A few more book recommendations if you are interested: - The New Human Rights Movement by Peter Joseph - Ubuntu Contributionism by Michael Tellinger - And probably a little tricky to find, but still possible, is by Canadian author Marcia Nozick, entitled "No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities" it reads very well, and published in 1992 it is almost eerie how relevant it is today and scary how far we've gone from the suggestions in the book.
Jason Hickel, what a brilliant mind and an honest person! Always straight to the point, reasoning about the core problem. His responses to any argument make so much sense.. so realistic. He really "owns" what he says.
@@hardstylelife5749 The point being the humanity's core problems. Like colonization and inequality. Because if we want to cure a disease, we must deal with the disease it's self rather than any symptoms. It is very important to focus on the core problems so that people can understand. I didn't know specifically what is wrong in our world, for a long time...
I wish Holly had had more opportunity to interview Jason. This was advertised as a student-led interview, but the professor took up the lion's share of the time. The questions she posed were more substantive than the professor's, incidentally.
@@garetthewitt9976 Jason Hickel, and others, suggest Universal Basic Goods and Services, which means every person's very foundational needs are met by the productive capacity of the region you live in which can be largely managed by cooperative companies. With a UBI and Guaranteed Livable Income we can all make enough money to survive, but we won't need all that much because housing will be provided, as a human right, as would nutritious food, energy, healthcare, education, transportation and more. This is an approach to economics that is sane and sustainable. Not based on endless capitalist growth. Based on well-being, instead. If you follow that train of thought and those policies are implemented, that also leads to: Imagine a world without money! Without the need to labor for income, to be exploited, to be oppressed and produce ecologically damaging things so a few people can get rich. All of that nonsense goes away and we get to actually live. Like Jason's book says, "Less is More", and it truly is if we know what we are trying to achieve with a functional, sustainable economic system.
the student questions were well developed, thought-out and considered; i'm sure they'd have put more to Hickel if it wasn't for the moderator. I'm glad someone made their disapproval known by the end.
It’s good that the moderators asked hard questions, which I felt Jason gave good answers to. Judging by the moderator’s questions and the comments in here, there seems to be a human tendency to be dubious of new ways we might structure society in a healthier way that works for everyone. But we are running out of time. We can either choose to adopt a better way now together, or wait and arrive through a more painful route.
There is no better way. Do you seriously think that after 200 years this guy suddenly figured it all out while nobody else has? First of all he's being totally dishonest, he's just using new terminology. Degrowth, and "democratic economy" are blatantly new age words for socialism. There is nothing new here, only language manipulation.
We owe a system change to all opressed peoples, all future human generations and all species on earth. Ecosocialism needs to be implemented, by all means necessary.
@@kukuyeah Well, degrowth is not an economic system, socialism is also super destructive and capitalism is a complete disaster from A to Z. So eco-socialism would be the logical answer... There are other proposals, but they are not as developed as this model.
I find myself confused about the euphoric reviews about this professor: it sound like a primary example of somebody putting himself into mud up till the neck with prosaic superficial responses and then being unable to evade a self-made trap in any other way but using even more extensively prosaic peripheral arguments. The student’s questions were quite straight and interesting, but I may dare say I found myself not having the same impression from the response of the guest: it sounded rhetoric, generalized and full of common says while never truly arriving to punctually, precisely and insightfully reply to the questions to their core (it seemed to me the host shared the same feeling: I.e. 51:13 ). Ive been listening to any single speech of somebody like Yanis Varoufakis, often debating and lecturing about the very same topics and replying to very similar questions, and I may dare say that liking or disliking the guy, his political ideas and whatnot, his response are always laser focused and deeply insightful. I don’t know professor hickel, so I’m not a liker nor disliker neither of him or his work, but from this unique interview I’ve heard with him as a guest I can’t quite comprehend nor share the enthusiasm about his speech. May I ask to kindly suggest me some interviews/lectures from this guy where I may eventually appreciate his insights and thoughts to a full extend ? Thanks. That said I thanks the host for holding this meeting and making some meaningful points and interesting questions.
Ah, so you're one of those people that assess content based on "vibes". Your entire post is you doing precisely the thing you're accusing Hickel of doing.
@@CelticKnight missing the “accusation” part of my little comment, I would honestly be interested to know why you think so: I didn’t quite get what do you mean with “vibes”, can you elaborate that?
