Recycling is nothing new. In my south London childhood after WW2 nothing was wasted, men with horses and carts would collect anything recyclable e.g. clothes. Paper bags, no plastic. Vinegar was sold loose, i.e. you supplied your own bottles.
Free trade capitalism rewards business leaders for being exploitative. With international trade, there is no political interaction for there to be any recourse between the exploiters and the exploited. These negative aspects of capitalism were much more easily managed before the barriers to international trade were demolished in the name of free trade.
One of the greatest drivers of this destructive growth spiral is the private central bank controlling "inflation", actually currency devaluation, and their control of the taxation 'industry'. Property tax, in particular, is one of the primary poisons because people are forced to pay monthly to an obscure department and will lose their property if they dont join the rat race to find some money every month to feed that monster. So then no one can just live comfortably in their home in a community while those who force this system onto the public from the controlling apex become the politically controlling Billionaires.
@@dougstevens1877 Thank you for pointing out the role of large national and international banks as being at the heart of the vast majority of our economic dysfunction. For those of you who are interested in learning more about this, I would encourage you to watch an example of this, such as what is portrayed in Princes of the Yen. This documentary provides a systematic and interesting example of how utter misery has been wrought on otherwise successful societies due to the deregulation and increased control granted to banks. ua-cam.com/video/p5Ac7ap_MAY/v-deo.html
There is a theory that a place with many saintly people will not experience major calamities and will not be damage by climate change but the climate of the place is heavenly balance of rain and sunshine !
This is a political model or a proposed regulatory model, not an economic model. That does not mean that none of these complaints or proposals (mostly complaints it seems) have merit, but nothing I listened to in the film offers a more accurate way than what we now have to describe how our economy works. Economics is the study of trade or exchange. There are not textbooks to describe the economies of ant or bee or termite colonies, because those economies are not based on exchange. A textbook of such an economy would merely be a production manual. You can complain about unequal outcomes or the risks posed by negative externalities, but these are regulatory and even philosophical issues, not inaccuracies in how existing economics textbooks describe how the economy functions. Not that such shortcomings in economic theory do not exist, but this video showed no interest in those shortcomings. Instead, it focused on regulatory and philosophical issues, and tried to blame them on economic theory, which is a flawed argument and a form of unethical scapegoating.
One of the greatest hurdles that I can see is that (at least here in the west) people are not "re-use / recycle" minded, They would rather toss their recyclable / compostable materials into the general trash (landfill) than to take the time to separate them out. Recycling post consumer waste becomes a nightmare when having to sort tons of biological waste or one recycle stream from another. I certainly can see the enormous benefits, and the reduced need for raw materials with a "circular economy". Great ideas.
Amen, my friend. Even as an adolescent, I was dumbfounded with the advent of products such as a Swiffer™. I watched the advertisement and thought, "We already have a great cleaning tool that we can use again and again: the broom!"
Kate, I like your model. To implement this we need people to have discourse. Sadly, even smart ones are incapable of deep analysis. They need the scope of discussion to be one tweet, one email, one text, or an emoji. The tools to solve problems have evolved to tools that can't solve problems.
The only way to correct an economy based on greed is to eliminate the origin of the source. Anything short of that could help a lot but will not truly bring economic harmony, it will just slow down the inevitable.
Perhaps not novel to you, but for the vast majority of Earth's population who have never heard these ideas, we still have much work to do in spreading the information. This is part of that initiative.
Excellent. Thank you. "When the love of God is established, everything else will be realized. This is the true foundation of all economics." - The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Baha'i Faith
This is the economy I wish since I realized we're on wrong track Finally there's someone following this great doc to watch and explore your mind Let's be a part of donuts economy
Time for VPRO documentary to also do a documentary of New Zealand's decision to exchange the GDP-measurement with LSF=Living Standard Framework. Where LSF must be more as EU-project beyondgdp want.
Circular economy sounds naissant with an auspicious and stalwart start. Designated stores retailing goods made from recycled materials offer good quality merchandise. Requires commitment from top down to achieve long term change as SME's effort isn't sufficient to drive this change through. Critical blue chip firms invest into eco friendly tech to influence politics.
I have mixed feelings about this docu. While I think it has good intent, it is merely creating awareness on what is going wrong, but does not offer an alternative model. The "donut" is not a model: it is merely a portray of the issue. The docu totally misses the mark on the approach as well, in fact unknowingly contributes to a sustained growth path. Let me explain why. Is the economic model of unlimited growth not sustainable, unnatural even? Absolutely! Do we need an alternative model? Yes, definitely. Is this docu a good way to create awareness for those who do not even realize there is a problem? Without a doubt! Do we know what are the points that need to be changed? We're not there yet, but are learning to understand these and any effort in this direction is a worthy effort. Does the displayed "model" offer any alternative? Hardly.. It is not tangible and its direction is misleading. The issue is, that first of all, this is not a new "model". It is merely a descriptive way of creating awareness for the true values of importance, that human social interests are central to our being, rather than an economy that is detached from these values, in fact detrimental towards them. All the shortfilm examples mentioned show this contradiction. The visual display of this contradiction is not a model showing a solution however. The ideas of how to solve the issues, i.e. to INVEST into alternative methodologies (recycling, reuse, etc.) are not making any changes to the existing economic model: the existing growth model is based on consumer demand and purchasing power growth. The growth of global population and purchasing power in Third World countries especially, leads to an increasing demand growth, which results in more industry and pollution, stress on the system, on the environment and on our social wellbeing. By replacing the existing economy's drivers with alternative methods that put less stress on the environment (due to being "green") will not make consumption any less! In fact, since alternative methods like solar energy are basically free and unlimited power if we learn the means to harness it, it will lead to even more economies of scale and this cheaper production cycle will lead to higher affordability, thus creating more consumption and more industry to supply this increasing production need. So if anything, any viable alternative means of going "green" will lead to more production. It is an illusion to think that by recycling materials, the energy need for the reycycling process will not be nearly as pollutive as the original production process.. Solar power needs solar cells, transmitting energy still needs cables, combustion engines will be replaced by electric appliances that need different but not less pollutive materials, etc. But even if we manage to reduce pollution, it does not change anything about the consumption patterns and the race for profits. If anything, people will feel more entitled to consume, since they are doing it based on "green" industries. Thinking that we put less stress on the system by decreasing direct cost to the services and products we buy, is naive to say the least, as decreasing the cost side will leave us with more excess purchasing power, which we will spend on more products and services in other fields. Will those recycled jeans cost us half the price due to renewable energy sources? Great, let's buy two, since my income is the same! So why should I need to buy 3 jeans a year when I could live more consciously to the environment, let's buy just one. Great, now I have money to spare, I can buy something else from those savings! Oh, I was not aware that this excess purchasing power creates more market demand elsewhere, so I put more stress on the environment in other fields.. And so the growth path continues. So the docu fails to adress how exactly we would want to reach this transition from the exponential consumption growth to the degressive "maturity" curve that peaks where we would no longer need to grow. How can any curve peak when an exponentially increasing factor in the equation is the number of consumers?.. It would mean that there would have to be an exponentially degressive consumption per capita to offset this growth, which would leave us with shorts instead of jeans in a few years' time and a mere fig leaf in a few decades.. There are base limits to how low the human consumption per capita can be driven down to, like food, clothing, shelter and basic necessities to survive. With exponential population growth we will therefore never be able to offset the difference, no matter how "green" we go, since our human bodies will not shrink to ants' sizes to accommodate for our growing numbers. There is a total disconnect between the discussed aspects (i.e. social stress and going green) and the causes of this growth path in the first place (population growth, purchasing power growth). Most of what is mentioned is wishful thinking, instead of any causalities resulting in positive change. Most ironically, the concept of "going green" through the innovative institutions like the Danish one towards the end, is being "sold" to the business by portraying how much PROFIT there is in this new revolution. If anything, it is the aspect of Profit that should be taken out of the economic model, since it is the number one culprit: it leads to more purchasing power, disproportionate power for corporations to control and monopolize whole industries and exploit all participants in the supply chain, like the shown example of the UK buyer of Chinese sweatshop products. If the buyer would not have such funds available, his influence on the supply chain would be less, profits more evenly distributed that lead to better living standards for those at the bottom as well. It is this power that needs a disruptive approach. Since this power originally stems from our purchasing power however, which is on a constant growth path due to mentioned population size and increasing wealth, any alternative is doomed to fail. To stop the growth path, humanity will have to stop growing as a whole and our consumption would need to radically decrease to much lower levels, since we are already with too many of us on this planet. Without changing both of these, humanity is doomed to fail as a whole. We should all learn to live more humbly and closer to nature. Not just to appreciate it, but also to preserve it.
