This is what a progressive is supposed to sound like. Reasoning instead of name calling and threats will get you a lot farther in the long term. It's too bad the MSM insists on calling anarchists, "progressives". The two aren't the same.
@CloudStrife78: While I agree with your sentiment I would still like to protest. In my young years I was somehow involved within a discussion circles dealing with different facets of anarchism. This was very interesting time for me. This past. There are lessons I took with me from there. One of them is there are different anarchists even in theoretical circles that I frequented. What you really want to mean (I think) are Antifants - people that do violence under the cover of one ideology or another. They may be fighting for common good, they may even think so - who knows. The result is that they are just the same as the things and people that they allegedly fight.
Hans Kloss - people who think "Justice by any means (including violence)" is viable do not think, and they certainly don't read. They don't know 20th century history.
Honestly, the SJW debacle at Evergreen may have been a blessing in disguise. Not only did it expose that school for the joke that it is for allowing such nonsense to take place, but it also catapulted Bret into the limelight some and dramatically increased his exposure. Given how truly brilliant and reasonable the man is, even relative to other university professors, we should all be thankful in a way that the debacle took place. Bret is so much bigger and better than Evergreen, and now the world knows. The twerps who tried to get him fired will never be known as anything more than the little twerps they are. Props to Bret and his wife, Heather, for rising above and becoming something bigger and better.
Listen to the Dark Horse Podcast... Bret Weinstein and his wife regularly discuss recent issues, phenomena, feedback thereof, and solutions. A must listen.
I just watched The Dark Horse Podcast before having this pop up on my feed. If only someone had 𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 to Bret then, it would be highly unlikely we would be facing the challenges we are currently in.
I like Bret, he makes for a great liberal. I think I disagree with the founder part, in such that, its not that they missed and couldn't foresee the growth of technology and more so that they already saw the mechanism that was in place that created a balance. What Bret is essentially preaching here is that morality is missing from the system. He points out that you have Market and Government and that they should be isolated from each other and that there is a third system needed. Morality fits that gap and to the founders religion was the vehicle in which morality was delivered. Religion in that time was the guiding hand that instructed you to do the right thing. Its what told you to help your neighbor, ration yourself, not take more than what was needed, etc. I think what the founders didn't expect was the severe decline in that third balancing factor. This forces people to discover morality on their own and I would argue that this has failed largely. Evidence of this is in the growth of government. Morality is a system that depends entirely on the individual. You must make the decision of right or wrong, it can not be dictated to you. I'll use healthcare as an example. If you think that your personal health and the health of the people close to you is the governments responsibility what you are doing is removing responsibility from yourself and asking others to subsidize that responsibility. The moral thing to do would be to take care of your health, and help those close to you as much as you can. In a church, if someone is sick or in a bind the community gets together to help raise money to lift these people back up. If a family member were to lose their home the moral thing would be to help them with lodging, finances, and provide emotional support. When you put this role on government it introduces regulations which cause instability in the market. New rules can require complete restructurings in companies which can costs vasts amounts of moneys and jobs. This probably has the greatest effect for the people at the bottom of pyramid. Lower pay, less job availability, more hours of work needed. This then leads to a drop in an individuals charitable ability. Longer hours leaves less time to help other. Less expendable income means less to donate to those in need. And job loss means that instead of helping they're the ones that need help. Inevitably shrinking the moral system even further and driving even greater need to increase government to take care of the rising amount of those in need. And thus the spiral occurs. I think California is a prime example of this(with Venezuela probably being the best) . The homeless rate there is soaring. They are quickly eliminating a middle class and growing their upper and lower classes. This should be a concern as the likely hood of jumping from lower to upper class is obviously low. In other words, their lower class is trapped. To tie this back around to climate, advances in environment friendly technology and renewable resources is costly as its a relatively new industry. This means the products that might best help protect the environment are only readily available to the middle and upper classes. This makes its rather difficult for those that want to help, want to donate and want to protect the future of the planet difficult. Its easy for the rich to by that EV but the comparable alternative for the poor might be to walk or bike to work assuming its even feasible given the distance, weather and time available to do so. The important thing here being, that Morality is essential and implies a level of individual responsibility. Much like how our republic is designed upon three branches that provide checks and balances so does the greater system that sits above it. An imbalance in one branch leads to instability in the others. And in a world in which the religion vehicle has declined we must take a greater step towards instilling proper values in ourselves and our children. I expect no one to read this :)
I read it. It's an interesting suggestion. You suggested religion as a vehicle for morality. I have an alternate suggestion: community. Communities are groups of people who know, or at the very least know of each other, and continue to remain interested in and socially interact with one another. We all live in a society, but few of us live in a community. In a society a person's value is moderated by money. In a community a person's value is moderated by reputation. Reputation motivates people to do more things that other people like, because people like to be liked. A member of a community who is suffering or falls on hard times gives other members of the community who have the power to help an opportunity to become more liked by the whole community. Because people like seeing generosity, they like seeing someone help their friends, family, and neighbors. Outside of your community though, people know little or nothing about you. They don't know if you've tended to do kind or unkind things. Your reputation doesn't influence how others treat you because you have no reputation with them. People who live in a society but not a community then lack this potential motivation to be a helper, to be generous. Going out of your way to help someone will make only a small number of people like you more, the vast majority of people in society you interact with will have no idea what you've done, and so won't treat you any differently one way or the other. So your motivation for being a good person is limited, if few people will ever know or care.
@@IamBHM So I started writing a response and then reread this and decided I should have read it closer the first time haha. I'm surprised anyone actually dug up that long post from two years ago. Yes, I'd agree that community is essentially correct. I was referring more so that in the past, your religious congregation was your community. The church served as both town hall and moral compass. It was the banner under which all the locals could gather. And yes, I'd agree that very few people exist within a community now. I just think that a large part of that is the decline of the religious community and the lack of anything to fill that gap. I might walk back my original post just a tad as it is definitely clear that technology and global media have exacerbated this decline but the decline began before that. Maybe that's unavoidable though. It could be that the growth of technology and the decline of religion are inherently linked. It's also possible that there may be a massive religious resurgence, as the world tends to be automatically balancing. I like your distinction between society and community though. My only problem with community is that the term basically used for any group of people that share a common interest. This just causes problems when explaining things to people because they'll immediately conflate something like a "gaming community" with their local community and theres a pretty large difference between the two. Nothing to be done about that though
Religion has never been about only the individual in the US, and it's not essential to how religion works, at any rate. Weinstein's whole point is that individualism simply won't help us overcome the climate crisis, we have to tackle the systemic structures that reward exploitation of shared resources. And that does require moral resolve, but not in terms of "personal responsibility" but collective action and reform.