@@RubenKemp The US grid loses so much energy (24 quadrillion BTU), that it could easily power another US economy. Use the regenerative grid theory, namely create battery fill and hydrogen from nightly and seasonal losses, to meet energy needs. Easy money.
Replacing power fossil fuel power plants with small modular reactors is growth. Lab grown meat production is growth. Replacing gasoline powered cars with tethered electric is growth. Factory built modular homes is growth. Ramping up hydroponics, possibly with in home environmental systems, is growth. Shifting from weapons production to space exploration is growth. More public rail is growth. Raising living standards is growth. Employee-owned cooperatives converting overseas divisions and supply chains to employee ownership and control with equivalent standards of living to American employee owners is growth. Making more doctors takes growth. Expanded vacation infrastructure requires growth. There are also ways to reform raise some taxes (and scrap others), with significant tax savings for sales to ESOPs and cooperatives. Specifics. Don't promise to shut down industries. Say how you would build new ones. Saying what "should" happen without saying how, with that how being desirable, sounds nice and wins awards, but does nothing unless it is seen as an opportunity.
Capitalism and the free market are very different things. Capitalism is about the CEO class gaining advantage over all other sectors, including over small and institutional shareholders. Create systems where CEO candidates compete for their jobs in open auction rather than by crony hiring by boards of directors and capitalism starts its decline.
The planet Earth is fine. Humanity has multiple big problems. Far too many people to be fed without modern industrial agriculture, that requires fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are in quite rapid depletion but alternatives are not available without fossil fuels to mine, refine, and transport the materials for the mass infrastructure that is low emissions energy. Meaning global warming will continue to accelerate.
If a corporation is making a product no one wants, people won't buy it and the corporation will make another product they hope will sale. Your premise we have no control over products is straight up wrong.
The US throws away 40% of all food produced. And corporations make literal tons of products that don't sell and end up in landfills every day. Until we have a democratic economy this will continue to be the case, because overproduction and waste is still profitable to capital.
@@acobster Nobody takes a product that doesn't sell and puts it in a landfill. Are you for real? That's why "market pricing" is such a successful practice. Everything sells, it just depends on the price. If it's a bad seller the price goes down and they don't make any more. Over production and waste is never profitable. How on Earth did you arrive at that assumption? Please explain how a "democratic economy" (meaning socialism) solves this problem? It can't. There is no mechanism to tell producers what or how much to produce. This is why in Soviet Russia they had shelves full of products that nobody wants and empty shelves of what people do want.
GDP is Grossly Distorted Propaganda What is Net Domestic Product? What happened to the depreciation of durable consumer goods in the NDP equation? How does planned obsolescence affect GDP?
His laughing as he gives his answers - as if what he's saying is so evidently and indisputably true - is just nauseating. So who will decide what production and consumption is superfluous...him?
I love how she accidentally demonstrates how stupid this idea is by pointing out that people were making the same claims 50 years ago and nothing they said turned out to be true
Attempting to live in fantasyland leads to nightmares. Take advice from a person that understands neither economics nor the environment and you will get a horrible outcome. Ask any communist country.
Funny thing is that he’s selling fried air: there is nothing solid tangible at the end of one hour - almost non stop - of him talking. He would make an excellent politician
Lol degrowth is just eugenics dressed up differently. The problem is the current mode of operation and who controls the means of production. You guys are all smart enough to know this really. This guy Hickel is just another guy selling you a product in the marketplace of ideas. And he's selling them like hot cakes! Doesn't he make you feel smart for saying something you already knew to be true? 🤔
You missed the point. Degrowth just means that the economy doesn't need to constantly grow. It does _not_ mean "no more growth in any sector," and it doesn't rely on Malthusian "world overpopulation" ideology (which _is_ eugenicist, as you point out). Hickel named the current mode of production as the core problem, just as you did.
I watched Alex Epstein's talk at the USA senate. Epstein happens to be a philosopher, who is arguing all scientific data for carbon emissions and climate change. He goes so far as to say that a child's death in Gambia could be prevented if we were more pro-fossil fuels. The logical fallacy is as follows: baby death -> because no incubator -> because no electricity -> because no fossil fuels usage! We might as well ask a reverend's opinion, if we really aren't human beings haters.
objectivist, member of a for-profit think tank and claims that humans don't cause climate change (who won't even own his implication that climate change doesn't exist or isn't a threat). I was, at least, expecting more than that.