The problem isn’t that your wages haven’t increased in real terms in years. The problem isn’t that you have lost your job, can’t find a new one making half what you made before. The problem is that you want to make more than you used to make, or as much as you used to which was obviously unsustainable. You need to want stagnation. You need to want your standard of living to decline over time. It’s for your own good.
Ultimately, if we compromise the ecosystems that provide us with life, then wages, jobs, and standard of living mean nothing. If you disapprove of what Kate Raworth has posited, what do you propose is a better economic model in its place?
Nirvana7734 Yea of course I agree with that. So if another person was making a living and in the process part of his income was indirectly lowering everyone else’s standard of living, that is called in economics a negative externality. I firmly believe that taxes and regulations should be created to either eliminate negative externalities (by creating incentives which are countervailing to the incentives leading to the negative incentive) or if they cannot be eliminated, the public should be compensated for such negative externalities. My plan would be to set up a carbon tax or cap and trade system, such that there will eventually be no incentive for people to generate excessive carbon and other greenhouse gas and other particularly destructive pollutants. Then you could use the proceeds to lower rates of other taxes, and some of it to compensate people, especially the poor for the some of the higher energy prices that would obviously result, and perhaps some other indirect price increases resulting from higher energy input prices, and lower wages resulting from the reduction in overall economic activity. Her plan seems to be for us all to become poorer, seemingly by spending g less money on overpriced designer jeans and buying slightly less overpriced designer jeans instead.
@@user-wi3yx3gy2o Your plan has merit, but while (in this particular comment, at least) you are only speaking about the energy sector, she's most definitely talking about a lot more than the energy sector and jeans. Carbon taxes and cap & trade systems are a helpful stepping stone, but we DEFINITELY need to go much further than that. Her propositions for waste re-use are commendable, but your mention of the energy sector highlights a critical topic must be addressed. I think that coupling your ideas with Jeremy Rifkin's ideas highlighted in "The Third Industrial Revolution" (e.g., energy production cooperatives and sharing economies) are, in my current estimation, the best ways forward regarding energy. Raworth's ideas fit nicely into this entire picture.
Nirvana7734 I’m not very familiar with Rifkin, but his views seem to be more observation rather than recommendations. In any event I have no problem with people organizing their lives or organizations as long as in the process, they minimize coercion. I think that saying you are going to make the lives of people better by collectivizing them and taking away their individual freedom and initiative is counterproductive to say the least.
Weinhold Weinhold Rifkin and his firm have advised world governments on economic policy, who have then put into place (according to Rifkin, at least), so I am FAIRLY confident in saying that he is solidly in the camp of action over observation. Minimal coercion is ideal, but sometimes coercion is necessary. I love freedom, until such time as, for example, a company is free to pollute the air we breathe and/or the water we drink. Then, I would have little problem with a little coercion. Beyond that, and on the greater scheme of things, what's more desirable: being free to destroy ecosytems for future generations, or being coerced into preserving them?
That does not relate. What if knowledge were managed the same way? Economics is the trade of solving a person's perceived problem and paying the solver in some form of value; capitalism. There should never be a limit in attempting to satiate a person's perceived needs as that would undermine our free will. Communism attempted to limit what would satiate a person in material wealth as well as empowerment and we know how well that satisfied their problems. As a society we could never have supported 7+ billion people without the ability to solve problems and the primary construct for this was/is capitalism. Problems should be the focus as Kate has demonstrated. Capitalism is the construct that holds each of us accountable to society in solving their perceived problems. GDP and the growth of stock price/value are symptoms of our abilities to solve peoples' problems as is our population size; delivering life to more people is glorious as is gaining knowledge to empower each of us and should never be limited. This needs to be reciprocated with preserving the property rights and liberties of the individual by holding society accountable to the individual by agency of the state being lent the power by the people.
@@benevolentdictator2315 "Capitalism is the construct that holds each of us accountable to society in solving their perceived problems. " Really?! Then why do about 2000 individuals currently control 50% of the wealth and resources of the entire planet, leaving the bottom 2 billion or so, with almost nothing? Something tells me there is going to be paradigm change whether the top 1% want it or not.
Next we will send dust satellites in the future because its very light in the future,the latest micro satellites is just a size of a medium package box and many in Singapore for sale and cheaper.But my original idea is the sand satellites ! the smaller is the trending now !
So my complaint is that whoever is managing the economy is obviously doing a bad job. To fix these obvious problems of the real world not living up to my wildest dreams of prosperity and equality, we need to get new economic managers. What?... That’s not how it works?... Wr tried that and is was the single worst idea ever? Ok this is confusing and Im getting a headache; just do what I say.
You are almost there...go with it and soon you will be rejoicing the beliefs of Marx, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Che Guevara and maybe Hugo Chavez. you too can be like an ant, bee or termite. Us humans have so much free will and power we lack the ability to manage it as well as the ants and bees.
Monetary theory. in the "modern economy" ALL money is borrowed at interest. SO IF YOU BORROW $1WITH 5CENTS INTEREST TO PAY IT BACK: You pay back the dollar(with the original dollar) but the 5cents has to come from growth.
Just send out a new posting when you have it fixed for the English speakers. It applies much more in non English speaking parts of the planet if it is about changing the economic system but it would still be interesting to be sure.
Kate's idea, assuming it is hers and not her benefactor's that sponsors her, is not an economic model; it is a sociological and environmental model that does not consider human nature in its entirety. Ants, bees and termites can use her idea because their comm is controlled by chemicals, pheromones in the case of these guys that have not evolved in over a 100 million years...they must be doing something right...sans the free will and the ability to create beyond the programming.
But we are getting closer every century, as noted by the size of our population finally reaching the biomass of all the ants on Earth; we could never support the needs of this many people if we were "too" wrong.
Only a young woman could be so naive! She has no clue what she is talking about. She only looks at the surface of the problems. We must not only change methods and expectations, we must actually change our psychology and life styles. There is absolutely no motive to do this because we still think in terms of profit and loss. These ideas MUST be thrown out the window! Who will do that? Money and success are indelibly imprinted on our minds from birth! Competition is anathema to a green planet, yet she repeats the programming without even recognizing the contradiction. What hope is there if she is the best and the brightest? None!
