Pella Thiel: "Criminalizing Ecocide: The Rights of Nature” | The Great Simplification
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- (Conversation recorded on March 6th, 2024)
Show Summary:
On this episode, Nate is joined by maverick ecologist Pella Thiel to discuss the legal frameworks behind the Ecocide and Rights of Nature Movements. Our current economic and legal systems have no mechanisms to consider nature in our decision making - much less to make systemic planetary stability a priority. Could redefining the destruction of our biosphere to be considered a crime parallel with that of genocide alter the way we structure laws governing our societies and economies? How are countries legislating and enforcing these ideas - even going so far as to act against the flow of the superorganism? Most importantly, how could top-down legal ideas such as these interact with bottom-up individual action to create powerful shifts in cultural values and motivations?
About Pella Thiel:
Pella Thiel is a maverick ecologist, part-time farmer, full-time activist and teacher in ecopsychology. She is the co-founder of Swedish hubs of international networks like Swedish Transition Network and End Ecocide Sweden and a knowledge expert in the UN Harmony with Nature programme. Pella was awarded the Swedish Martin Luther King Award in 2023 and the Environmental Hero of the year 2019.
For Show Notes and More: www.thegreatsimplification.co...
0:00 - Intro
1:59 - What is Ecocide?
6:32 - Is Ecocide Common Knowledge?
8:07 - Other Environmental Laws
11:39 - Are Consumers at Fault?
16:53 - Where Do You Draw the Line?
20:04 - Best Case Scenario
23:48 - Ecocide and Energy Abudance
26:25 - Nature as a Resource
34:49 - Donella Meadows’ Iceberg
37:29 - The Rights of Nature
50:39 - Human and Nature Rights in Conflict
53:02 - Pella’s Work on the Rights of Nature
58:33 - Personal Advice
1:07:12 - What Would You Do with a Magic Wand?
1:09:01 - Future Topics
Wow! Wonderful to find a more eco-aware "Thiel"!!
I could listen to Pella Thiel forever. This was entrancing. Thank you.
Just wanted to say thank you, Nate - you and your podcast and your great guests keep me sane. I so often think I'm the crazy one, living in this duality of a world where the fires are burning fiercely yet so few others can even smell the smoke. Blessing to you.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion. Having ecocide recognized as a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC is a very worthwhile step. All that is needed now is for US citizens to mount a nationwide campaign to have the USA recognize the ICC and become a member rather than see it as a threat and have a plan to invade the Hague to extract any US citizen that is brought before it. Such laws need to be enforced by the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and any other organization all countries globally are members of to have ecocide laws applied to all equitably.
Thank you , thank you thank you Nate and Pella for this truly wonderful interview. Pella Thiel is a revelation. So inspiring. Seducing people to change. Ah perfect! I can't wait to learn more about eco seduction.
Thanks for bringing Pella Nate. She is an amazing and beautiful person. So connected where it really matters with a wise message for us all🙏
Nate, I loved every second of this episode, By the time Pella got out the picture of the iceberg and began talking about working with the underside, I found myself feeling so completely in alignment with her mode of thought that I began to feel as if I'd known her all my life. I've been casting about looking for a project, some way to contribute more directly to Mother Earth during these last 2 decades of my life, something that suits my temperament, circumstances and expertise, and this may be it. I'll definitely be checking into this.
Pella's approach fits perfectly as a follow-on to Tom Chi. I found myself thinking of him and his "stages" or shifts redefining economic paradigms at several points in this episode. Pella is talking about exactly the same kind of cultural conceptual shift, only as applied to law and resultant ethical norms.
In the last year I've also come to the conclusion that for now various plays on seduction appear to be the only viable solution for moving forward. As a result, I've become interested in the kinds of non-linear conceptual shifts exemplified by Tom Chi's and Pella Thiel's ideas. These non-linear shifts occur for me like depressing the clutch and making a half-twist on a given conceptual stream related to an idea, then releasing the clutch and popping the concept, stream and all, up to a new dimension of relation. I suppose you could say that depressing the clutch is like stopping the normal flow of one's identification with previous associations and definitions, while releasing the clutch allows a new and undefined field of potential associations to emerge. It's the half-twist that gets me. Where do these insights come from, and how are they generated. Can they be generated? For me right now, these dimensional pop-ups occur more like walking up to the edge of the primordial abyss, looking down and saying WTF!? upon seeing no evidence of any bottom.