Darn, here I was getting all excited and then you mentioned human being hater, I guess that counts me out :(. And double darn, I get to miss out on Alex "global warming isn't so bad in spite of the overwhelming consensus among experts" Epstein
"I suggest anyone who is not a human being hater check out Alex Epstein on why thinking like this is so destructive." Epstein's work is totally divorced from Earth's limits and the laws of nature: Hickel's work is actually grounded in reality.
UNLESS RICH COUNTRIES ADOPT A PLANNED ECONOMY, DEGROWTH IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE PLUTOCRACY WILL NOT ALLOW A PLANNED ECONOMY THAT LIMITS GREED. PLUTOCRACY RULES, FOLKS. SO DREAM ON.
Thank you all. Thank you Jason Hickel.
I've read both of Jason's books and this talk cleared up a lot of doubts, thank you!!
A few more book recommendations if you are interested:
- The New Human Rights Movement by Peter Joseph
- Ubuntu Contributionism by Michael Tellinger
- And probably a little tricky to find, but still possible, is by Canadian author Marcia Nozick, entitled "No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities" it reads very well, and published in 1992 it is almost eerie how relevant it is today and scary how far we've gone from the suggestions in the book.
@@coolioso808 thanks! Will check them out
@@ericksoun cheers! Enjoy.
Jason Hickel, what a brilliant mind and an honest person!
Always straight to the point, reasoning about the core problem.
His responses to any argument make so much sense.. so realistic.
He really "owns" what he says.
Sorry I find myself lost, don’t know the guy so I’m not trying to judge, but how exactly his interview sounded “straight to the point”?
@@hardstylelife5749 The point being the humanity's core problems. Like colonization and inequality. Because if we want to cure a disease, we must deal with the disease it's self rather than any symptoms. It is very important to focus on the core problems so that people can understand. I didn't know specifically what is wrong in our world, for a long time...
@@criskalogiros8181 completely agree about that, it’s most definitely a logical analysis
I wish Holly had had more opportunity to interview Jason. This was advertised as a student-led interview, but the professor took up the lion's share of the time. The questions she posed were more substantive than the professor's, incidentally.
This man is incredible. Check out his interviews on the Macro n Cheese podcast. Amazing work!!
Jason Hickel is my hero
How will people make money to live???
Does he ever explain how people will still maintain their lifestyle but not work ???? If not he’s a moron
@@garetthewitt9976They won’t, this is a version of communism and people will die by the millions, just as every other time in history.
@@garetthewitt9976 Jason Hickel, and others, suggest Universal Basic Goods and Services, which means every person's very foundational needs are met by the productive capacity of the region you live in which can be largely managed by cooperative companies. With a UBI and Guaranteed Livable Income we can all make enough money to survive, but we won't need all that much because housing will be provided, as a human right, as would nutritious food, energy, healthcare, education, transportation and more. This is an approach to economics that is sane and sustainable. Not based on endless capitalist growth. Based on well-being, instead.
If you follow that train of thought and those policies are implemented, that also leads to: Imagine a world without money! Without the need to labor for income, to be exploited, to be oppressed and produce ecologically damaging things so a few people can get rich. All of that nonsense goes away and we get to actually live.
Like Jason's book says, "Less is More", and it truly is if we know what we are trying to achieve with a functional, sustainable economic system.
@@garetthewitt9976 by producing things. Same as always.
Rich nations ...excellent starting point.
this lady is unbelivably caddy, feel bad for that student who was supposed to be asking questions and got railroaded the entire time.
the student questions were well developed, thought-out and considered; i'm sure they'd have put more to Hickel if it wasn't for the moderator. I'm glad someone made their disapproval known by the end.
Love jason, and the host had great questions 2!
It’s good that the moderators asked hard questions, which I felt Jason gave good answers to. Judging by the moderator’s questions and the comments in here, there seems to be a human tendency to be dubious of new ways we might structure society in a healthier way that works for everyone. But we are running out of time. We can either choose to adopt a better way now together, or wait and arrive through a more painful route.
There is no better way. Do you seriously think that after 200 years this guy suddenly figured it all out while nobody else has?
First of all he's being totally dishonest, he's just using new terminology. Degrowth, and "democratic economy" are blatantly new age words for socialism. There is nothing new here, only language manipulation.
We owe a system change to all opressed peoples, all future human generations and all species on earth. Ecosocialism needs to be implemented, by all means necessary.
By FORCE you mean by STATISTS. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now. The MORAL Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
Why?
@@kukuyeah it is the only sustainable economic system.
@@hex2637 Why do you think that?
