It's fabulous that younger generations are working towards being more sustainable. It's a great plan to define sustainability in absolute terms and create a system by which everything can be measured. I was hoping she was going to tell us what our planetary limit is and how that breaks down to each person. How much can I sustainably consume? Where should I draw the line? What areas can I do better in? Where am I doing a good job now?
I loved it! It would be useful to share some examples of the results you got from the calculations - how big are the shares - for everyone to get a feeling.
Far too vague to be useful. I didn't leave with an understanding of what absolute sustainability is, nor did I understand the equation you are using to get a yes/no. Also, the safe and dangerous rates of those various elements is not agreed upon.
The Brundtland definition of sustainability, (embedded in all UN discourse including the "Sustainable Development Goals") is most decidedly anthropocentric (concerned with future generations of humans living a particular "developed" lifestyle) and neoliberal (assuming that rampant consumerism and unlimited economic growth is a) necessary for sustainability and b) compatible with environmental sustainability). Unlike Naomi Klein in her "This Changes Everything", this speaker does not go nearly far enough to critique and pose solutions to the illogical, contradictory premise that you can have both economic growth (as we currently understand it) AND environmental sustainability. Or, as she might frame it, "have your cake and eat it too".
It is not clear enough for me what "absolute sustainability" is. What the answer of the third question. How can we determine that "Yes or no" result. Can anyone trying to clarify it?
Am I wrong or does she completely neglect social sustainability? Sustainability is not just about natural resources, a cake to be shared. Also the Brundtland definition is not defining sustainability, but sustainable development.
Absolute sustainability begins with water 💦. You can't do anything without water. You can grow, create, filter, provide, and survive. Just like every ancient civilization used aqueducts, and farming to build great cities and economies. It's absurd to think that the Earth will provide all of mankind's needs for fresh water. Let's break it down. How did these ancient times create these great feats and civilizations? Water, water distribution, economics, and creating something out of nothing. Like ancient societies, we need to create these things. Within all that is the answer.
My point is to make it profitable creating economic growth with hard work. If there was a 100-200 foot wide canal from New York to Los Angeles how many fish farms, hydroponic farms, algae farms, regular farms, water purification plants, and stored energy reservoirs could there be from just collecting stormwater and diverting water that would normally just flow into the ocean? The economic development of the US was based on cheap transport of goods, (The rivers, streams, and canals gave the US an advantage economically. ) Not to mention recreation and transport along the way.
Another point I would like to make is sustainable energy. Water storage is a great battery. When the grid doesn't need solar and wind energy(they turn them off periodically because the electrical grid has no use for that generated energy). What better thing to do than pump water with that energy?
The canal itself would only need a depth of 25-40 ft' deep(depending on the area and geography )and the jobs in all that. We could feed the world with a growth belt of that magnitude.
@Jess Mason you got a great idea there it sparked one of my own. Building a giant cyphon and using the flow of the water pressure provided by physics-based mechanics to get the water wherever you needed it, as well as proving the water with the ability to consistently flow back into the water source keeping the water happy and healthy instead of stagnant. Then, since it's flowing constantly, you can also put in a hydro power plant and then run the power next to the water in order to provide us with electricity. Cause where we have water we also need electricity... where we run our water, we also need food, so that would provide the water for growing crops as well as drinking.
This is the right path, finally something actionable. However, an activity cannot be defined as sustainable in isolation. The ceilings of resources are determined by its cyclical supply and also but the other activities that are already occupying/consuming a piece of the resource budget. If we are at the edge of all budgetary limits any activity is likely to be unsustainable, that is where deciding what activities are worth the movement of materials becomes critical. Nonetheless, this is a much more productive conversation already than companies randomly saying they are sustainable and all that useless talk.
thank god someone addreses this factor, like while it be a sustainability that I could afford? not something like "get an electric car!, buy organic food!, use solar panel energy!" like my guy, I gotta afford to live on a average wage.
Actually, you didn't say anything, are you afraid? Tell me clearly, you should say that in a world with capitalism, we will never have a sustainable life because companies are only concerned with making money. Don't be afraid, let's not be afraid.
Well I finished my Masters in Sustainability and I should say it’s over a vague term if you just look at the term. Just read and listen as much as you can and come with your own term and just let your idea be exposed to experts opinions. It helps a lot
I loved it! It would be useful to share some examples of the results you got from the calculations - how big are the shares - for everyone to get a feeling.
Great to hear a sustainability leader of the present - and the future!
Who's the leader haha
It's fabulous that younger generations are working towards being more sustainable.
It's a great plan to define sustainability in absolute terms and create a system by which everything can be measured.
I was hoping she was going to tell us what our planetary limit is and how that breaks down to each person.
How much can I sustainably consume?
Where should I draw the line?
What areas can I do better in?
Where am I doing a good job now?
Complicated questions
It’s a great pleasure for me to participate of this class from Sustentability from you !!
Best regards,
Paulo Vinicius Vilela de Mesquita
Brasil 🇧🇷
I loved it! It would be useful to share some examples of the results you got from the calculations - how big are the shares - for everyone to get a feeling.