@Peter, yes, true, but I still think that, when the party finally ends, mankind will eventually be better off after the party than we were before the party, unless the genetic deterioration that our relatively high level of prosperity and security causes should proceed too far. Only in that regard would we be better off collapsing sooner rather than later. BTW, people like this spokesgirl who complain about drudgery must have had very easy lives. Most of the human race has much bigger worries than drudgery. A certain increase in drudgery is the price we have been willing to pay for poverty reduction--at least unless robots replace those jobs, sending the former workers from drudgery into either chronic unemployment or low paying service jobs. At that point, people like her will still be complaining after they have gotten what they wished for. Some people will be satisfied with nothing but utopia, but utopia never comes in this world.
"Poverty is the future", funny how statistics disagrees with you. Only in the last 20 years we reduced the number of poor people by 1 billion. Get your facts straight
Nope...this is a subjective idea based on few facts. Just wait for then to work out the details of their idea because they have nothing that will work as they ignore human nature.
Give up a pair of jeans that actually fit in only a week? I will wear them for years. By the time you could get them back to recycle them they'd be quite thoroughly worn out. Ditto anything else I own
There all sorts of downsides with this too. For ex the rent your jeans. It will cost you much more money for the same product. Also there is a danger that the product will be recycled before the end of life. When owned it still might be used for a year or two. But when leased and you're up for a new pair, you just will recycle, even when you still would use them under normal circumstances. Besides realistically over 90% of the world population is at the very center of the donut. You not only have to get them out of the center of the donut, you have to get them to a level so they can participate in the processes as well... In the end you have not addressed the fact that we are just with too many people. At the current birth rate the center of the donut will be expanding, not the sustainable outer parts. It's a nice, idealistic idea but that is currently all it is...
In Australia there was a recycling push all rate payers had to pay extra for collecting the recycling rubbish. Initially it was shipped to other countries to recycle. But now China doesn't want it it goes into land fill. Yet we are all still paying. The glass is 90% cheaper to import from china than to recycle locally. So no company can afford to pay $70 a ton to recycle when they can import bottles already made in china for $10 a ton. All these ideas are just to create a new tax on the people. We now have a 10 cent tax on all plastic bottles which can be refunded if taken to a collection centre. The collection centre gets 30 cents a bottle to collect them. So the extra 20 cents is covered by the tax payer and where do these bottles go? If the can be smuggled into another country like Malaysia or they just go into land fill....So what happened rate payers pay to get recycling collected that isn't recycled (except paper/cardboard) then their is a 10 cent duty on bottle and the rate payers once again pay an extra 20 cent per bottle for someone to collect and then put in land fill??????????
just water bottles the annual usage over 500 million. Not including Soda or as we call soft drink. So triple this number sounds fairly reasonable when considering every other product that also comes in plastic..sauces cleaners etc etc etc
Well, you see economic growth is bad for the economy because economic growth causes environmental degradation, and economic degradation is bad for the economy. So what you need to do is get rid of economic growth, and that will fix the economy.
Yep...how will Kate micro manage the subjective thoughts of each individual without having to do the Pol Pot thing. Her idea works great for ants, bees and termites as noted by their not having evolved in 100's of millions of years. Human nature NEEDS to be part of the equation, hence the problem with social sciences because the participants are also the observers and rule makers, unlike natural sciences.
That is awesome. Very much in tune with Hyperianism and project such as The Venus Project and Drawdown. The knowledge is there, we simply need rational minds to unite and work together. Look out Ontological Mathematics if lightyear interest you.
You could change things very quickly by making it financially worthwhile for people to start sharing the jobs we decide we actually do NEED people to do and work LESS......there is no other way to stop infinite growth.
She lost me when she said regulations and government are a must. Is she saying she can't convince people or businesses to buy her donut???? Is FORCE what she's highly suggesting???? She might want to rethink this strategy....
You are absolutely so right. If it ever becomes fashionable to have the same pair of jeans for ten years, then there won't be a market for endless new pairs. There were people who passed down gold watches through three generations. Can you imagine if a smart phone was marketed on the theory that it would last for 50 years how different the economy would be? Consumer demand, social mores, and a change in desire for endless plastic throwaways could be far more useful that more laws.
It seems the donut theorem is so foreign that people are only capable of analysing it through the lens of capitalism. How amusing! In capitalism, the cost of environmental degradation and resource depletion are externalised, or kicked down the road. In industry devoid of regulation, there is NO CHANCE that a company can revolutionise itself into a circular donut model, while its competitors are free to continue business-as-usual making cheaper, shorter-lasting shit where the environmental load of the BIRTH, LIFE AND DEATH of the product is not its problem. SHIT, it’s not even the problem of the consumer or society presently, let alone the company. We just kick the problem down the road, BURY IT. When future generations need more hydrocarbons [etc], they can dig it all back up again and it’s THEIR PROBLEM. When our groundwater has completely disappeared or is unusable, then it will be THEIR PROBLEM. When our soil is a barren, lifeless, polluted dustbowl it will be THEIR PROBLEM. Only government, and let's face it-to truly tackle the scale of the problem-international cooperation, can force and coordinate companies to be environmentally and RESOURCE responsible; or force and coordinate investors to think more than a strictly FINANCIAL return; or force and coordinate consumers to think more than just this passing MOMENT’s consumption. When I buy a mobile phone-even if I am the greenest citizen it the world-can I realistically research how much lithium, gold, etc is in the phone, where they were sourced from, how recyclable it is, how updatable it is, how repairable it is, whether it has obsolescence built in to it? Presently, even if I manage the greenest mobile company in the world, can I be expected to, and will I be rewarded to do likewise?
@@AniishAu The simple answer is do not buy any mobile phone. Don't wait for some authority to fix it. Fix it in your own life. We can be like dominoes. I stop standing in line for the system, you stop standing in line for the system, eventually the system does not have any dominoes left standing. Nobody will produce stuff they cannot sell; not for very long, now will they? We can live without mobile phones, but the manufacturers cannot live without us giving them money.
@@juliemignard8448 My dear, I don't have a mobile, but if you suggest that the solution is we have to wait until consumers are like me, this planet is a lost cause. It will never happen.
What a load of nonsense. No one has claimed that there will be infinite growth. Furthermore when she is talking vaguely about "growth" she is talking about human wealth - human standards of living. Food, education, travel, healthcare etc. Without high growth the working class will not obtain a middle class lifestyle within their lifetime.
Yep, very subjective. I want to know who is sponsoring her. Who is her benefactor as that will answer some question of motivation and origin of the thoughts Kate delivers.
Humanity must live in accordance with the Earth can provide that is only achievable by technology and the application of the scientific method in social systems.
@@benevolentdictator2315 is the application of the same method that we use to build bridges but in global scale and with in social culture. Follow the link please.
To continue the biological analogy, why are some people trying to stunt the child's growth? Growth should be allowed to run its natural course. It will stop on its own when the time is right. And although arguments can be made that economic theory falls short in some important respects, the specific arguments that this video makes are not among those that would rationally justify changing the economic textbooks. The role of any science, including economics, is to describe how things work, not to prescribe how you think they "should" work, or how you wish they worked. People who are under the delusion that things work the way they do because some branch of science prescribes it rather than describes it are so scientifically illiterate that they are not worth listening to.