@@kukuyeah Well, degrowth is not an economic system, socialism is also super destructive and capitalism is a complete disaster from A to Z. So eco-socialism would be the logical answer... There are other proposals, but they are not as developed as this model.
When will people come to their senses and realize we can't forever increase our numbers without ruining the small, blue planet we're on?
Cognitive dissonance ....
The point is that people have ALREADY realized this. We just don't have the political power to change course. Yet.
@@acobster I debate people all the time who insist increasing our numbers will never be a problem. So many still are full of cognitive dissonance.
Regrowth coupled with limitarianism may change the world for the better.
God doesn't care about GDP and abhors greed. Please continue to make content like this so we can protect everyone, not just people in rich countries.
Why do you think every successful person is greedy?
@@anthonymorris5084 Who says being wealthy makes you successful?
@@HealingLifeKwikly Stop posting me. I have no interest in engaging with your ceaseless and mindless trolling.
Social controls, rationing and confiscatory economics and taxation...
STATISTS. Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now. The MORAL Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
What?
I find myself confused about the euphoric reviews about this professor: it sound like a primary example of somebody putting himself into mud up till the neck with prosaic superficial responses and then being unable to evade a self-made trap in any other way but using even more extensively prosaic peripheral arguments. The student’s questions were quite straight and interesting, but I may dare say I found myself not having the same impression from the response of the guest: it sounded rhetoric, generalized and full of common says while never truly arriving to punctually, precisely and insightfully reply to the questions to their core (it seemed to me the host shared the same feeling: I.e. 51:13 ). Ive been listening to any single speech of somebody like Yanis Varoufakis, often debating and lecturing about the very same topics and replying to very similar questions, and I may dare say that liking or disliking the guy, his political ideas and whatnot, his response are always laser focused and deeply insightful. I don’t know professor hickel, so I’m not a liker nor disliker neither of him or his work, but from this unique interview I’ve heard with him as a guest I can’t quite comprehend nor share the enthusiasm about his speech. May I ask to kindly suggest me some interviews/lectures from this guy where I may eventually appreciate his insights and thoughts to a full extend ? Thanks. That said I thanks the host for holding this meeting and making some meaningful points and interesting questions.
ua-cam.com/video/qrcwfyvOrLU/v-deo.html
@@criskalogiros8181 thank you, much appreciated :)
Ah, so you're one of those people that assess content based on "vibes". Your entire post is you doing precisely the thing you're accusing Hickel of doing.
@@CelticKnight missing the “accusation” part of my little comment, I would honestly be interested to know why you think so: I didn’t quite get what do you mean with “vibes”, can you elaborate that?
Upgrade to the hydrogen economy. It is a very convenient, and cash producing step to take.
Like he said, where will 'we' create the electricity necessary to make this hydrogen economy possible?
@@RubenKemp The US grid loses so much energy (24 quadrillion BTU), that it could easily power another US economy.
Use the regenerative grid theory, namely create battery fill and hydrogen from nightly and seasonal losses, to meet energy needs.
Easy money.
"Degrowth" demanded by people who have no understanding of what this even means.
Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now. The MORAL Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
Replacing power fossil fuel power plants with small modular reactors is growth. Lab grown meat production is growth. Replacing gasoline powered cars with tethered electric is growth. Factory built modular homes is growth. Ramping up hydroponics, possibly with in home environmental systems, is growth. Shifting from weapons production to space exploration is growth. More public rail is growth. Raising living standards is growth. Employee-owned cooperatives converting overseas divisions and supply chains to employee ownership and control with equivalent standards of living to American employee owners is growth. Making more doctors takes growth. Expanded vacation infrastructure requires growth.
There are also ways to reform raise some taxes (and scrap others), with significant tax savings for sales to ESOPs and cooperatives.
Specifics. Don't promise to shut down industries. Say how you would build new ones. Saying what "should" happen without saying how, with that how being desirable, sounds nice and wins awards, but does nothing unless it is seen as an opportunity.
Capitalism and the free market are very different things. Capitalism is about the CEO class gaining advantage over all other sectors, including over small and institutional shareholders. Create systems where CEO candidates compete for their jobs in open auction rather than by crony hiring by boards of directors and capitalism starts its decline.
The planet Earth is fine. Humanity has multiple big problems. Far too many people to be fed without modern industrial agriculture, that requires fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are in quite rapid depletion but alternatives are not available without fossil fuels to mine, refine, and transport the materials for the mass infrastructure that is low emissions energy. Meaning global warming will continue to accelerate.