If we can teach people how to set themselves up to think in these modes, we may be able accelerate acceptance of some of these new ideas. Where I see most people consistently getting stuck (i.e., resistant to the flow of change) is in the realm of identity, and identification with soma, the somatic mind, and abstract thinking.
Thanks for a remarkably enlightening, and inspiring podcast. Because Ms. Thiel loves life so much, it is important to not overlook the the evidence base for the rights of nature framework. Life has been evolving on earth for over 3 billion years, and the science of ecology is framework for understanding that biodiversity is evolutionarily advantageous - as Mr Chi put it, a photon (unit of energy) that is transformed by and through several life forms before it escapes into space, is more life-sustaining, than one that does not get transformed through several life forms. That is a simple way to understand the idea that, as Ms. Thiel said, the need for a great complexification - the restoration of the biodiversity that we have been so busy destroying (ignorantly and arrogantly). In so doing, we continue to do harm to ecosystems, threatening the diverse biosphere as a whole, including our survival as a highly organized social animal. Laws are powerful levers in human societies, as they are the rules that (we formulate) to guide human societies. The science of ecology is the evidence base for both understanding that we are only one social life form, and we evolved, despite learning how to destroy ecosystems, to depend on the complex interdependence of healthy biodiversity. If we hope to become a healthy species, our laws must require we restore ecosystems and the ecosphere as a whole to healthy biodiversity. I think (would like to ask her), if when she speaks of the wisdom of mother nature, she is speaking of the interdependence of the biodiversity of nature that has evolved for over 3 billon years. I suspect we evolved bonding, aka love aka affection to provide us with the motivation to raise our offspring until they can survive on their own, and to sustain our social connections, and perhaps to bond to other life, individually, and to ecosystems. In other words, our hardwired systems for bonding, the driver of our social nature, may include bonding to the ecosystems we depend on to survive. Neuroscientists remind us that our brains are in part, a collection of disparate parts that evolved to connect and utilize our frontal cortex, our capacity to learn how things work (science being the best method we have developed to discern facts) as a powerful survival tool. If it was not adaptive, it would not have evolved greater complexity over time. In other words, what Ms. Thiel is saying is that the rights of nature apply to all life, including humans. We must use our social "DNA", in this case, the law, to survive, which we can only do as part of nature, the ecosystem. We are invasive, we will have to reduce our numbers for healthy ecosystem restoration, etc., etc. For the most part, we humans are not now sapiens. Ms. Thiel reminds us, that we can be, (she also is a rare example of one, I think), and the science that serves as the evidence base for the map is the science of ecology. Nate, you do a great job of asking the right questions that free her to articulate her map, which is a gift to all of us.
INSPIRING. Thank you so much Pella for your work to make Ecocide a criminal act. We need people working inside the current system to change the paradigm from within. So grateful.
I love her! Thanks Nate!
What a lovely woman and what an insightful and inspiring conversation. Looking forward to the next one. Thank you, Nate.
Good speaker.
"The reality is that selling fish for fishmeal both undercuts local markets and deprives hungry local people of fish, which provides around half the animal protein consumed in Gambia . 90% of fish used for fishmeal could be eaten. Grinding this fish down to make feed for factory-farmed animals is in direct contravention of the UN FAO's sustainable fisheries guidelines, which stipulate that fish should be used for feeding people directly. In Gambia, locals who once enjoyed fish as a part of their daily diet are now struggling to afford it, while vast quantities of fish are instead being processed to feed farming fish. It takes five kilogram of fresh fish to make one kilogram of fishmeal, with the reulting product being used as feed for farmed fish (69 per cent), pigs (23 per cent), chickens (5 per cent) and pets ( 3 per cent)."
Sixty harvests left: How to reach a nature-friendly future
Philip Lymbery
Thanks, very interesting!