@@retsaf1 You're simply biased by your own culture too much for me to take seriously the suggestion that the Bible is the final guide to human life. After all, what civilizational paradigm is basically destroying the planet? The West, and especially the most religious and Christian nation bears the most responsibility in this- America.
3 роки тому
I thought laws were supposed to uphold morality? At Least the fear of being found out and charged with a punishment should limit criminal behavior...
@@TheMilwaukeeProtocol that was his only crime yes. In the end a mob armed with baseball bats was roaming round the Evergreen campuus looking for Bret. The Police called Bret and told him to stay away as the Principle at Evergreen stood them down and they would not be able to protect him. Both he and his brilliant wife have left Evergreen now and are visiting fellows at Princeton. Check out The Dark Horse Podcast if you haven't seen it yet.
The is basically an argument for using the Coase Theorem to formulate climate policy. Everyone agrees with this framework. The issue is pricing the negative externalities of, say, carbon emissions. This exercise quickly leads to the *real* climate debate that we should be having: estimating the timing of global warming, putting a price tag on the future positive and negative consequences and picking a discount factor to express the NPV of these future impacts.
Ah yes but you see putting a price of things and paying for them is something that no one (from SJW's to corporations) is willing to pay. Hence snowflake behaviour on the left and "too big to fail" on the right. Violence will eventually mark-to-market the circus as it always does.
Seems like calculating the and assigning the cost would be difficult, time consuming, and likely inaccurate. I’d expect to see the cost placed on the wrong things and a string of unintended consequences roll out.
On the smaller ancillary side issues perhaps, but calculating the social cost of greenhouse gases has been done. No surprise it's more than the cost natural gas companies like Exxon Mobil are advocating out of only one side of their mouths for. Whilst they continue to stall any action at all.
"Risk Society" by Ulrich Beck. injustice is the result of the separation of Risk and Reward. when a power company creates pollution risk, but the shareholders are not exposed to it, they reap the profit without the risk exposure. it's an interesting lens, but does have it's limitations, like what if the risks are unknown?
A perfect example of a positive feed-back loop is the indemnification of the vaccine cartel, the stripping of product liability, all the while mandating/coercing the administration of ineffective and unsafe products to a younger and younger group of individuals, individuals for which the products provide no discernable benefit, only harm.
Whatever algorithm, or whomever the kind person/mod/dev put this up (for all I know Ted asked the algorithm, nicely) at this point in our biological history, you are a gentleperson and a scholar. You have my deepest gratitude for such a heroic measure. You have instilled in me much greater faith in the (greater) workings of UA-cam, and maybe even a bit o' faith in the Algorithm.‼✖♾ If it was one of the students/faculty at TESC, I admire your tenacity, however you applied it, to suggest to the Alogrithm, that this video should resurface , almost 10 years later (December 30, 2012) regardless of the number of views it's had since publication. If that's you, you ROCK!🎸 Bret, if you're reading this: Is this the presentation that would lead to your (and Heather's) decision to end your tenure at TESC? No wonder people reacted as they did; too much spoilage causes rampant totalitarianism.🙈🙉🙊🔮🎱🏴☠♟⛓☠💰🪙💴💵💶💷💸🔨💊🪓💉⛏🩸🗡⚒⚔🏹🔫💣🪃⚖👙🪖🚸🚷💀⚰🪦♠💩
And example of a positive feedback loop: a steady breeze against a bridge causes the bridge to begin to oscillate, ie. a small input produces a greater and greater result (in this case the bridge eventually does explode or tear itself apart.)
"the individual in the market, by spending more for more responsible products, is reducing their influence on the system and causing the system to evolve more quickly in the direction of ruthlessness" How can that possibly be the case? I don't think he explained that at all.
Apparently I just glazed over that line the first time I listened. Now that I've thought about it, I'm left with this ... The individual spending more for these products is investing the in the feedback loop that favors the ruthless company, incentivizing the negative.
I am a speaker and used to run out of breathe like that in the early days. I used to start my talks by saying this was a problem and picking someone in the audience to shout ‘Breathe, Nicola!’ before I keeled over! Got them on-side and problem went away with experience.
My thought would be, all of above. In addition, he tried to cram a lot of ideas into a 16 1/2 minute speech. And tried not to sound too rushed. That's a lot of pressure. He did not entirely succeed even if he did damn well.
FMEA, risk assessment. It's used by the military and manufacturing, but legislators need to also go through this exercise. It removes bias and assesses risk in one document for any issue. We need to use these quality tools!
The safe aspect of the safety bicycle's rise in popularity was a secondary reason for it's rise in popularity (6 minutes into talk). The growth of adopting bicycles in the late 1880's (including penny farthings) was due to improved methods of manufacturing, distribution of products, etc. resulting in lower costs to consumers.
70k and 200 now, just suggested to me after listening to a bunch of his and his wifes podcasts, and following him for a few months. Hope it picks up soon, voices like theirs are badly needed in society.
I like that all the right wing media is driving people to come singing the praises of an evolution professor talking about how capitalism is wrong and immoral. Trump needs to watch this.
Just further proof that we need some truly viable 3rd party options now that we are seeing each side of a polarity devouring its own. The world is just too complex for two sides to every major argument.
+Bill H Yes, it's almost like the Right is willing to support the free speech of even those people it ostensibly disagrees with. Quite the reversal, no?
"Science Party", Lol. We HAD a Science Party, once. It was back when James Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government." THAT was a scientific statement, since uprooted, burned, and abandoned, it's ashes spread wide and plowed under.
Oh, just go to Bret's YT channel: Dark Horse Podcast. This appears there as one of the earliest videos posted, albeit years after this TedX. Stay a while... Edit: Sorry if this is sounding like a Kool-Aid club. Not so. End of promotion.
Ahhhh, I'm stressed out watching this. I'm about to have a panic attack on his behalf, haha. He has really come into his own as of the past few years publicly presenting his ideas. So much so that face to face with Dawkins, he gave one of his idols the classic Brett Weinstein "Ah, but". Darkhorse podcast is great, he was an amazing moderator for Peterson and Harris, and his appearances on Rogan were all great as well.
What the founders did see and write against was an overpowering federal government. Over the decades the legislators have reinterpreted the documents to line their bank accounts, And that is the root.
I'm concerned about the impermeable wall between market and regulatory body. Market functionality goes hand in hand with the goverment although the small size is a way better.
Not sure why people are saying that this guy is "Left-leaning"? I see a very logical, measured, circumspect and fair mindset. I think that many of us conservatives have fallen prey to certain aspects of the Leftist brainwashing, and now forget many of the overarching precepts of personal responsibility. We act like victims, in a way similar to liberals. Blatant examples abound from the arena of politics these days. Conservatives are screaming about government overreach, when truth be told, the power IS in our hands to throw the bastards out...but, we never do. That is called personal responsibility, and we are not employing it effectively. This professor seems to me to see this very clearly.