Communism was also the perfect system, at least in theory. But people didn’t cooperate equally....so the system collapsed. The common denominator between communism and capitalism is People. People have very opposite aims and needs. Some need a lot and some are happy with what they got. The only way to balance these differences so that it works for everybody is an AI government where even the politicians will be controlled by the Machine of the law. In theory of course........
Nice idea. I think it exists in the form of God and it only works if each individual has free will, the paradox. The AI would need a back door to turn it off or reboot incase it became self-aware because we would not trust it, much less have faith in it. So back to God it is ...interesting paradox.
Un video cuyo sesgo ideológico desperfila lo positivo que tiene. A su vez, la economista parece no conocer la historia de la humanidad e ignora de que se trata la “singularidad” que viene.
Recycling will kick in when the price of resources rises high enough, that is, when the cost of extracting new resources exceeds the cost of recycling old resources. That sort of problem will resolve itself. Don't stunt the child's growth. Let him mature.
Good presentation, Smart presenter. Normative foundations of economics must be reworked. (Erik Olin Wright) Emancipatory social science is coming. Happy ending !
Ok. All nice and dandy, but how do you regulate economy without putting in place dystopian military state? You can't have freedom in the market and nongrowth economy. And how exactly do you wan't to make corporations to let go off their power to make exponential profits? Can you make all people buy only local products? Will you be willing to spend half of your paycheck on food? Will you enforce restriction on travel, massive tax on fuel? Will you tax having more than one child? Will you sack 50% of workers doing "bulshit" jobs? You see, there is no other solution to the problem of climate change than eradication of 90% of the population. We can do it in ugly way, by introduction of active eugenics. Or in more ugly way, waiting for wars and famine to do the necessary adjustment. Which one? Which one? Which one? Hurry up, you can't have your fucking donut and eat it too.
I hate factual inaccuracies. No islands are sinking under the sea. This has been disproven. Furthermore, sea level is not rising faster than its interglacial norm, and the correlation between atmospheric CO2 changes and temperature changes, at least during modern times when we have had somewhat accurate means of measuring these changes, has been zero, and even over much longer periods of time is quite weak. Correlation may not be causation, but, when causation actually exists, correlation will always exist as well. So why is the correlation missing? Because CO2 is not the driver of climate change, just a minor feedback effect which makes a contribution that is too small to measure with accuracy and confidence.
We should really clean up the environment. Oh yes medium well; medium well not medium; Im not paying $100 for medium. And make it snappy; I’ve got a plane to catch.
This is nonsense! Why? I’ll leave it up to you to think and come up with the answer. If you’re not able to come up with an answer than you’re wasting you’re time watching this.
It seems the donut theorem is so foreign that people are only capable of analysing it through the lens of capitalism. How amusing! In capitalism, the cost of environmental degradation and resource depletion are externalised, or kicked down the road. In industry devoid of regulation, there is NO CHANCE that a company can revolutionise itself into a circular donut model, while its competitors are free to continue business-as-usual making cheaper, shorter-lasting shit where the environmental load of the BIRTH, LIFE AND DEATH of the product are not its problem. SHIT, it’s not even the problem of the consumer or society presently, let alone the company. We just kick the problem down the road, BURY IT. When future generations need more hydrocarbons [etc], they can dig it all back up again and it’s THEIR PROBLEM. When our groundwater has completely disappeared or is unusable, then it will be THEIR PROBLEM. When our soil is a barren, lifeless, polluted dustbowl it will be THEIR PROBLEM. Only government, and let's face it-to truly tackle the scale of the problem-international cooperation, can force and coordinate companies to be environmentally and RESOURCE responsible; or force and coordinate investors to think more than a strictly FINANCIAL return; or force or coordinate consumers to think more than just this passing MOMENT’s consumption. When I buy a mobile phone-even if I am the greenest citizen it the world-can I realistically research how much lithium, gold, etc is in the phone, where they were sourced from, how recyclable it is, how updatable it is, how repairable it is, whether it has obsolescence built in to it? Presently, even if I manage the greenest mobile company in the world, can I be expected to, and will I be recompensed to do likewise?
@aniishau, every complaint you have made above about capitalism is equally true of socialism and communism! Indeed, if you look at the actual historical data, it has been even more true for them, with communism being worse than "socialism" (more accurately, welfare state capitalism) and more socialistic states like those of Europe being worse than the less socialistic USA.
Ok there is pollution and resource mismanagement, so everyone go report to your commissars. Plan? What do you mean? Oh my plan... Ok Step 1, report to your commissars. Step 2 a clean happy prosperous planet and a sustainable economy.
Blah blah maybe the only workable system had finally been worked out. After all we worked on our current system for centuries. Yes we need to tone down consumerism and insist on the environmental costs be built into the price of goods. We need to take a strict accounting of the cost of the waste stream and make certain that retail reflects that cost
I like the idea of an economy that recycles every possible thing. I am appalled by the way things are currently done.
Recycling is nothing new. In my south London childhood after WW2 nothing was wasted, men with horses and carts would collect anything recyclable e.g. clothes. Paper bags, no plastic. Vinegar was sold loose, i.e. you supplied your own bottles.
Free trade capitalism rewards business leaders for being exploitative. With international trade, there is no political interaction for there to be any recourse between the exploiters and the exploited. These negative aspects of capitalism were much more easily managed before the barriers to international trade were demolished in the name of free trade.
One of the greatest drivers of this destructive growth spiral is the private central bank controlling "inflation", actually currency devaluation, and their control of the taxation 'industry'. Property tax, in particular, is one of the primary poisons because people are forced to pay monthly to an obscure department and will lose their property if they dont join the rat race to find some money every month to feed that monster. So then no one can just live comfortably in their home in a community while those who force this system onto the public from the controlling apex become the politically controlling Billionaires.
@@dougstevens1877 Thank you for pointing out the role of large national and international banks as being at the heart of the vast majority of our economic dysfunction. For those of you who are interested in learning more about this, I would encourage you to watch an example of this, such as what is portrayed in Princes of the Yen. This documentary provides a systematic and interesting example of how utter misery has been wrought on otherwise successful societies due to the deregulation and increased control granted to banks. ua-cam.com/video/p5Ac7ap_MAY/v-deo.html
Hands down, the best documentaries, both with topics and coverage. Really look forward to watching all the VPRO docs!
Thanks stachowi!
Can we get an english version too please?
Yes, I clicked the option at the beginning but the subtitles never appeared.
When I activate english subtitles, I get the Spanish version
Learn some Deutsche, it wont kill you
@@jackreynolds8804 Language learning beyond English is a crazy waste of time. Very soon the translation software will be perfect
@@jackreynolds8804 I'd rather learn Mandarin. It will be much more useful in the future than Deutsche.
Hi everybody! The English subtitles are fixed! :))
Why don't you check before uploading?
Debjeet Biswas we normally do but we are not robots so mistakes are happening. We are really sorry.
Thank you! :-)
I didn't notice until you mentioned it.
No need to. Your productions are great enough. Thank you for keeping this channel alive!
There is a theory that a place with many saintly people will not experience major calamities and will not be damage by climate change but the climate of the place is heavenly balance of rain and sunshine !