Far too vague to be useful. I didn't leave with an understanding of what absolute sustainability is, nor did I understand the equation you are using to get a yes/no. Also, the safe and dangerous rates of those various elements is not agreed upon.
Totally loved this. Really revolutionary and would need to have lots of conversations around it, obviously very lengthy and with radical approaches. 💚
The Brundtland definition of sustainability, (embedded in all UN discourse including the "Sustainable Development Goals") is most decidedly anthropocentric (concerned with future generations of humans living a particular "developed" lifestyle) and neoliberal (assuming that rampant consumerism and unlimited economic growth is a) necessary for sustainability and b) compatible with environmental sustainability). Unlike Naomi Klein in her "This Changes Everything", this speaker does not go nearly far enough to critique and pose solutions to the illogical, contradictory premise that you can have both economic growth (as we currently understand it) AND environmental sustainability. Or, as she might frame it, "have your cake and eat it too".
Loved this Ted Talk, congratulations Anjila!
Bravo! Your language is pure gold! ❤
It is not clear enough for me what "absolute sustainability" is. What the answer of the third question. How can we determine that "Yes or no" result. Can anyone trying to clarify it?
Insightful Presentation
Absolutely insightful!
Am I wrong or does she completely neglect social sustainability? Sustainability is not just about natural resources, a cake to be shared.
Also the Brundtland definition is not defining sustainability, but sustainable development.
Absolute sustainability begins with water 💦. You can't do anything without water. You can grow, create, filter, provide, and survive. Just like every ancient civilization used aqueducts, and farming to build great cities and economies. It's absurd to think that the Earth will provide all of mankind's needs for fresh water. Let's break it down. How did these ancient times create these great feats and civilizations? Water, water distribution, economics, and creating something out of nothing. Like ancient societies, we need to create these things. Within all that is the answer.
A fire doesn't require water... 🔥
My point is to make it profitable creating economic growth with hard work. If there was a 100-200 foot wide canal from New York to Los Angeles how many fish farms, hydroponic farms, algae farms, regular farms, water purification plants, and stored energy reservoirs could there be from just collecting stormwater and diverting water that would normally just flow into the ocean? The economic development of the US was based on cheap transport of goods, (The rivers, streams, and canals gave the US an advantage economically. ) Not to mention recreation and transport along the way.
Another point I would like to make is sustainable energy. Water storage is a great battery. When the grid doesn't need solar and wind energy(they turn them off periodically because the electrical grid has no use for that generated energy). What better thing to do than pump water with that energy?
The canal itself would only need a depth of 25-40 ft' deep(depending on the area and geography )and the jobs in all that. We could feed the world with a growth belt of that magnitude.
@Jess Mason you got a great idea there it sparked one of my own. Building a giant cyphon and using the flow of the water pressure provided by physics-based mechanics to get the water wherever you needed it, as well as proving the water with the ability to consistently flow back into the water source keeping the water happy and healthy instead of stagnant. Then, since it's flowing constantly, you can also put in a hydro power plant and then run the power next to the water in order to provide us with electricity. Cause where we have water we also need electricity... where we run our water, we also need food, so that would provide the water for growing crops as well as drinking.
This is the right path, finally something actionable. However, an activity cannot be defined as sustainable in isolation. The ceilings of resources are determined by its cyclical supply and also but the other activities that are already occupying/consuming a piece of the resource budget. If we are at the edge of all budgetary limits any activity is likely to be unsustainable, that is where deciding what activities are worth the movement of materials becomes critical. Nonetheless, this is a much more productive conversation already than companies randomly saying they are sustainable and all that useless talk.
Very insightful .. let us continue to keep caring..
Can you share with us the mathematical eq in a separate video?
i advise you to watch this video
So nervous while talking
What is "really radical"? The goal of absolute sustainability includes the poor?
thank god someone addreses this factor, like while it be a sustainability that I could afford? not something like "get an electric car!, buy organic food!, use solar panel energy!" like my guy, I gotta afford to live on a average wage.
This "new definition" promotes excess emissions, which will still slowly cause temperatures to rise
how so?
as in how does a calculated limit promote excess emission?
(genuine question)
S u s t a i n a b l e = the new Code Word for G E N O C I D E !!!
Oh thank GOD a fellow human being with a brain! Hello Fren
why
Actually, you didn't say anything, are you afraid? Tell me clearly, you should say that in a world with capitalism, we will never have a sustainable life because companies are only concerned with making money. Don't be afraid, let's not be afraid.
Said absolutely nothing in so many words and images.
Communism.
horribe talk absolutelty useless fys atp
Oh my gosh and three seconds, and I already can’t stand the propaganda
same
11:24 minutes in and i still don't have a quantifiable definition of sustainability.. What is so great about this??? Utterly useless
Well I finished my Masters in Sustainability and I should say it’s over a vague term if you just look at the term. Just read and listen as much as you can and come with your own term and just let your idea be exposed to experts opinions. It helps a lot
Totally loved this. Really revolutionary and would need to have lots of conversations around it, obviously very lengthy and with radical approaches. 💚
I loved it! It would be useful to share some examples of the results you got from the calculations - how big are the shares - for everyone to get a feeling.