So essentially his suggestion is that it's bad to act in only with the intent of growing your share of the structure, and that it is good to act with the intent of making your share of the system function, proposing that all legislation should be viewed with the question in mind: which of these two kinds of action does it encourage? And he proposes this because he believes that acting only in the apparent interest of enlarging the domain you control makes the entire structure weaker and smaller, whereas working in tandem with the parts of the structure outside of your control makes the entire structure bigger/better. The main problem I see with this is the issue of determining what action constitutes which (or when a person who's been defined by one changes to the other), because I don't think it's obvious that the people who own most of the money (as he implies) belong to one group or another (both?). His claim that some personal attempts to reduce one's own fault in societal problems contributes to making the societal problems worse (at least that's what it sounds like to me) is bound to be contentious (I imagine vegetarians, vegans, die-hard-environmentalists and similar kinds of people don't like that message), and could probably be made better -for instance by explaining how trying to avoid contributing to a problem contributes to the problem. Certainly an interesting lecture, though I think some points could be made better, possibly by adding 10 or so more minutes to outline them better.
"One type of system, the costs of sustaining the system go to the benevolent. That system will, inevitably, evolve towards ruthlessness and instability. The converse system, one where the costs of maintaining society go to the ruthless, evolves towards benevolence and stability. Whenever policy is in question, we should ask ourselves, 'Does the policy lead in the direction of the one type, or the other?'" You posit the difficulty in determining if an action belongs to one group or the other, and I think you're right, but his last statements about the founding fathers at least addresses that there was little consideration for "sustainability and reversibility", so that clear bad actor/action/system may stick around longer than they should. Of course, this is also contentious, but a valid point, as seen in the military industrial complex. The key difference between the quote I pulled and your interpretation is that Dr. Weinstein is specifically talking about negative externalities rather than the intent of the "mosquito" or any actor in a system. Leaving intent aside, the question is not whether a legislative mandate encourages actions that either increase personal share or make it more functionable, it is whether the externalities of the action it encourages burden the ruthless company or the benevolent/mixed company. Of course, your underlying concern about the disconnect between a mandate's intended result and its actual result is not lost on me. Take coal, for example. The constraints put on that industry over the last decade or so have forced it to change to a point where even if Trump wants to bring back the coal jobs, the marketplace just won't accept it, as green energy and natural gas were forced to become more viable in the absence of unlimited coal production. To some, this is a perfect example of the cost of sustaining the system falling to the ruthless decisions of coal companies because they began acting in less destructive ways for their own survival. To others, this legislative mandate incurred costs on the people and the coal workers, such that the companies would have had to act benevolently in order to sustain the costs of the systems, which of course didnt happen as, Dr. Weinstein says, that type of system is unstable. Anyway, you gave such a long and thoughtful comment I thought it deserved a long and thoughtful response. Hope you enjoyed my alternate understanding of the topic.
Thank you, I appreciate it (though by my standards, your response is *short*, and my comment was *really short*). I think your estimation is correct with regards to what he's talking about. However, I suspect that these things become an issue at every possible level of abstraction, and so it's a useful thing to consider on more levels than the one he's brought up. I may have been so focused on the more abstract interpretation of his message, I missed that he was talking about a specific one. On that layer, he may be right in saying that individually trying to negate one's own contributions actually makes things worse. I would've liked an explanation from him as to exactly how that would be the result, but I suppose he's busy elsewhere (if not lecturing, then dealing with recent blowback from students at his university), and that's understandable. I'm not familiar enough with local american politics to see if your example is a good one or not (in Norway we've got other things to focus on), but it sounds good. You demonstrate (if not more) that people will interpret actions in different ways based on what's important to them. That's a useful thing to keep in mind when talking to people who disagree politically. Regardless, it can be very difficult to make a system that benefits the benevolent (by extension costing the greedy -whoever that may be), because there will be a backlash from the greedy (I think "self-possessed" is more accurate, but it's a more complex term, and we're not lacking in complexity), and it wouldn't surprise me if they would do so while claiming the benevolent to be greedy. As if it wasn't difficult enough already (who can say that they're *just* benevolent..?). Likewise, if the benevolent make a backlash when the greedy try to make the system benefit them, this gets so complicated, benevolent people might join forces with the greedy and vice versa, while convinced that the people they associate with are of the same lot. This is a major issue with the kind of "collective action" he claims is necessary to change the system for the better; Sometimes people will trick you into making it worse. It's a polarizing claim to make, that his claim is true on all levels of human systems. Seeing the number of comments calling him an elitist who wants to make the decisions for them (in different flavors), I suspect a lot of people felt personally threatened by the implications of that (unstated) possibility. It really boils down to whether an elitist is someone who is successful or someone who is convinced he/she knows better than some "other". I believe the latter definition is popular with the successful, and the first definition is popular with the people who are convinced they know better. Obviously there's bound to be some overlap. The one thing I think isn't looked into enough at this point about his statement is "why?". Why does a system that relies on the benevolent for sustenance inevitably turn ruthless and unstable? I think the reason is quite straightforward, but bears throwing out there: When your benevolence is taken advantage of, it doesn't work to be benevolent, and so people catch on, and cease to be benevolent. As the system grows ever more unstable, the benevolent are taken advantage of more and more, and soon enough, everyone is only trying to make sure their part is sustained, and so the whole falls apart. I recently came to the logical conclusion (entirely without statistical data to back it up) that without trust (or belief) in a common interest, nothing works. Weinstein points to a different aspect of the same idea. When you can't trust someone to do something for you without them also having to log it, you make them less effective. As things become less effective, more and more confirmatory papers are required to make sure that the required job is indeed done, and as less and less trust exists within the system, it grinds to a complete halt. I guess that's why we sometimes speak of "leaps of faith". So how much trust is reasonable under X circumstance? That's a question for the ages.
mr. t.....thats the ted time restriction...if you want it in detail and longwinded go to his channel or his brothers^^ if thats not detail enough for you stop interacting with people close yourself in a room and only come out if you have solved nearly all major problems of todays world... because if you capable of more detail than that you must in my opinion clearly be able to do that or something similar^^
It would be a big step forward, if taxes that are probes to leverage behavior towards more environmentally friendly behavior, would be used to increase the easy to use tools and services spearheaded that way. Atm you are paying taxes on everything for the named leverage, and the tools then made available as alternates, are then taxed in the next round of legislation; that feels unfair and is counterproductive.
companies don't reproduce? Ofcourse they do, he goes on to explain how strategies reproduce, and he could have used the same logic for a company. Less successful companies die.