I remember a law case to give the Colorado river personhood rights. The lawyers eventually removed their case after being threated by the Colorado State Attorney. They were threated with disbarment and heavy fines for presenting "frivolous" arguments. Unfortunately they did not stand a snowballs chance in hell. Ever fear for your life? I guess it is safer to mess with mother nature than corporate interest.
Times change when we revise the plan accordingly, and keep going (including when "going" means taking a pause to withdraw and reconnoiter. 1st attempts usually fail.
Yes !! law is a fundamental tool that can and should be used to stop ecocide.
Wow, total badass!!!
Pella seems amazing. This was a much needed podcast: It’s good to see someone push back on Nate’s belief that fighting for major top down changes and accountability regarding industries that provide materials or services isn’t an effective strategy for changing the superorganism’s trajectory. Pella specifically calls out the direct influence that spreads from the top down in our culture and behaviors. Can’t wait for round two.
14:03 “We have to start where this problem is emanating from…We are all culpable because we are all using this stuff, but we don’t have the same responsibility. We don’t have the same power to influence those decisions…[The law] directly influences decisions…. It does change values, and norms, and behaviors…. It’s a systemic act. It’s probably more powerful to have a new law…. Law is a very powerful tool in shifting how we view the world.”
23:29 “…business people, they also care about nature…but as long as it’s legal for someone to destroy ecosystems that will mean that to have a conscious and…a careful, a respectful business, will be more difficult.”
32:14 “…we need global rules at this stage that says ‘first do no harm.’”
38:51 “But if we start with down here with the world view and with the rules we will have a lot of leverage then to change the practice….”
49:56 “Laws are the DNA of society. So when you change the laws you change how we collectively behave.”
55:40 I do need to call out that Pella’s use of “deaf” and “Autistic” to denote something derogatory is not appropriate. A better choice of words should be applied. Certainly this was unintentional. But it does need to be considered, especially since her calling is based on a philosophy of first do no harm, which also applies to the use of language related to people with disabilities. “As a culture we are deaf. We are Autistic in the relationship to the living systems that we are a part of. And then we will destroy them. And that’s bad.”
Here, Pella mention the basic solution for all of us; I AM RESPONCIBLE.
Responsibility cannot be given away.
It is not a 'thing' to be given to others, as it is part of the life you are yourself.
'Problems' are not solved by answers, as these are temporarily comforting our behaviour, and the problem still is there.
'Problems' are seen and managed by the symptoms they create, which are a multitude of the cause itself.
Solution can only happen, at the core, or if you will, the first step.
We need to skip the symptoms (which are to many) and look at the base, and that is what Pella points at.
Very good step!
Pod of orca just went past my house
The family was broken up, families and the familiar value is an animal right, and something individualism can better learn of the co-opted language we use everyday in objectivity.
Great interview. I encourage you to look at the biotic pump and the relationship between land and water as critical for climate stability. Damaging this is ecocide.
Hard to get beyond human exceptionalism and even harder, or so it seems, to get beyond the concept of human health and wellbeing being absolutely dependent on the health and wellbeing of the whole. Love ❤ this conversation!!
In New Zealand, common law is incorporating Māori Tikanga. This indigenous worldview is much more ecologically aware and recognizes that the Earth and all its inhabitants and features (e.g. rivers, etc) have a right to be heard in law. That is, they are given a voice and legal rights. Here in Australia, our indigenous people had and have a strong connection to country and have resonsibilities as custodians to care for country, meaning every part of country, its creatures plants, water sources, etc.
Please bring her back for round 2.
Joyous
On my dad's side Grandmother was born in Skon and great grandfather in a town northwest from there. Mother is more of a mystery so I'm not claiming to be anything in particular. Not that anyone cares mind you but I like to type comments once and awhile. :-) The guest would be happy to learn I have lots of wildlife visiting my holdings since I decided wildlife is important.
"Shift the whole system in a healthy direction".
Katie Hien who works for the WDNR, having all these credentials as Nate wants to interview, might could tells us about ecocide events in Wisconsin.
I would like to find out if someone would change their goals with just the threat of a complaint being lodged with an international institution.
