make sense
Despite the U.S economy being as big as it ever was. The standard of living have remained stagnant or declining. 40 years ago you could work full time and afford rent and extra expenses. Today, you can't even afford rent working full-time at minimum wage jobs.
"an undertsanding of the deep interdependence of our world" THAT SLAPPED
I deeply disagree with her conclusion. Humanity is nowhere near the limit of our potential. Our quest for progress and the betterment of our species SHOULD be eternal. The minute we stop because some people decide "this is good enough", we condemn our future.
Right. Progress is not necessarily the same as "growth".
Societal progress is not the same as capitalist economic growth
According to the 1972 MIT study "Limits to Growth", we are within decades of reaching complete catabolic collapse due to having grown beyond what our planet can sustain. The study has been redone several times, with the methodologies and variables being updated due to better knowledge being acquired in the previous decades since the last, and they keep forecasting that shortly after 2040, we're all screwed.
Remember to stay happy healthy and hydrated! 💗
I'm new to stock market /Crypto and would like to invest but I've go no idea on how to make good profits. Pls what's the best approach you'd recommend?
Wow I'm just shocked some one mentioned expert Mrs Evelyn Vera name i thought I'm the only one trading with her
Wow!! Impressive you trade with Mrs Evelyn Vera too! I thought people don't know her that well.... She's really awesome!
This is the kind of information that we don't get from most UA-camrs i will get in touch with her right now
Thanks. I will reach out to her on WhasApp immediately.
I met Mrs Evelyn Vera last year for the first time at a conference in BELGIUM. I invested $30,000 and traded in one month, making close to $200,000.
The fundamental problem with her theory is that in history most ecological catastrophes that have ever been solved have been solved through innovation. Whales being hunted to extinction stopped being hunted not because everybody turned down their lamps but because kerosene was invented and everyone was better off.
The lowest hanging fruit of innovation, however, has already been plucked and in order to get higher and higher we need more and more complexity and specialization and you can't have either of those without size, so economic growth is more likely to help in the fight to maintain Earth's ecology.
Top notch narration
Here's the thing, in a truly free market society, you can grow at the rate that you can and want, and central planning always fails.
La semana pasada un maestro nos dijo en una charla que para mantener el nivel de vida que tenemos debemos explotar a otros. Dijo que solo la desigualdad puede mantener nuestro actual estilo de vida. Que desilusión. Sí reconozco que inesperadamente pagar justo por unos neumáticos por ejemplo haría más difícil su adquisición pero en lugar de inspirar a crear alternativas para que el pago justo y la producción de bienes sean sostenibles nos dijo que no hay éxito sin crimen. Lo que me preocupa es la falta de idealismo o mínimo de hipocresía.
Siendo justos, eso ya no es necesariamente cierto. Con los avances en automatización e inteligencia artificial que se están haciendo se podría aumentar la productividad lo suficiente para que todo el mundo tenga una vida digna. Otra cosa distinta es cuánta gente viviendo una vida digna puede soportar el planeta... Esa es una discusión que nadie quiere tener.
Hay muchas cosas innecesarias de nuestro "estilo de vida", te aseguro que puedes vivir feliz sin uber eats y usando el transporte publico
It’s incorrect to think that economic growth means using more, which is not always the case.
Economic growth also means using our resources more efficiently
We need economic growth and innovation to create technologies like direct air capture to reduce our carbon footprint
Economic growth and ecological preservation are not mutually exclusive
What we DON'T need is the World Economic Forum.
A healthy society is one where people who govern do so knowing they are supposed to serve society and not just serve themselves and their cronies.
How to create a better economy
Step 1 remove lobbying
Step 2 remove corrupt politicians that make laws that affect the economy
Step 3 stop monopolies like apple and google
I think that first bit is the most crucial and serious part. People bash me for suggesting more regulations but it's actually what enables free, competitive environments. It combats monopolies, legal loopholes, and corruption.
Apple isn't a monopoly
So instead of shared growth and stimulating innovation to address climate issues, you’d rather have shared poverty and limited growth which will stifle any hope of innovation. Brilliant.
yep
I red her book, it was really good!
So nice! One of the best ever.
economy should keep growing to make life possible on mars and outer space which means people should keep learning or upskill and upgrade their knowledge. There is need for roadmap to slowly transition to knowledge based economy and also internalize the externalities in the economy like the waste management
this is the first time anyone has compared economic growth to a malignant tumor, and it makes so damn much sense to me!
but can we please declare greed as a mental illness NOW???
It's just human nature
ineffective and irrational analogy
What's the difference between greed and ambition? Who made you king? It's only because your ancestors were greedy that your even alive today. Lack of ambition is not a virtue.
It's not just the wealthy that want more, it's everyone wanting more clothes or more toys, things that we don't really need. Look up what it takes to just make one t-shirt and then decide if you're wanting more than you need. I'm just as guilty but trying to change.
in a lot of models, growth is equal to the productivity of an economy, that is how workers can produce more with less or perform more difficult tasks. Growth and the environment are apples and oranges. She is using "growth" in a very loose way.
Such an eye opener video this is.
I always recommend my students to read her book, brilliant
What do you teach?
How would this proposed economic model measure the inner and outer rings?
Is this model saying we (humans as a whole) have reached the outer ring already? Because the number of people continues to grow (by our choice) and even if we spread the world's wealth equally, i don't think there is enough to sustain our desired lifestyle.
Lastly, how does this model account for human ingenuity and innovation? The invention of the smartphone has produced more goods and services than say dishwashers but produced far less pollution.
The correct spelling of doughnut!!!❤