It is a bit unclear to me how the responsible individual does harm by being responsible. Could someone that understood this argument please break it down?
I also think that he is pretty unclear at that point. The way I understand it is that any approach that is penalized by the system's structure puts itself at a disadvantage and thereby reduces its own ability to actually influence the system. What Bret asserts is that approaches that emphasize personal responsibility tend to fall into this trap. An example that I find very clear is a politician that wants to preserve her political independence and refuses to accept funding from big business, thereby making her campaign unable to compete and failing to become elected at all. The second part (which is well illustrated by the image of the vortex) is the politician then deciding to compromise her principles, because she thinks she genuinely is the better option than her opponents, thereby becoming "recruited" by the system; getting sucked into the vortex.
Sad no one is talking about the content of the video. I don't like what the word "SJW" describes either but I hear little to nothing mentioned here that speficially concerns them at all?
Great presentation. He's a bit wrong about the founders though. They left us a means to change through federalism & the amendment process. Also, Madison himself said that classes would need to use government to advocate for their different interests & that government should prevent the undue accumulation of wealth.
ppl need to understand how they play a role in the ethics of the market. It is not enough to point the finger at faceless corporations when you are indirectly funding them or perhaps an indirect stakeholder in. We need to stop funding activities we determine to be unethical. nothing else really matters, protest all you want it wont do sh*t. Defund is the only way to go.
So he's Milton Friedman lite? "We need separate regulation from washington." Yeah that's called libertarian bro. You stumbled upon small government. Wow. Genius.
I couldn't focus on anything he was saying, as he was using such offensive hand gestures. Could someone please tell him to put his hands down when he speaks? His microaggressions are triggering my victimhood. Also, pronouns.
Economics calls this an externality, when costs of a voluntary exchange are paid by a 3rd party that is not part of the exchange. He sounds like a libertarian on some level. He is literally rebranding economics and libertarian values.
This is basically a restatement of the Tragedy of the Commons. Basically, he uses highly academic language to elaborate the obvious. The message is basically sound. Instead of expending more in voluntary acts of individual puritanism, we should put the extra cost in time and money toward collective action to change the system. The logic doesn't apply the same way to all problems. Climate change activists should continue to fly to international climate conferences, because reducing our demand for fossil fuels just makes them cheaper for others. But as individuals, we can choose not to eat the meat of methane producing ruminants, thereby shrinking the market and helping the climate in a useful way.
I see what you mean. But its not simply restating TotC, hes taking the general theory of it and applying it to a specific problem, which is exactly what an academic should do.
Dieter Heinrich I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. You realize it not the cows that produce methane, but the bacteria that decomposes it. The same bacteria in the soil that decomposes grasses not eaten. The grass takes carbon out of the air, the cow takes the carbon up the grassland hills and fertilizes the ground (against gravity and runoff), the increased carbon in the soils help foliage grow, the roots and foliage hold the soil in place and prevent runoff that would flush the carbon downhill, decreasing the fertility and square foot age of fertile soil. An increase in sqft of fertilize soil increase plants that pull CO2 out of the air. How is it "environmentalists" argue against natural carbon cycles that maintain healthy ecology? Want to criticize shitty modern farming practices that destroy fertile soil and change soil pH with salts, concentrate manures that runoff into streams and destabilize the ecosystem of streams... Go ahead, that's legit.
heinrich: thats really interesting^^. i never understood wich fantasy such people like you build up to moralize their behaviour....thanks for this hilarious insight!^^
Polar bears are doing fine. Whales are recovering. The Arctic and Antarctic still freeze up every year. The warmest part of the Holocene has been and gone with the Little Ice Age being the coldest event in the last 10,000 years. During the Holocene climate optimum the average world temperature was 2C warmer than now and the Sahara was green and wet with abundant life. The previous interglacial, the Eemian ended while CO2 remained elevated, in other words CO2 will not prevent the expansion of the great ice sheets, which is a possibility in the next 500 years. That seems a long time, but the gap between Inter-glacials in the last 5 cycles is roughly 100,000 years. I like Bret, having seen his plight at Evergreen and for his and his wife's Darkhourse Channel. However, I wonder if the Evergreen and Covid catastrophe has opened his eyes to the Climate Change hysteria?
We are, across the board, more terrified of life than ever before. For instance, this globe has heated and cooled for eons with no input from man. The current mindset is to prefer to consider climate change as man made. It is less frightening seen that way. Man has some control then. If we refuse to consider any other possibilities, that's when we are truly unaware, unprepared, helpless.
He's not a hero or a victim. He's just like the people who were screaming at him. Ideologically they are identical. It's people like him who created this Frankenstein's monster and now it's turned on it's creators. Stop putting this guy on a pedestal and please don't compare him to Jordan Peterson. He isn't in the same league.
anyone who chooses to focus on selective, negative factors in a complex system is an ideologue. and now Bret himself was overwhelmed by ideologues like himself, but worse. now that's evolutionary adaptation.
This talk is so underrated
It should have had at least a few millions of views in these 8 years
So many ask for personal responsibility until it is understood.....
This is what a progressive is supposed to sound like. Reasoning instead of name calling and threats will get you a lot farther in the long term. It's too bad the MSM insists on calling anarchists, "progressives". The two aren't the same.
@CloudStrife78:
While I agree with your sentiment I would still like to protest. In my young years I was somehow involved within a discussion circles dealing with different facets of anarchism. This was very interesting time for me. This past. There are lessons I took with me from there. One of them is there are different anarchists even in theoretical circles that I frequented. What you really want to mean (I think) are Antifants - people that do violence under the cover of one ideology or another. They may be fighting for common good, they may even think so - who knows. The result is that they are just the same as the things and people that they allegedly fight.
Hans Kloss - people who think "Justice by any means (including violence)" is viable do not think, and they certainly don't read. They don't know 20th century history.
Well post modernism seems to spiral into anarchism an awful lot, if you look at history.
Don't blame MSM. MSM is just a tool for billionaires to control the narrative. Would you blame a gun for killing people?
Thx for that statement. Catastrophizing and demonizing is the raging fire now
Honestly, the SJW debacle at Evergreen may have been a blessing in disguise. Not only did it expose that school for the joke that it is for allowing such nonsense to take place, but it also catapulted Bret into the limelight some and dramatically increased his exposure. Given how truly brilliant and reasonable the man is, even relative to other university professors, we should all be thankful in a way that the debacle took place. Bret is so much bigger and better than Evergreen, and now the world knows. The twerps who tried to get him fired will never be known as anything more than the little twerps they are. Props to Bret and his wife, Heather, for rising above and becoming something bigger and better.
Can we say NANCY PELOSI?