Fascinating, and worthy of reflection, this is an alternative economic model that we can all start finding ways to be a part of,
This is a political model or a proposed regulatory model, not an economic model. That does not mean that none of these complaints or proposals (mostly complaints it seems) have merit, but nothing I listened to in the film offers a more accurate way than what we now have to describe how our economy works. Economics is the study of trade or exchange. There are not textbooks to describe the economies of ant or bee or termite colonies, because those economies are not based on exchange. A textbook of such an economy would merely be a production manual. You can complain about unequal outcomes or the risks posed by negative externalities, but these are regulatory and even philosophical issues, not inaccuracies in how existing economics textbooks describe how the economy functions. Not that such shortcomings in economic theory do not exist, but this video showed no interest in those shortcomings. Instead, it focused on regulatory and philosophical issues, and tried to blame them on economic theory, which is a flawed argument and a form of unethical scapegoating.
Finally an answer on my growing worries of the (dis)function of our economic system...need more!!
English subtitles working perfectly, but naturally only when needed.
One of the greatest hurdles that I can see is that (at least here in the west) people are not "re-use / recycle" minded,
They would rather toss their recyclable / compostable materials into the general trash (landfill) than to take the time to separate them out.
Recycling post consumer waste becomes a nightmare when having to sort tons of biological waste or one recycle stream from another.
I certainly can see the enormous benefits, and the reduced need for raw materials with a "circular economy".
Great ideas.
Amen, my friend. Even as an adolescent, I was dumbfounded with the advent of products such as a Swiffer™. I watched the advertisement and thought, "We already have a great cleaning tool that we can use again and again: the broom!"
Getting to root causes of our ecological predicament, finally. Been waiting years for this, you're on the right track, buena suerte!
I am 50 years old but i never experience major calamities in my hometown Don Carlos Bukidnon Philippines !
Kate, I like your model. To implement this we need people to have discourse. Sadly, even smart ones are incapable of deep analysis. They need the scope of discussion to be one tweet, one email, one text, or an emoji. The tools to solve problems have evolved to tools that can't solve problems.
The only way to correct an economy based on greed is to eliminate the origin of the source. Anything short of that could help a lot but will not truly bring economic harmony, it will just slow down the inevitable.
Let's do it now ❣️
What started off promising to redefine the 'meaning' of economic growth, ended up being yet another 'talk' on the 'need' for a circular economy.
Perhaps not novel to you, but for the vast majority of Earth's population who have never heard these ideas, we still have much work to do in spreading the information. This is part of that initiative.
The English subtitles don't work - someone uploaded Spanish ones in their place.
Don't worry save yourself the pain of having to listen to this rubbish
"Saving the planet, and ourselves, is FUN!" --- motto for the next generation
The boy at 21:15 made me cry... there are just no words.
Ma’am, the sociology department is down the hall
brilliant visionary realistic solutions
this woman should run for presidency i would vote for her.
Excellent. Thank you. "When the love of God is established, everything else will be realized. This is the true foundation of all economics." - The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Baha'i Faith
This is the economy I wish since I realized we're on wrong track
Finally there's someone following this great doc to watch and explore your mind
Let's be a part of donuts economy
Time for VPRO documentary to also do a documentary of New Zealand's decision to exchange the GDP-measurement with LSF=Living Standard Framework.
Where LSF must be more as EU-project beyondgdp want.
we all know these companies will never pass on the savings to paying workers a fair wage.
good documentary ....turn on the english module
Thanks
Can you please recommend a books on new economic model please
Rent your jeans for ten times the money. Awesome solution.
Make your jeans from hemp canvas. They will last 10 times as long. Also nutrition better than fish, without any drowned fishermen.
I Ate Eight or dead fish...or dead fish...
Micro little satellites for space exploratory especially for internet purposes,mapping,surveillance,observation is cheaper and this very cheaper !
Circular economy sounds naissant with an auspicious and stalwart start. Designated stores retailing goods made from recycled materials offer good quality merchandise. Requires commitment from top down to achieve long term change as SME's effort isn't sufficient to drive this change through. Critical blue chip firms invest into eco friendly tech to influence politics.
I have mixed feelings about this docu. While I think it has good intent, it is merely creating awareness on what is going wrong, but does not offer an alternative model. The "donut" is not a model: it is merely a portray of the issue. The docu totally misses the mark on the approach as well, in fact unknowingly contributes to a sustained growth path. Let me explain why.
Is the economic model of unlimited growth not sustainable, unnatural even? Absolutely!
Do we need an alternative model? Yes, definitely.
Is this docu a good way to create awareness for those who do not even realize there is a problem? Without a doubt!
Do we know what are the points that need to be changed? We're not there yet, but are learning to understand these and any effort in this direction is a worthy effort.
Does the displayed "model" offer any alternative? Hardly.. It is not tangible and its direction is misleading.
The issue is, that first of all, this is not a new "model". It is merely a descriptive way of creating awareness for the true values of importance, that human social interests are central to our being, rather than an economy that is detached from these values, in fact detrimental towards them. All the shortfilm examples mentioned show this contradiction. The visual display of this contradiction is not a model showing a solution however.
The ideas of how to solve the issues, i.e. to INVEST into alternative methodologies (recycling, reuse, etc.) are not making any changes to the existing economic model: the existing growth model is based on consumer demand and purchasing power growth. The growth of global population and purchasing power in Third World countries especially, leads to an increasing demand growth, which results in more industry and pollution, stress on the system, on the environment and on our social wellbeing. By replacing the existing economy's drivers with alternative methods that put less stress on the environment (due to being "green") will not make consumption any less! In fact, since alternative methods like solar energy are basically free and unlimited power if we learn the means to harness it, it will lead to even more economies of scale and this cheaper production cycle will lead to higher affordability, thus creating more consumption and more industry to supply this increasing production need. So if anything, any viable alternative means of going "green" will lead to more production. It is an illusion to think that by recycling materials, the energy need for the reycycling process will not be nearly as pollutive as the original production process.. Solar power needs solar cells, transmitting energy still needs cables, combustion engines will be replaced by electric appliances that need different but not less pollutive materials, etc. But even if we manage to reduce pollution, it does not change anything about the consumption patterns and the race for profits. If anything, people will feel more entitled to consume, since they are doing it based on "green" industries. Thinking that we put less stress on the system by decreasing direct cost to the services and products we buy, is naive to say the least, as decreasing the cost side will leave us with more excess purchasing power, which we will spend on more products and services in other fields. Will those recycled jeans cost us half the price due to renewable energy sources? Great, let's buy two, since my income is the same! So why should I need to buy 3 jeans a year when I could live more consciously to the environment, let's buy just one. Great, now I have money to spare, I can buy something else from those savings! Oh, I was not aware that this excess purchasing power creates more market demand elsewhere, so I put more stress on the environment in other fields.. And so the growth path continues.
So the docu fails to adress how exactly we would want to reach this transition from the exponential consumption growth to the degressive "maturity" curve that peaks where we would no longer need to grow. How can any curve peak when an exponentially increasing factor in the equation is the number of consumers?.. It would mean that there would have to be an exponentially degressive consumption per capita to offset this growth, which would leave us with shorts instead of jeans in a few years' time and a mere fig leaf in a few decades.. There are base limits to how low the human consumption per capita can be driven down to, like food, clothing, shelter and basic necessities to survive. With exponential population growth we will therefore never be able to offset the difference, no matter how "green" we go, since our human bodies will not shrink to ants' sizes to accommodate for our growing numbers.
There is a total disconnect between the discussed aspects (i.e. social stress and going green) and the causes of this growth path in the first place (population growth, purchasing power growth). Most of what is mentioned is wishful thinking, instead of any causalities resulting in positive change.