Good point on humans can do good. Like the machines that are tearing apart the ecosphere can be used to restore it.
To think this through to the end once the ecology is totally tore down the machines are useless. But with a shift of policy the machines could be used to restore the ecology, and when the machines are rendered useless with full ecological engagement there would be a livable planet. Does that make any sense?
The cynicisms are merely stupid reasons because they either would rather just go on vacation sampling all the best alcohol of the regions, or, the lifestyle & food is such that there is not much to nothing left in their minds & body to act.
["... leisure is a great enabler of virtue ..."]
26:05 - 26:52
If the ramifications deriving from this whole question were better understood, we could probably blunt a few sharp edges down the pitfalls we will inevitably encounter as we tumble down the mountain, so it could be prudent to keep in mind when the political economy comes to realize the impasse...
Shine On!💖
I believe we have gone too far down the rabbit hole. I would be surprised if “ecocide” was not hung up in the Courts for a long time. It is a good thought. I agree with it but I don’t think it is possible with our large population.
Lovely guest.
The World is dealing with the Earth like it is a broken-down pick-up truck in need of repairs, rather than a beloved elder on their deathbed. The Earth is well-spring of EVERYTHING yet humanity is systematically and summarily making it all about humans. A reverence for the totality, the symbiotic mystery of life itself is humanity's only hope. We arrogantly think of ourselves as the "pinnacle of creation" yet circumstances may demonstrate that we were actually the biggest fools.
Or clueless goons, or as invasive aliens from another world that just do not fit in here, in contrast to the other eight to ten million other species, that do.
@treefrog3349
Beautifully said. Such profound sentiments. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings 🐢🎄🐿️🦋🐍🪼🪱
We’re meat puppets heading towards our own barbecue.
Most of Humanity is either isolated from the natural world or indifferent towards it!!!
@@robertcurtin-de7sr Just being in many yards can greatly heighten your awareness of it, and so to notice things you never failed to miss, if you become curious enough. It can be full of surprises.
Optimistic we are good at Repetition. EPEDEMIC
I support Pella's perspectives and approach, especially re the iceberg model. One issue is countries with vast natural lands may feel disadvantaged re develping more wealth, while for example european countries with very little natural habitat left go unprosecuted to their historic ecosidal actions.
Getting more laws doesn't change the situation. We already have environmental law, but it's not upheld by the institutions.
Exactly. That is why the shift in worldview is necessary. Paradoxically, law itself can help with that 😊
Polly Higgins, the Scots-Irish barrister (married to a judge) who campaigned at UN level to make Ecocide a crime, died in 2019 aged 50 of lung cancer. Pella seems a worthy successor, but in the end Nations are sovereign and neither Nations nor the humans within them obey international law, or even respect it. Look at the War on Iraq, for a start. Richard Falk, an early user of the term Ecocide in 1973 (over Agent Orange in Vietnam), insisted the NATO Coalition should get a Nuremberg-style trial over Iraq 2003, but of course it got nothing of the kind. Falk, consistent though controversial, always insisted the Nation State should be abolished (a daft idea, but consistent with his desire to make international law top dog). Falk seemed unaware that most people, in both the USA and Europe, thought it might be a Good Idea to effect regime change by force in Iraq (and elsewhere). Though this is against international law. Now had a NATIONAL law forbidden installing Democracy with bombs in someone else's country, things might very well have been different. And going back to Agent Orange, which triggered the first recorded use of the term "Ecocide" (by botanist Arthur Galston in 1970) - only a tiny minority of the American public gave two hoots about Agent Orange or Vietnam in general. And that tiny minority were seen as "unpatriotic" at best for ages - probably still are. There was no national law banning defoliants - quite the reverse, they were widely used in agriculture. There might have been an international law against using them as a chemical weapon - but if so, no-one invoked it until long afterwards.