Most important podcast on the internet for current conditions.
Dark horse podcast.
Gratitude
What a gift it is to have Bret Weinstein so eloquently vocal about issues and possible solutions.
It's so strange to hear the nervousness in his voice here considering what a confident speaker he has become.
I was thinking the same thing!
Listen to the Dark Horse Podcast... Bret Weinstein and his wife regularly discuss recent issues, phenomena, feedback thereof, and solutions. A must listen.
Absolutely fantastic discussions, great podcast!
its the best!
I just watched The Dark Horse Podcast before having this pop up on my feed. If only someone had 𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 to Bret then, it would be highly unlikely we would be facing the challenges we are currently in.
Fo sho
Watching this again, Go Bret!! And he certainly has with Heather. UNITY2020, get on board!!
I’m so sad they stopped but I’m hoping they can go for a unity 2024
I like Bret, he makes for a great liberal. I think I disagree with the founder part, in such that, its not that they missed and couldn't foresee the growth of technology and more so that they already saw the mechanism that was in place that created a balance. What Bret is essentially preaching here is that morality is missing from the system.
He points out that you have Market and Government and that they should be isolated from each other and that there is a third system needed. Morality fits that gap and to the founders religion was the vehicle in which morality was delivered. Religion in that time was the guiding hand that instructed you to do the right thing. Its what told you to help your neighbor, ration yourself, not take more than what was needed, etc. I think what the founders didn't expect was the severe decline in that third balancing factor.
This forces people to discover morality on their own and I would argue that this has failed largely. Evidence of this is in the growth of government. Morality is a system that depends entirely on the individual. You must make the decision of right or wrong, it can not be dictated to you. I'll use healthcare as an example. If you think that your personal health and the health of the people close to you is the governments responsibility what you are doing is removing responsibility from yourself and asking others to subsidize that responsibility. The moral thing to do would be to take care of your health, and help those close to you as much as you can. In a church, if someone is sick or in a bind the community gets together to help raise money to lift these people back up. If a family member were to lose their home the moral thing would be to help them with lodging, finances, and provide emotional support.
When you put this role on government it introduces regulations which cause instability in the market. New rules can require complete restructurings in companies which can costs vasts amounts of moneys and jobs. This probably has the greatest effect for the people at the bottom of pyramid. Lower pay, less job availability, more hours of work needed. This then leads to a drop in an individuals charitable ability. Longer hours leaves less time to help other. Less expendable income means less to donate to those in need. And job loss means that instead of helping they're the ones that need help. Inevitably shrinking the moral system even further and driving even greater need to increase government to take care of the rising amount of those in need. And thus the spiral occurs.
I think California is a prime example of this(with Venezuela probably being the best) . The homeless rate there is soaring. They are quickly eliminating a middle class and growing their upper and lower classes. This should be a concern as the likely hood of jumping from lower to upper class is obviously low. In other words, their lower class is trapped.
To tie this back around to climate, advances in environment friendly technology and renewable resources is costly as its a relatively new industry. This means the products that might best help protect the environment are only readily available to the middle and upper classes. This makes its rather difficult for those that want to help, want to donate and want to protect the future of the planet difficult. Its easy for the rich to by that EV but the comparable alternative for the poor might be to walk or bike to work assuming its even feasible given the distance, weather and time available to do so.
The important thing here being, that Morality is essential and implies a level of individual responsibility. Much like how our republic is designed upon three branches that provide checks and balances so does the greater system that sits above it. An imbalance in one branch leads to instability in the others. And in a world in which the religion vehicle has declined we must take a greater step towards instilling proper values in ourselves and our children.
I expect no one to read this :)
I read it. It's an interesting suggestion.
You suggested religion as a vehicle for morality. I have an alternate suggestion: community. Communities are groups of people who know, or at the very least know of each other, and continue to remain interested in and socially interact with one another. We all live in a society, but few of us live in a community. In a society a person's value is moderated by money. In a community a person's value is moderated by reputation. Reputation motivates people to do more things that other people like, because people like to be liked.
A member of a community who is suffering or falls on hard times gives other members of the community who have the power to help an opportunity to become more liked by the whole community. Because people like seeing generosity, they like seeing someone help their friends, family, and neighbors.
Outside of your community though, people know little or nothing about you. They don't know if you've tended to do kind or unkind things. Your reputation doesn't influence how others treat you because you have no reputation with them. People who live in a society but not a community then lack this potential motivation to be a helper, to be generous. Going out of your way to help someone will make only a small number of people like you more, the vast majority of people in society you interact with will have no idea what you've done, and so won't treat you any differently one way or the other. So your motivation for being a good person is limited, if few people will ever know or care.
@@IamBHM So I started writing a response and then reread this and decided I should have read it closer the first time haha. I'm surprised anyone actually dug up that long post from two years ago.
Yes, I'd agree that community is essentially correct. I was referring more so that in the past, your religious congregation was your community. The church served as both town hall and moral compass. It was the banner under which all the locals could gather. And yes, I'd agree that very few people exist within a community now. I just think that a large part of that is the decline of the religious community and the lack of anything to fill that gap. I might walk back my original post just a tad as it is definitely clear that technology and global media have exacerbated this decline but the decline began before that. Maybe that's unavoidable though. It could be that the growth of technology and the decline of religion are inherently linked. It's also possible that there may be a massive religious resurgence, as the world tends to be automatically balancing.
I like your distinction between society and community though. My only problem with community is that the term basically used for any group of people that share a common interest. This just causes problems when explaining things to people because they'll immediately conflate something like a "gaming community" with their local community and theres a pretty large difference between the two. Nothing to be done about that though
Religion has never been about only the individual in the US, and it's not essential to how religion works, at any rate.
Weinstein's whole point is that individualism simply won't help us overcome the climate crisis, we have to tackle the systemic structures that reward exploitation of shared resources. And that does require moral resolve, but not in terms of "personal responsibility" but collective action and reform.
@@retsaf1 You're simply biased by your own culture too much for me to take seriously the suggestion that the Bible is the final guide to human life. After all, what civilizational paradigm is basically destroying the planet? The West, and especially the most religious and Christian nation bears the most responsibility in this- America.
I thought laws were supposed to uphold morality? At Least the fear of being found out and charged with a punishment should limit criminal behavior...
Now the Evergreen students are trying to get rid of him because they reject the concept of personal responsibility.
American Citizen personal responsibility concept is riddled with cognitive bias. Its complex...probably more complex than what you can comprehend
Stones Jones well they want there to be responsibility, but they want other people to be the ones who shoulder it.
Am I missing something, or was their only beef with Bret his not staying home during No White day on campus?