Most ironically, the concept of "going green" through the innovative institutions like the Danish one towards the end, is being "sold" to the business by portraying how much PROFIT there is in this new revolution. If anything, it is the aspect of Profit that should be taken out of the economic model, since it is the number one culprit: it leads to more purchasing power, disproportionate power for corporations to control and monopolize whole industries and exploit all participants in the supply chain, like the shown example of the UK buyer of Chinese sweatshop products. If the buyer would not have such funds available, his influence on the supply chain would be less, profits more evenly distributed that lead to better living standards for those at the bottom as well. It is this power that needs a disruptive approach. Since this power originally stems from our purchasing power however, which is on a constant growth path due to mentioned population size and increasing wealth, any alternative is doomed to fail.
To stop the growth path, humanity will have to stop growing as a whole and our consumption would need to radically decrease to much lower levels, since we are already with too many of us on this planet. Without changing both of these, humanity is doomed to fail as a whole. We should all learn to live more humbly and closer to nature. Not just to appreciate it, but also to preserve it.
Trillion dollars debt spiral is not wealth, your bonds are junk!
The problem isn’t that your wages haven’t increased in real terms in years. The problem isn’t that you have lost your job, can’t find a new one making half what you made before. The problem is that you want to make more than you used to make, or as much as you used to which was obviously unsustainable. You need to want stagnation. You need to want your standard of living to decline over time. It’s for your own good.
Ultimately, if we compromise the ecosystems that provide us with life, then wages, jobs, and standard of living mean nothing. If you disapprove of what Kate Raworth has posited, what do you propose is a better economic model in its place?
Nirvana7734 Yea of course I agree with that. So if another person was making a living and in the process part of his income was indirectly lowering everyone else’s standard of living, that is called in economics a negative externality. I firmly believe that taxes and regulations should be created to either eliminate negative externalities (by creating incentives which are countervailing to the incentives leading to the negative incentive) or if they cannot be eliminated, the public should be compensated for such negative externalities. My plan would be to set up a carbon tax or cap and trade system, such that there will eventually be no incentive for people to generate excessive carbon and other greenhouse gas and other particularly destructive pollutants. Then you could use the proceeds to lower rates of other taxes, and some of it to compensate people, especially the poor for the some of the higher energy prices that would obviously result, and perhaps some other indirect price increases resulting from higher energy input prices, and lower wages resulting from the reduction in overall economic activity.
Her plan seems to be for us all to become poorer, seemingly by spending g less money on overpriced designer jeans and buying slightly less overpriced designer jeans instead.
@@user-wi3yx3gy2o Your plan has merit, but while (in this particular comment, at least) you are only speaking about the energy sector, she's most definitely talking about a lot more than the energy sector and jeans.
Carbon taxes and cap & trade systems are a helpful stepping stone, but we DEFINITELY need to go much further than that. Her propositions for waste re-use are commendable, but your mention of the energy sector highlights a critical topic must be addressed. I think that coupling your ideas with Jeremy Rifkin's ideas highlighted in "The Third Industrial Revolution" (e.g., energy production cooperatives and sharing economies) are, in my current estimation, the best ways forward regarding energy. Raworth's ideas fit nicely into this entire picture.
Nirvana7734 I’m not very familiar with Rifkin, but his views seem to be more observation rather than recommendations. In any event I have no problem with people organizing their lives or organizations as long as in the process, they minimize coercion. I think that saying you are going to make the lives of people better by collectivizing them and taking away their individual freedom and initiative is counterproductive to say the least.
Weinhold Weinhold Rifkin and his firm have advised world governments on economic policy, who have then put into place (according to Rifkin, at least), so I am FAIRLY confident in saying that he is solidly in the camp of action over observation.
Minimal coercion is ideal, but sometimes coercion is necessary. I love freedom, until such time as, for example, a company is free to pollute the air we breathe and/or the water we drink. Then, I would have little problem with a little coercion. Beyond that, and on the greater scheme of things, what's more desirable: being free to destroy ecosytems for future generations, or being coerced into preserving them?
Living things grow up then stop growing. So the economy must be just like that. SCIENCE
That does not relate. What if knowledge were managed the same way?
Economics is the trade of solving a person's perceived problem and paying the solver in some form of value; capitalism. There should never be a limit in attempting to satiate a person's perceived needs as that would undermine our free will.
Communism attempted to limit what would satiate a person in material wealth as well as empowerment and we know how well that satisfied their problems. As a society we could never have supported 7+ billion people without the ability to solve problems and the primary construct for this was/is capitalism. Problems should be the focus as Kate has demonstrated. Capitalism is the construct that holds each of us accountable to society in solving their perceived problems. GDP and the growth of stock price/value are symptoms of our abilities to solve peoples' problems as is our population size; delivering life to more people is glorious as is gaining knowledge to empower each of us and should never be limited.
This needs to be reciprocated with preserving the property rights and liberties of the individual by holding society accountable to the individual by agency of the state being lent the power by the people.
benevolent dictator yes I thought it clear (because of the absurdity of the statement) that I was being sarcastic.
@@user-wi3yx3gy2o sorry, got it.
benevolent dictator I understand why you would think somebody would think that.
@@benevolentdictator2315 "Capitalism is the construct that holds each of us accountable to society in solving their perceived problems. "
Really?! Then why do about 2000 individuals currently control 50% of the wealth and resources of the entire planet, leaving the bottom 2 billion or so, with almost nothing?
Something tells me there is going to be paradigm change whether the top 1% want it or not.
Next we will send dust satellites in the future because its very light in the future,the latest micro satellites is just a size of a medium package box and many in Singapore for sale and cheaper.But my original idea is the sand satellites ! the smaller is the trending now !
Good research for universities on a new economic model.
So my complaint is that whoever is managing the economy is obviously doing a bad job. To fix these obvious problems of the real world not living up to my wildest dreams of prosperity and equality, we need to get new economic managers. What?... That’s not how it works?... Wr tried that and is was the single worst idea ever? Ok this is confusing and Im getting a headache; just do what I say.
You are almost there...go with it and soon you will be rejoicing the beliefs of Marx, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Che Guevara and maybe Hugo Chavez. you too can be like an ant, bee or termite. Us humans have so much free will and power we lack the ability to manage it as well as the ants and bees.
Monetary theory. in the "modern economy" ALL money is borrowed at interest. SO IF YOU BORROW $1WITH 5CENTS INTEREST TO PAY IT BACK: You pay back the dollar(with the original dollar) but the 5cents has to come from growth.
Just send out a new posting when you have it fixed for the English speakers. It applies much more in non English speaking parts of the planet if it is about changing the economic system but it would still be interesting to be sure.
Kate's idea, assuming it is hers and not her benefactor's that sponsors her, is not an economic model; it is a sociological and environmental model that does not consider human nature in its entirety. Ants, bees and termites can use her idea because their comm is controlled by chemicals, pheromones in the case of these guys that have not evolved in over a 100 million years...they must be doing something right...sans the free will and the ability to create beyond the programming.
Wow! Bring it on!! 👍🏼😁🧡. TY for doing this video 😃💕. When do you think our Education System (all of it) will change?
English subtitles are incorrect
We are both " cancer " and " cure " and we are to stupid to know the difference .
But we are getting closer every century, as noted by the size of our population finally reaching the biomass of all the ants on Earth; we could never support the needs of this many people if we were "too" wrong.
Micro satellite is the trending now and very cheaper !