Likewise, the 1992 UN Convention on Biodiversity and all the other environmental Treaties meet with either no interest or with disagreement by the vast majority of the general public. Why not enshrine them in the national law of every country, and at canton or county level too? We can all see the sewage in our rivers, or the piles of garbage dumped by the roadside everywhere. We all want stuff like this to be a crime that is prosecuted, constantly - and it is only one step on from there, to pointing out that we all contribute to excessive sewage and excessive garbage and excessive everything. People actually quite like being told they are miserable sinners - we know this from the huge crowds that the great preachers used to draw in the 18th and 19th centuries - and I don't think Billy Graham was very polite about humanity's failings either, though I know little about him. Most people don't like pointing fingers of blame at others whilst excluding themselves from blame - it is "holier-than-thou" and very few people get any enjoyment from virtue-signalling.
So anyway, if international law continues to fail to criminalize Ecocide, individual Nations can do it - and this could be more effective, even where damage has crossed national borders - after all, damage always starts somewhere within a national border, like the source of a great river. The countries with domestic Ecocide laws are France (2021), Georgia (1999), Armenia (2003), Ukraine (2001), Belarus (1999), Ecuador (2008; 2014), Kazakhstan (1997), Kyrgyzstan (1997), Moldova (2002), Russia (1996), Tajikistan (1998), Uzbekistan (1994) and Vietnam (1990). I don't know how come, it is an odd list - and I don't know if the laws are enforced in those countries - but as Pella says, enforcement of law needs help from the people and people can be more effective on a local or national level than they can on an international one.
I do love International Law, but it is a bit like loving a Beethoven Symphony or something. It is a mighty wonder and a marvel - but of little practical use, outside the "feelgood factor" which is useful for health. There is far more to life - or at least HUMAN life - than practical matters, of course. Still, if we want to stop Ecocide, national laws would be more practical than international ones. Mind you, I don't think the former would work either, except here and there, in a patchy way. Humans are by nature ecocidal. We are not by nature genocidal, or even by nature child-smackers at the other end of the scale, but we are ecocidal. Our survival depends upon it, whether we are peasant farmers or film stars or anything else. We could diminish the scale of Ecocide by abandoning fossil fuels AND reducing our numbers to about 2 billion globally. But there would still be Ecocide, just less of it.
Even if the crime of Ecocide was reserved for major damage like Bhopal (an accident) or any uranium mine (not an accident), it is still a collective guilt. Because we all use insecticides, and uranium - whether we like it or not. Ecocide in wartime is equally a collective action. The whole Nation goes to war - and if you don't agree, you cannot opt out unless you leave the Nation. (Which is pointless, because most Nations take part in wars - where would you go?) No doubt Falk imagined that without Nations, there would be no Wars but this is really ludicrous, it is hard to know how such a brilliant fellow could be so delusional.
Early on in the conversation I think she seemed, to me at least, to be overly dismissive of our responsibility as individuals to act in ways that complement larger scale, systemic, etc. legal actions, etc. Oil companies won't drill wells unless they have buyers. The pandemic showed what individual actions can do. In the early months of the pandemic, I recall walking down a normally busy roadway--hardly a car in sight. The air was clearer and smelled fresher than I could ever remember it. And the oil companies were bemoaning their losses. We choose the size vehicles we drive, the size homes we live in, the foods we eat, and where we travel to and how. Yes, jobs will shift, but then they always do. Let's use our economic activities to make for a world more compatible with the survival of we and the nature of which we are part of. There's plenty to keep us busy.
Damn, she’s remarkable.
An interesting question I've always wanted to ask an ecologist... How are migratory bird species assigned an "endemicity" when by necessity, their lifecyles see them spending substantial periods of time elsewhere in the world such as those species reliant on the Pacific Flyway? If the species is reliant on multiple ecotypes, how are we able to assign them one more important ecotype at the exclusion of others?
I join you in that craziness
Rights are a concept of the subjective mind.
That's how thanks is said in Sweden?
I apprenticed under a Swedish boatbuilder and his accent made it sound like, "GIMME DAT".
I couldn't figure out why he would scowl and growl "thanks" in his native language and steal people's tools.
Just scratched my head and chalked it up to cultural differences.
I love her energy. I'm not sure how we get the big boy countries to get on board, though, that's the hard part with all of these policies. Great interview after that dud salesman last week lol.