@@TheMilwaukeeProtocol that was his only crime yes. In the end a mob armed with baseball bats was roaming round the Evergreen campuus looking for Bret. The Police called Bret and told him to stay away as the Principle at Evergreen stood them down and they would not be able to protect him. Both he and his brilliant wife have left Evergreen now and are visiting fellows at Princeton. Check out The Dark Horse Podcast if you haven't seen it yet.
@@TheMilwaukeeProtocol turns out the man had an entire life outside of that moment.
The is basically an argument for using the Coase Theorem to formulate climate policy. Everyone agrees with this framework. The issue is pricing the negative externalities of, say, carbon emissions. This exercise quickly leads to the *real* climate debate that we should be having: estimating the timing of global warming, putting a price tag on the future positive and negative consequences and picking a discount factor to express the NPV of these future impacts.
Ah yes but you see putting a price of things and paying for them is something that no one (from SJW's to corporations) is willing to pay. Hence snowflake behaviour on the left and "too big to fail" on the right.
Violence will eventually mark-to-market the circus as it always does.
Seems like calculating the and assigning the cost would be difficult, time consuming, and likely inaccurate. I’d expect to see the cost placed on the wrong things and a string of unintended consequences roll out.
On the smaller ancillary side issues perhaps, but calculating the social cost of greenhouse gases has been done. No surprise it's more than the cost natural gas companies like Exxon Mobil are advocating out of only one side of their mouths for. Whilst they continue to stall any action at all.
No surprise that business-as-usual interests would oppose this message.
Thank goodness we have people like Bret.
Never seen Brett so nervous before... Even during the Evergreen struggle sessions!
"Risk Society" by Ulrich Beck. injustice is the result of the separation of Risk and Reward. when a power company creates pollution risk, but the shareholders are not exposed to it, they reap the profit without the risk exposure. it's an interesting lens, but does have it's limitations, like what if the risks are unknown?
Sounds like “Skin in the Game” by Nassim Taleb
I came here because I thought I was going to get a TED talk about how awesome racism is. I'm confused.
this comment needs WAY more likes... c’mon guys
Likey Like....
He existed before the Evergreen nonsense
Great presentation, Bret!
A perfect example of a positive feed-back loop is the indemnification of the vaccine cartel, the stripping of product liability, all the while mandating/coercing the administration of ineffective and unsafe products to a younger and younger group of individuals, individuals for which the products provide no discernable benefit, only harm.
The intro of this is bananas
Probably the most important Ted talk I've ever seen.
I was 50 when I realized to open a can with a can opener the blade goes on the side of the can not the top
Whatever algorithm, or whomever the kind person/mod/dev put this up (for all I know Ted asked the algorithm, nicely) at this point in our biological history, you are a gentleperson and a scholar. You have my deepest gratitude for such a heroic measure. You have instilled in me much greater faith in the (greater) workings of UA-cam, and maybe even a bit o' faith in the Algorithm.‼✖♾
If it was one of the students/faculty at TESC, I admire your tenacity, however you applied it, to suggest to the Alogrithm, that this video should resurface , almost 10 years later (December 30, 2012) regardless of the number of views it's had since publication. If that's you, you ROCK!🎸
Bret, if you're reading this: Is this the presentation that would lead to your (and Heather's) decision to end your tenure at TESC? No wonder people reacted as they did; too much spoilage causes rampant totalitarianism.🙈🙉🙊🔮🎱🏴☠♟⛓☠💰🪙💴💵💶💷💸🔨💊🪓💉⛏🩸🗡⚒⚔🏹🔫💣🪃⚖👙🪖🚸🚷💀⚰🪦♠💩
And example of a positive feedback loop:
a steady breeze against a bridge causes the bridge to begin to oscillate, ie. a small input produces a greater and greater result (in this case the bridge eventually does explode or tear itself apart.)
"the individual in the market, by spending more for more responsible products, is reducing their influence on the system and causing the system to evolve more quickly in the direction of ruthlessness"
How can that possibly be the case? I don't think he explained that at all.
Yeah I have the same question :/
Listen again grasshoppers!! At least til it is understood
Apparently I just glazed over that line the first time I listened. Now that I've thought about it, I'm left with this ...
The individual spending more for these products is investing the in the feedback loop that favors the ruthless company, incentivizing the negative.
It's weird seeing him nervous here but totally relaxed on Rogan. Is it the venue, increased years of speaking to the media, or both?
I'd presume the experience from Evergreen and the mangling he recieved there before being forced out sharpened him a bit.
I think he's had a lot of media exposure since then for sure
I am a speaker and used to run out of breathe like that in the early days. I used to start my talks by saying this was a problem and picking someone in the audience to shout ‘Breathe, Nicola!’ before I keeled over! Got them on-side and problem went away with experience.
@@NicolaCairncross That's cool, thank you!
My thought would be, all of above. In addition, he tried to cram a lot of ideas into a 16 1/2 minute speech. And tried not to sound too rushed. That's a lot of pressure. He did not entirely succeed even if he did damn well.
FMEA, risk assessment. It's used by the military and manufacturing, but legislators need to also go through this exercise. It removes bias and assesses risk in one document for any issue. We need to use these quality tools!
A bunch of chanting black uniformed fanatics told me that this man was a fascist
And after listening to his TED talk, it looks an awful lot like they didn't know what they were talking about.
they lied.
I didn't realize how much Bret agrees with his brother Eric Weinstein until I watched this. (especially the positive feedback loop part)
I'm not from the east, but if I were the word I would use is 'wicked.' Wicked smart, this guy. Really
Bret you are a national treasure.
The safe aspect of the safety bicycle's rise in popularity was a secondary reason for it's rise in popularity (6 minutes into talk). The growth of adopting bicycles in the late 1880's (including penny farthings) was due to improved methods of manufacturing, distribution of products, etc. resulting in lower costs to consumers.
*Seven years, all the controversy around him, and only 56k views and 150 comments?*
70k and 200 now, just suggested to me after listening to a bunch of his and his wifes podcasts, and following him for a few months. Hope it picks up soon, voices like theirs are badly needed in society.
I didn’t realize the punisher was so smart
the brothers are clear and concise
I like that all the right wing media is driving people to come singing the praises of an evolution professor talking about how capitalism is wrong and immoral. Trump needs to watch this.
Just further proof that we need some truly viable 3rd party options now that we are seeing each side of a polarity devouring its own. The world is just too complex for two sides to every major argument.
+Bill H Yes, it's almost like the Right is willing to support the free speech of even those people it ostensibly disagrees with.
Quite the reversal, no?
You think this presentation is about capitalism? When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
"Science Party", Lol. We HAD a Science Party, once. It was back when James Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government." THAT was a scientific statement, since uprooted, burned, and abandoned, it's ashes spread wide and plowed under.