If a corporation is making a product no one wants, people won't buy it and the corporation will make another product they hope will sale. Your premise we have no control over products is straight up wrong.
The US throws away 40% of all food produced. And corporations make literal tons of products that don't sell and end up in landfills every day. Until we have a democratic economy this will continue to be the case, because overproduction and waste is still profitable to capital.
@@acobster Nobody takes a product that doesn't sell and puts it in a landfill. Are you for real? That's why "market pricing" is such a successful practice. Everything sells, it just depends on the price. If it's a bad seller the price goes down and they don't make any more. Over production and waste is never profitable. How on Earth did you arrive at that assumption?
Please explain how a "democratic economy" (meaning socialism) solves this problem? It can't. There is no mechanism to tell producers what or how much to produce. This is why in Soviet Russia they had shelves full of products that nobody wants and empty shelves of what people do want.
GDP is Grossly Distorted Propaganda
What is Net Domestic Product?
What happened to the depreciation of durable consumer goods in the NDP equation? How does planned obsolescence affect GDP?
What does an economic anthropologist say about mandatory accounting in the schools?
That produiction that is necessary for the population ( that cannot be exported)_
His laughing as he gives his answers - as if what he's saying is so evidently and indisputably true - is just nauseating. So who will decide what production and consumption is superfluous...him?
Allow myself to say I got a non dissimilar feeling.
I guess that would be determined by direct democracy or representative democracy in parliaments the same way we decide what laws we should have.
The people doing the labor. That's what a democratic economy means.
I love how she accidentally demonstrates how stupid this idea is by pointing out that people were making the same claims 50 years ago and nothing they said turned out to be true
I like how he addressed that by directly answering her question about what those people were wrong about and why he disagrees
Attempting to live in fantasyland leads to nightmares. Take advice from a person that understands neither economics nor the environment and you will get a horrible outcome. Ask any communist country.
Funny thing is that he’s selling fried air: there is nothing solid tangible at the end of one hour - almost non stop - of him talking. He would make an excellent politician
He talked about the cooperatives, democratization of the economy and forming aliances between labour unions and ecological movements for example.
He literally has a PhD in economics.
Lol degrowth is just eugenics dressed up differently. The problem is the current mode of operation and who controls the means of production. You guys are all smart enough to know this really. This guy Hickel is just another guy selling you a product in the marketplace of ideas. And he's selling them like hot cakes! Doesn't he make you feel smart for saying something you already knew to be true? 🤔
Pardon me to say bravo to be one of the few noticing something like that, even if I say so myself
You missed the point. Degrowth just means that the economy doesn't need to constantly grow. It does _not_ mean "no more growth in any sector," and it doesn't rely on Malthusian "world overpopulation" ideology (which _is_ eugenicist, as you point out). Hickel named the current mode of production as the core problem, just as you did.
I suggest anyone who is not a human being hater check out Alex Epstein on why thinking like this is so destructive.
I watched Alex Epstein's talk at the USA senate.
Epstein happens to be a philosopher, who is arguing all scientific data for carbon emissions and climate change.
He goes so far as to say that a child's death in Gambia could be prevented if we were more pro-fossil fuels.
The logical fallacy is as follows:
baby death ->
because no incubator ->
because no electricity ->
because no fossil fuels usage!
We might as well ask a reverend's opinion,
if we really aren't human beings haters.
have you listen to the whole video ?
objectivist, member of a for-profit think tank and claims that humans don't cause climate change (who won't even own his implication that climate change doesn't exist or isn't a threat). I was, at least, expecting more than that.
Darn, here I was getting all excited and then you mentioned human being hater, I guess that counts me out :(. And double darn, I get to miss out on Alex "global warming isn't so bad in spite of the overwhelming consensus among experts" Epstein
"I suggest anyone who is not a human being hater check out Alex Epstein on why thinking like this is so destructive." Epstein's work is totally divorced from Earth's limits and the laws of nature: Hickel's work is actually grounded in reality.
She slips and call normal inteligent people "oponents"!!! at 3:45
UNLESS RICH COUNTRIES ADOPT A PLANNED ECONOMY, DEGROWTH IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE PLUTOCRACY WILL NOT ALLOW A PLANNED ECONOMY THAT LIMITS GREED. PLUTOCRACY RULES, FOLKS. SO DREAM ON.
I do not know about the stupid notion of "degrowth" what is a fact is the serious global infection of "debraining"