So human or maybe so humane. Her message may not be as exciting as the violence to which I am prone to be attracted but may be the one that tempers my wild fearful beast within. I fear that my lifetime is nearly complete and I haven't learned nor integrated the lesson yet. Why should I think that anyone else might? As long as security and growth are the commanding features of our species, it is difficult to see an orderly simplification.
Only sovereign entities can exercise rights
I feel that the corporations are too difficult to shackle or wrist-slap. It is too bad corporations are not required to expand their board to include representatives from communities they extract from, take labor from, produce in, or handle waste within. If the CEOs had to answer to stakeholders on this planet directly to retain their positions, there might be more of a push to move business differently. As much as the whole setup disgusts me, I'd take this over more lip service.
...and the guidelines do not actually defend the side of nature.
Nate should spend more time trying to connect with people in his own neighborhood!!! Try to contact a local conservation
organization and see if they need some volunteers!!! Think Global But Act Local Also!!!
I’ve tried. Over and over. And I’ll continue to try
just read “I Want a Better Catastrophe”. It mentions some other guy Who promotes an idea called The Great Simplification named Nate Higgins. What are the chances? 😂
Giving nature rights greater than human rights, because we don't exist without nature, is something I agree with, but I don't believe most people will go along with this when it gets down to looking at the details of this. The vast majority have not cared about the rights of nature, still don't. They have given themselves the right to take what they want by force. This huge human population has not grown by respecting the rights of nature. A tiny minority of people might be serious about respecting natural laws. However, natural law says that overshoot of a species results in a dieoff. The bigger the overshoot the bigger the dieoff. Reality does not care if people deny it. Of course, people have no free will on the issue, they can't help denying, that is part of reality as well.
Agree, though the die off won’t be by choice and the trigger is likely initially to be ignored believed as only a temporary problem, that is until it’s too late to have prepared adequately. Kurt Dahl’s “An American Famine - A Rosetta Stone of the coming collapse”, the trigger is depleting resources, creating social unrest, heightened by renegade military saboteurs. Whilst the novel is a work of fiction, many have said it should be regarded as non-fiction. Warning if you’re of a sensitive disposition it’s not pleasant reading🤔
Deep dive teaser on Uses of the Erotic, The Erotic as Power.
Regarding the ‘find the others’ comments - I find that eco aware people frequently end up being MAGA conspiracy theorists with compartmentalized reasoning. I’m finding a big crossover where I live. Hopefully that’s not the case for other listeners.
Sorry to hear that. I'm curious: What region of the US (I'm assuming) do you live in?
You know, I'm going to say something here. You got to live with these people, these are your fellow human beings. They are not your enemies, they are your neighbors. Whether you like it or not. We're talking about the collapse of modern civilization and you're fretting over MAGA? Come on now. Get out and make friends with those people. At least they're eco aware as you say, that's better than most. And whatever your hang-ups with their propensity for compartmentalized reasoning, whatever that is exactly, just let it slide. Give 'em a break for once...
If only passing more laws would make human beings less destructive and more civilized.
The laws mentioned are for corporations. Corporations aren’t human beings. They respond to laws much differently.
@@carlgreen4222Natural resources are under the control of national sovereigns. The great simplification will weaken international agreements and strengthen those countries that can operate as autarkies. Each country will exploit the resources within its territory and the rest of the world will be told to butt out. Trans-national corporations will become a thing of the past.
This approach is a hopium overdose.
The problem is we DON'T all agree to stop damaging nature. If we did, things would be easier.
ya you wouldn't have electricity or food - sure makes things easier!
But you don't. You're here, on the internet, using the fuel to express such nonsense. We have to accept that every process will continue until it CAN'T, or is less efficient than a new process or old process, not until some arbitrary point where people WON'T.
By you even being here, you won't. The manufacturer of your device is supported by you, by your consumption of fuel making electricity, by your food consumption...you want them to stop...but you're still consuming.
Understand this: You cannot be more moral than your enemy and not become extinct. The resources you don't use become theirs, for cheaper.