Oh, just go to Bret's YT channel: Dark Horse Podcast. This appears there as one of the earliest videos posted, albeit years after this TedX. Stay a while...
Edit: Sorry if this is sounding like a Kool-Aid club. Not so. End of promotion.
UA-cam recommendations are paying attention to $GME too. This is so relevant to Jan 2021.
Best Ted EVER
Well this is unsettling
Ahhhh, I'm stressed out watching this. I'm about to have a panic attack on his behalf, haha. He has really come into his own as of the past few years publicly presenting his ideas. So much so that face to face with Dawkins, he gave one of his idols the classic Brett Weinstein "Ah, but".
Darkhorse podcast is great, he was an amazing moderator for Peterson and Harris, and his appearances on Rogan were all great as well.
Finally, a TedX speaker I can trust
What the founders did see and write against was an overpowering federal government. Over the decades the legislators have reinterpreted the documents to line their bank accounts, And that is the root.
I'm concerned about the impermeable wall between market and regulatory body.
Market functionality goes hand in hand with the goverment although the small size is a way better.
Take your hat off and make yourself comfortable Bret
Fantastic talk!
Not sure why people are saying that this guy is "Left-leaning"? I see a very logical, measured, circumspect and fair mindset. I think that many of us conservatives have fallen prey to certain aspects of the Leftist brainwashing, and now forget many of the overarching precepts of personal responsibility. We act like victims, in a way similar to liberals. Blatant examples abound from the arena of politics these days. Conservatives are screaming about government overreach, when truth be told, the power IS in our hands to throw the bastards out...but, we never do. That is called personal responsibility, and we are not employing it effectively. This professor seems to me to see this very clearly.
Samuel Luria well he supported Bernie Sanders. He’s def left wing
Great talk
Bret, I wonder if you have seen this since you made it? Are there some things you would like to clarify? Place in a different context?
Bret is now busy burying the democrats. Thank you Bret!
So, in short, he's proposing a general "harm tax". sounds good :)
Darth Pro more than that I think. There are other solutions Andrew Yang proposed, too.
Fun to see Bret looking so nervous.
thanks for attending my ted talk
and here i am eating popcorn and watch the left devours itself
Bret is a leftist...
Wonderful!
How to give someone a voice: shout them down.
Keep trying, antisocial "justice" warmongers.
So essentially his suggestion is that it's bad to act in only with the intent of growing your share of the structure, and that it is good to act with the intent of making your share of the system function, proposing that all legislation should be viewed with the question in mind: which of these two kinds of action does it encourage?
And he proposes this because he believes that acting only in the apparent interest of enlarging the domain you control makes the entire structure weaker and smaller, whereas working in tandem with the parts of the structure outside of your control makes the entire structure bigger/better. The main problem I see with this is the issue of determining what action constitutes which (or when a person who's been defined by one changes to the other), because I don't think it's obvious that the people who own most of the money (as he implies) belong to one group or another (both?).
His claim that some personal attempts to reduce one's own fault in societal problems contributes to making the societal problems worse (at least that's what it sounds like to me) is bound to be contentious (I imagine vegetarians, vegans, die-hard-environmentalists and similar kinds of people don't like that message), and could probably be made better -for instance by explaining how trying to avoid contributing to a problem contributes to the problem.
Certainly an interesting lecture, though I think some points could be made better, possibly by adding 10 or so more minutes to outline them better.
"One type of system, the costs of sustaining the system go to the benevolent. That system will, inevitably, evolve towards ruthlessness and instability. The converse system, one where the costs of maintaining society go to the ruthless, evolves towards benevolence and stability.
Whenever policy is in question, we should ask ourselves, 'Does the policy lead in the direction of the one type, or the other?'"
You posit the difficulty in determining if an action belongs to one group or the other, and I think you're right, but his last statements about the founding fathers at least addresses that there was little consideration for "sustainability and reversibility", so that clear bad actor/action/system may stick around longer than they should. Of course, this is also contentious, but a valid point, as seen in the military industrial complex.
The key difference between the quote I pulled and your interpretation is that Dr. Weinstein is specifically talking about negative externalities rather than the intent of the "mosquito" or any actor in a system. Leaving intent aside, the question is not whether a legislative mandate encourages actions that either increase personal share or make it more functionable, it is whether the externalities of the action it encourages burden the ruthless company or the benevolent/mixed company.
Of course, your underlying concern about the disconnect between a mandate's intended result and its actual result is not lost on me. Take coal, for example. The constraints put on that industry over the last decade or so have forced it to change to a point where even if Trump wants to bring back the coal jobs, the marketplace just won't accept it, as green energy and natural gas were forced to become more viable in the absence of unlimited coal production.
To some, this is a perfect example of the cost of sustaining the system falling to the ruthless decisions of coal companies because they began acting in less destructive ways for their own survival. To others, this legislative mandate incurred costs on the people and the coal workers, such that the companies would have had to act benevolently in order to sustain the costs of the systems, which of course didnt happen as, Dr. Weinstein says, that type of system is unstable.
Anyway, you gave such a long and thoughtful comment I thought it deserved a long and thoughtful response. Hope you enjoyed my alternate understanding of the topic.
Thank you, I appreciate it (though by my standards, your response is *short*, and my comment was *really short*).
I think your estimation is correct with regards to what he's talking about. However, I suspect that these things become an issue at every possible level of abstraction, and so it's a useful thing to consider on more levels than the one he's brought up.
I may have been so focused on the more abstract interpretation of his message, I missed that he was talking about a specific one. On that layer, he may be right in saying that individually trying to negate one's own contributions actually makes things worse. I would've liked an explanation from him as to exactly how that would be the result, but I suppose he's busy elsewhere (if not lecturing, then dealing with recent blowback from students at his university), and that's understandable.
I'm not familiar enough with local american politics to see if your example is a good one or not (in Norway we've got other things to focus on), but it sounds good. You demonstrate (if not more) that people will interpret actions in different ways based on what's important to them. That's a useful thing to keep in mind when talking to people who disagree politically.
Regardless, it can be very difficult to make a system that benefits the benevolent (by extension costing the greedy -whoever that may be), because there will be a backlash from the greedy (I think "self-possessed" is more accurate, but it's a more complex term, and we're not lacking in complexity), and it wouldn't surprise me if they would do so while claiming the benevolent to be greedy. As if it wasn't difficult enough already (who can say that they're *just* benevolent..?). Likewise, if the benevolent make a backlash when the greedy try to make the system benefit them, this gets so complicated, benevolent people might join forces with the greedy and vice versa, while convinced that the people they associate with are of the same lot. This is a major issue with the kind of "collective action" he claims is necessary to change the system for the better; Sometimes people will trick you into making it worse.