Only a young woman could be so naive! She has no clue what she is talking about. She only looks at the surface of the problems. We must not only change methods and expectations, we must actually change our psychology and life styles. There is absolutely no motive to do this because we still think in terms of profit and loss. These ideas MUST be thrown out the window! Who will do that? Money and success are indelibly imprinted on our minds from birth! Competition is anathema to a green planet, yet she repeats the programming without even recognizing the contradiction. What hope is there if she is the best and the brightest? None!
You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet . Poverty is the future of mankind
@Peter, yes, true, but I still think that, when the party finally ends, mankind will eventually be better off after the party than we were before the party, unless the genetic deterioration that our relatively high level of prosperity and security causes should proceed too far. Only in that regard would we be better off collapsing sooner rather than later. BTW, people like this spokesgirl who complain about drudgery must have had very easy lives. Most of the human race has much bigger worries than drudgery. A certain increase in drudgery is the price we have been willing to pay for poverty reduction--at least unless robots replace those jobs, sending the former workers from drudgery into either chronic unemployment or low paying service jobs. At that point, people like her will still be complaining after they have gotten what they wished for. Some people will be satisfied with nothing but utopia, but utopia never comes in this world.
Like icarus mankind has flown too close to the sun. Falling back too earth will be it's challenge I doubt the vast majority will make it.
"Poverty is the future", funny how statistics disagrees with you. Only in the last 20 years we reduced the number of poor people by 1 billion. Get your facts straight
@@robosergTV Your confusing the past with the future.
Need English subtitles!!
Nope...this is a subjective idea based on few facts. Just wait for then to work out the details of their idea because they have nothing that will work as they ignore human nature.
Don't worry save yourself the pain of having to listen to this rubbish
Give up a pair of jeans that actually fit in only a week? I will wear them for years. By the time you could get them back to recycle them they'd be quite thoroughly worn out. Ditto anything else I own
I'm getting the English version just fine. This is the most inspiring videos to date.
There all sorts of downsides with this too. For ex the rent your jeans. It will cost you much more money for the same product. Also there is a danger that the product will be recycled before the end of life. When owned it still might be used for a year or two. But when leased and you're up for a new pair, you just will recycle, even when you still would use them under normal circumstances. Besides realistically over 90% of the world population is at the very center of the donut. You not only have to get them out of the center of the donut, you have to get them to a level so they can participate in the processes as well... In the end you have not addressed the fact that we are just with too many people. At the current birth rate the center of the donut will be expanding, not the sustainable outer parts. It's a nice, idealistic idea but that is currently all it is...
In Australia there was a recycling push all rate payers had to pay extra for collecting the recycling rubbish. Initially it was shipped to other countries to recycle. But now China doesn't want it it goes into land fill. Yet we are all still paying. The glass is 90% cheaper to import from china than to recycle locally. So no company can afford to pay $70 a ton to recycle when they can import bottles already made in china for $10 a ton.
All these ideas are just to create a new tax on the people. We now have a 10 cent tax on all plastic bottles which can be refunded if taken to a collection centre. The collection centre gets 30 cents a bottle to collect them. So the extra 20 cents is covered by the tax payer and where do these bottles go? If the can be smuggled into another country like Malaysia or they just go into land fill....So what happened rate payers pay to get recycling collected that isn't recycled (except paper/cardboard) then their is a 10 cent duty on bottle and the rate payers once again pay an extra 20 cent per bottle for someone to collect and then put in land fill??????????
just water bottles the annual usage over 500 million. Not including Soda or as we call soft drink. So triple this number sounds fairly reasonable when considering every other product that also comes in plastic..sauces cleaners etc etc etc
Well, you see economic growth is bad for the economy because economic growth causes environmental degradation, and economic degradation is bad for the economy. So what you need to do is get rid of economic growth, and that will fix the economy.
I think Pol Pot said that.
Send the boy home so his family can starve!!!
Thriving emerging market export businessman after thriving emerging market export businessman complaining about his customers demanding lower prices.
Yep...how will Kate micro manage the subjective thoughts of each individual without having to do the Pol Pot thing. Her idea works great for ants, bees and termites as noted by their not having evolved in 100's of millions of years. Human nature NEEDS to be part of the equation, hence the problem with social sciences because the participants are also the observers and rule makers, unlike natural sciences.
our model can change in close future, theirs, not necessarily? :P
That is awesome. Very much in tune with Hyperianism and project such as The Venus Project and Drawdown.
The knowledge is there, we simply need rational minds to unite and work together. Look out Ontological Mathematics if lightyear interest you.
English subs aren't in English
Don't worry save yourself the pain of having to listen to this rubbish
Girl power!
How about we lift everyone out of poverty without economic growth...yeah. And cake. Let them eat cake..,
Well, the response back then was the guillotine...it worked real well for slicing baguettes ;-)
Long Live Polly Higgins
You could change things very quickly by making it financially worthwhile for people to start sharing the jobs we decide we actually do NEED people to do and work LESS......there is no other way to stop infinite growth.
Consumerist propaganda: the only reason people want things.
She lost me when she said regulations and government are a must. Is she saying she can't convince people or businesses to buy her donut???? Is FORCE what she's highly suggesting???? She might want to rethink this strategy....
You are absolutely so right. If it ever becomes fashionable to have the same pair of jeans for ten years, then there won't be a market for endless new pairs. There were people who passed down gold watches through three generations. Can you imagine if a smart phone was marketed on the theory that it would last for 50 years how different the economy would be? Consumer demand, social mores, and a change in desire for endless plastic throwaways could be far more useful that more laws.
@@juliemignard8448 Amen. Very well said....
It seems the donut theorem is so foreign that people are only capable of analysing it through the lens of capitalism. How amusing!
In capitalism, the cost of environmental degradation and resource depletion are externalised, or kicked down the road. In industry devoid of regulation, there is NO CHANCE that a company can revolutionise itself into a circular donut model, while its competitors are free to continue business-as-usual making cheaper, shorter-lasting shit where the environmental load of the BIRTH, LIFE AND DEATH of the product is not its problem. SHIT, it’s not even the problem of the consumer or society presently, let alone the company. We just kick the problem down the road, BURY IT. When future generations need more hydrocarbons [etc], they can dig it all back up again and it’s THEIR PROBLEM. When our groundwater has completely disappeared or is unusable, then it will be THEIR PROBLEM. When our soil is a barren, lifeless, polluted dustbowl it will be THEIR PROBLEM.
Only government, and let's face it-to truly tackle the scale of the problem-international cooperation,
can force and coordinate companies to be environmentally and RESOURCE responsible;
or force and coordinate investors to think more than a strictly FINANCIAL return;
or force and coordinate consumers to think more than just this passing MOMENT’s consumption.
When I buy a mobile phone-even if I am the greenest citizen it the world-can I realistically research how much lithium, gold, etc is in the phone, where they were sourced from, how recyclable it is, how updatable it is, how repairable it is, whether it has obsolescence built in to it?
Presently, even if I manage the greenest mobile company in the world, can I be expected to, and will I be rewarded to do likewise?
@@AniishAu The simple answer is do not buy any mobile phone. Don't wait for some authority to fix it. Fix it in your own life. We can be like dominoes. I stop standing in line for the system, you stop standing in line for the system, eventually the system does not have any dominoes left standing. Nobody will produce stuff they cannot sell; not for very long, now will they? We can live without mobile phones, but the manufacturers cannot live without us giving them money.
@@juliemignard8448 My dear, I don't have a mobile, but if you suggest that the solution is we have to wait until consumers are like me, this planet is a lost cause. It will never happen.