@@skeetorkiftwon I agree with you. We are not going to stop what we are doing until we are Stopped, or in your words "CANT" That's the reason I don't blame corporations, because they sold "stuff" and I bought "stuff" how can I blame them? hell! I was chasing women and muscle cars and didn't know or care about the environment. Once I looked into it...I was horrified!. As an American, I learned that Americans are using resources 4x as much as other countries. I don't have the right to complain about anything! I have reduced by eco footprint. I got rid of my car and use an ebike to get to work. I know It's not much, but I'm trying.
@@daytime12 There is a book by T.H. White, "The Once and Future King." It is about King Arthur trying to be moral in an immoral world. I suggest you read it.
When someone talks about the rights of nature I know there's a crazy person talking. Thanks for saving me an hour.
No more absurd than any rights. Especially yours.
📍53:02
It's a sticky wicket. I fear that for there to be Ecocide législation there would need to be human representatives to speak on behalf of the ecosystems. This, as in all worldwide and even national representation systems, will attract narcissist type personalities who become corrupt and elitist. I have a character in a book I'm writing, female, privelged, white, batshit crazy, big hair, white robes, thinks that she is a shaman, speaks on behalf of nature, it all goes wrong for the humans on the ground, then the humans have to leave, then the corporations come back in with no resistance. We have to design this eventuality out of the system first.
The best way would be to have more people living on the land, practicing regenerative agriculture (producing on interest and not on organic capital).
@@andywilliams7989 Regenerating agriculture is also a problem.
@@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner dépends on how you do it. It does at least get the people on the land into a different mindset, shall we say a step in the right direction.
@@andywilliams7989 Sure, for this economic system. I get the point though, anything is better than chem ag.
@@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner I'm working on small regen ag pushing perma design into something that conventional ag can get its head around. Raising livestock as a means to doing crop ag ( cereals) instead of doing crop ag to raise livestock. It's a bridge, a route through the bottleneck we have to navigate. It keeps me busy, which is good.
You do realize that the universe grants only a single right and that it applies to
every form of life?
Don't kid yourself, Nate. If a herring got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about! - Troy McClure
Whilst Pella Thiel maverick ecologist, may not reach the watershed she’s committed herself to, and perhaps Nate, if a lack of natural resources result in social unrest towards famine then those who can sustainably tend a garden, smallholding/homestead, farm, especially as large regional group are the more likely to survive, at least longer than most who don’t have those skills. Kurt Dahl’s “An American Famine - A Rosetta Stone of the coming collapse”, the trigger is depleting resources, social unrest, heightened by renegade military saboteurs. Whilst the novel is a work of fiction, many have said it should be regarded as non-fiction. Warning if you’re of a sensitive disposition it’s not pleasant reading🤔
A Right is the freedom to act in a social context. The freedom to act implies choice, which only Man has or can claim. The idea of "Rights" applied to anything other than a human being is complete nonsense.
I must respond...not just to this post but to most writings about so called society. Life without the health of the land, skies and seas is an empty and at most, a temporary thing. I can philosophize morn 'til night and not be in concert with the greater world even if I can dazzle my neighbor with my wit. Do I have a choice to eat, drink and seek shelter? No. Unless I wish to relinquish my individual membership as a living being. Society is a beast that is yet tethered to a time and place that can cause it to drown, bake, shake or succumb in any number of fashions. Likely all.
I haven't watched yet, but is there any mention of human population overshoot? I'm going to say no.
Add in human behavior and you would be on to something.
Having viewed/listened to Nate’s conversation, start to finish, with Pella Thiel maverick ecologist, don’t recall mention of human population overshoot, but if that’s what you want to hear discussed there’s a excellent conversation on Planet Critical (Rachel Donald) “Overshooting Earth's Boundaries | Bill Rees” . And if you wonder how the great cull of humanity might start and progress, recommend obtaining a copy of Kurt Dahl’s “An American Famine - A Rosetta Stone of the coming collapse”, the trigger is depleting resources, social unrest, heightened by renegade military saboteurs. Whilst the novel is a work of fiction, many have said it should be regarded as non-fiction, but warning if you’re of a sensitive disposition its not pleasant reading🤔