Such an important topic - thankyou for all the great recent content vpro. World class free documentaries on important questions - cheers from 🇦🇺
What a load of nonsense. No one has claimed that there will be infinite growth. Furthermore when she is talking vaguely about "growth" she is talking about human wealth - human standards of living. Food, education, travel, healthcare etc. Without high growth the working class will not obtain a middle class lifestyle within their lifetime.
Yep, very subjective. I want to know who is sponsoring her. Who is her benefactor as that will answer some question of motivation and origin of the thoughts Kate delivers.
Why doesn't she talk about birth restrictions. 1 Child for every 1000 couple
Economy is a balanced system based on inventories. Everything else (politics) is noise.
Humanity must live in accordance with the Earth can provide that is only achievable by technology and the application of the scientific method in social systems.
@@Fabrikoooo , the scientific method in social systems? Do you mind explaining that?
@@benevolentdictator2315 is the application of the same method that we use to build bridges but in global scale and with in social culture. Follow the link please.
To continue the biological analogy, why are some people trying to stunt the child's growth? Growth should be allowed to run its natural course. It will stop on its own when the time is right. And although arguments can be made that economic theory falls short in some important respects, the specific arguments that this video makes are not among those that would rationally justify changing the economic textbooks. The role of any science, including economics, is to describe how things work, not to prescribe how you think they "should" work, or how you wish they worked. People who are under the delusion that things work the way they do because some branch of science prescribes it rather than describes it are so scientifically illiterate that they are not worth listening to.
Communism was also the perfect system, at least in theory. But people didn’t cooperate equally....so the system collapsed. The common denominator between communism and capitalism is People. People have very opposite aims and needs. Some need a lot and some are happy with what they got. The only way to balance these differences so that it works for everybody is an AI government where even the politicians will be controlled by the Machine of the law. In theory of course........
Nice idea. I think it exists in the form of God and it only works if each individual has free will, the paradox. The AI would need a back door to turn it off or reboot incase it became self-aware because we would not trust it, much less have faith in it. So back to God it is ...interesting paradox.
@Birdy Flying I can can agree with that.
Oh yeah competition in the economy never did any good for anyone.
Sarcasm.....R..R..r..r
Un video cuyo sesgo ideológico desperfila lo positivo que tiene. A su vez, la economista parece no conocer la historia de la humanidad e ignora de que se trata la “singularidad” que viene.
💯💯👍💯💯🙌🏾👏🏾👍
Recycling will kick in when the price of resources rises high enough, that is, when the cost of extracting new resources exceeds the cost of recycling old resources. That sort of problem will resolve itself. Don't stunt the child's growth. Let him mature.
Good presentation, Smart presenter. Normative foundations of economics must be reworked. (Erik Olin Wright) Emancipatory social science is coming. Happy ending !
I believe in karma !
Economics isn't engineered in the classroom. Nothing of substance here.
You are right, economics is not engineered in a classroom.
Your statement is irrelevant, productive human endeavor is understood in the classroom.
lol oil aint from fossils u fools
Ok. All nice and dandy, but how do you regulate economy without putting in place dystopian military state? You can't have freedom in the market and nongrowth economy. And how exactly do you wan't to make corporations to let go off their power to make exponential profits? Can you make all people buy only local products? Will you be willing to spend half of your paycheck on food? Will you enforce restriction on travel, massive tax on fuel? Will you tax having more than one child? Will you sack 50% of workers doing "bulshit" jobs? You see, there is no other solution to the problem of climate change than eradication of 90% of the population. We can do it in ugly way, by introduction of active eugenics. Or in more ugly way, waiting for wars and famine to do the necessary adjustment. Which one? Which one? Which one? Hurry up, you can't have your fucking donut and eat it too.
SHE IS SMART
I hate factual inaccuracies. No islands are sinking under the sea. This has been disproven. Furthermore, sea level is not rising faster than its interglacial norm, and the correlation between atmospheric CO2 changes and temperature changes, at least during modern times when we have had somewhat accurate means of measuring these changes, has been zero, and even over much longer periods of time is quite weak. Correlation may not be causation, but, when causation actually exists, correlation will always exist as well. So why is the correlation missing? Because CO2 is not the driver of climate change, just a minor feedback effect which makes a contribution that is too small to measure with accuracy and confidence.
*Doughnut.
Thank you.
We should really clean up the environment. Oh yes medium well; medium well not medium; Im not paying $100 for medium. And make it snappy; I’ve got a plane to catch.
Oh opportunity is what you want to get, by not having growing incomes. Yeah.
economically a new global reserve currency can balance the disequilibrium & honest mind distributed the wealth properly.👽
This is nonsense! Why? I’ll leave it up to you to think and come up with the answer.
If you’re not able to come up with an answer than you’re wasting you’re time watching this.
not the best way to discuss things.
TJ T
I must admit you are right about that, I should delete my comment!.
It seems the donut theorem is so foreign that people are only capable of analysing it through the lens of capitalism. How amusing!
In capitalism, the cost of environmental degradation and resource depletion are externalised, or kicked down the road. In industry devoid of regulation, there is NO CHANCE that a company can revolutionise itself into a circular donut model, while its competitors are free to continue business-as-usual making cheaper, shorter-lasting shit where the environmental load of the BIRTH, LIFE AND DEATH of the product are not its problem. SHIT, it’s not even the problem of the consumer or society presently, let alone the company. We just kick the problem down the road, BURY IT. When future generations need more hydrocarbons [etc], they can dig it all back up again and it’s THEIR PROBLEM. When our groundwater has completely disappeared or is unusable, then it will be THEIR PROBLEM. When our soil is a barren, lifeless, polluted dustbowl it will be THEIR PROBLEM.
Only government, and let's face it-to truly tackle the scale of the problem-international cooperation,
can force and coordinate companies to be environmentally and RESOURCE responsible;
or force and coordinate investors to think more than a strictly FINANCIAL return;
or force or coordinate consumers to think more than just this passing MOMENT’s consumption.
When I buy a mobile phone-even if I am the greenest citizen it the world-can I realistically research how much lithium, gold, etc is in the phone, where they were sourced from, how recyclable it is, how updatable it is, how repairable it is, whether it has obsolescence built in to it?
Presently, even if I manage the greenest mobile company in the world, can I be expected to, and will I be recompensed to do likewise?
@aniishau, every complaint you have made above about capitalism is equally true of socialism and communism! Indeed, if you look at the actual historical data, it has been even more true for them, with communism being worse than "socialism" (more accurately, welfare state capitalism) and more socialistic states like those of Europe being worse than the less socialistic USA.
@@michaels4255 What is it about Americans that think if you think communism sucks, the only answer is more capitalism?
Ok there is pollution and resource mismanagement, so everyone go report to your commissars. Plan? What do you mean? Oh my plan... Ok Step 1, report to your commissars. Step 2 a clean happy prosperous planet and a sustainable economy.
The solution is not ur donut economy, the only solution that exist is to get back to our creator which is God almighty, God bless you all 🌹🌷🌹
Nature knows no limits,that is the most ridiculous comment ever made. She is totally unaware of how nature works.
Blah blah maybe the only workable system had finally been worked out. After all we worked on our current system for centuries. Yes we need to tone down consumerism and insist on the environmental costs be built into the price of goods.
We need to take a strict accounting of the cost of the waste stream and make certain that retail reflects that cost