It's a polarizing claim to make, that his claim is true on all levels of human systems. Seeing the number of comments calling him an elitist who wants to make the decisions for them (in different flavors), I suspect a lot of people felt personally threatened by the implications of that (unstated) possibility. It really boils down to whether an elitist is someone who is successful or someone who is convinced he/she knows better than some "other". I believe the latter definition is popular with the successful, and the first definition is popular with the people who are convinced they know better. Obviously there's bound to be some overlap.
The one thing I think isn't looked into enough at this point about his statement is "why?". Why does a system that relies on the benevolent for sustenance inevitably turn ruthless and unstable?
I think the reason is quite straightforward, but bears throwing out there: When your benevolence is taken advantage of, it doesn't work to be benevolent, and so people catch on, and cease to be benevolent. As the system grows ever more unstable, the benevolent are taken advantage of more and more, and soon enough, everyone is only trying to make sure their part is sustained, and so the whole falls apart.
I recently came to the logical conclusion (entirely without statistical data to back it up) that without trust (or belief) in a common interest, nothing works. Weinstein points to a different aspect of the same idea. When you can't trust someone to do something for you without them also having to log it, you make them less effective. As things become less effective, more and more confirmatory papers are required to make sure that the required job is indeed done, and as less and less trust exists within the system, it grinds to a complete halt.
I guess that's why we sometimes speak of "leaps of faith". So how much trust is reasonable under X circumstance? That's a question for the ages.
mr. t.....thats the ted time restriction...if you want it in detail and longwinded go to his channel or his brothers^^ if thats not detail enough for you stop interacting with people close yourself in a room and only come out if you have solved nearly all major problems of todays world... because if you capable of more detail than that you must in my opinion clearly be able to do that or something similar^^
It would be a big step forward, if taxes that are probes to leverage behavior towards more environmentally friendly behavior, would be used to increase the easy to use tools and services spearheaded that way. Atm you are paying taxes on everything for the named leverage, and the tools then made available as alternates, are then taxed in the next round of legislation; that feels unfair and is counterproductive.
When are you going to show us how to open the banana correctly??
companies don't reproduce? Ofcourse they do, he goes on to explain how strategies reproduce, and he could have used the same logic for a company. Less successful companies die.
But many companies are too big too die and ever expanding monopolies are sadly the everyday reality of current American economy.
this guy is a fucking genius
How sustainable can our world be with 8 billion humans on it?
Has he got a book on Cultural evolution affecting market?
wow ... i guess this proves it ... the dark horse indeed ... so glad the Dream lives in you, 2b made Real !
It is a bit unclear to me how the responsible individual does harm by being responsible. Could someone that understood this argument please break it down?
I also think that he is pretty unclear at that point. The way I understand it is that any approach that is penalized by the system's structure puts itself at a disadvantage and thereby reduces its own ability to actually influence the system. What Bret asserts is that approaches that emphasize personal responsibility tend to fall into this trap.
An example that I find very clear is a politician that wants to preserve her political independence and refuses to accept funding from big business, thereby making her campaign unable to compete and failing to become elected at all. The second part (which is well illustrated by the image of the vortex) is the politician then deciding to compromise her principles, because she thinks she genuinely is the better option than her opponents, thereby becoming "recruited" by the system; getting sucked into the vortex.
LEGEND
Bret looks considerably younger here, quite a handsome man.
Sad no one is talking about the content of the video.
I don't like what the word "SJW" describes either but I hear little to nothing mentioned here that speficially concerns them at all?
Great presentation. He's a bit wrong about the founders though. They left us a means to change through federalism & the amendment process. Also, Madison himself said that classes would need to use government to advocate for their different interests & that government should prevent the undue accumulation of wealth.
Enter holodeck. Search Program- " Milton Friedman" and "Thomas Sowell".
@josh I know "Milton Friedman" and "Thomas Sowell." Both with and without quotation marks.
What specific "Program" are you suggesting we search for?
What a intelegent dude.
ppl need to understand how they play a role in the ethics of the market.
It is not enough to point the finger at faceless corporations when you are indirectly funding them or perhaps an indirect stakeholder in.
We need to stop funding activities we determine to be unethical.
nothing else really matters, protest all you want it wont do sh*t. Defund is the only way to go.
I wonder if TED would have Professor Weinstein this days...
The "get money out of politics" message 4 years before Bernie popularized the notion. Nice!
This is pretty left wing ironically concerning the situation the professor is in.
Nothing surprising but how to get the system changed?
So he's Milton Friedman lite? "We need separate regulation from washington." Yeah that's called libertarian bro. You stumbled upon small government. Wow. Genius.
My man's looking fine 🔥🔥🔥
This was long before the students turned on him.
I couldn't focus on anything he was saying, as he was using such offensive hand gestures. Could someone please tell him to put his hands down when he speaks? His microaggressions are triggering my victimhood. Also, pronouns.
Economics calls this an externality, when costs of a voluntary exchange are paid by a 3rd party that is not part of the exchange. He sounds like a libertarian on some level. He is literally rebranding economics and libertarian values.
How does temperate zone people peal their bananas? I need to know now
From the bottom
@@antkcuck which side is the bottom?
Peeling from the middle (pull-snap) yields two open bananas. One for you, one for another hungry person.
This is basically a restatement of the Tragedy of the Commons. Basically, he uses highly academic language to elaborate the obvious. The message is basically sound. Instead of expending more in voluntary acts of individual puritanism, we should put the extra cost in time and money toward collective action to change the system. The logic doesn't apply the same way to all problems. Climate change activists should continue to fly to international climate conferences, because reducing our demand for fossil fuels just makes them cheaper for others. But as individuals, we can choose not to eat the meat of methane producing ruminants, thereby shrinking the market and helping the climate in a useful way.
I agree - I thought of the Tragedy of the Commons about five minutes into this... Goes back to Medieval times doesn't it? At least?
I see what you mean. But its not simply restating TotC, hes taking the general theory of it and applying it to a specific problem, which is exactly what an academic should do.
Dieter Heinrich I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. You realize it not the cows that produce methane, but the bacteria that decomposes it. The same bacteria in the soil that decomposes grasses not eaten.
The grass takes carbon out of the air, the cow takes the carbon up the grassland hills and fertilizes the ground (against gravity and runoff), the increased carbon in the soils help foliage grow, the roots and foliage hold the soil in place and prevent runoff that would flush the carbon downhill, decreasing the fertility and square foot age of fertile soil. An increase in sqft of fertilize soil increase plants that pull CO2 out of the air.
How is it "environmentalists" argue against natural carbon cycles that maintain healthy ecology?
Want to criticize shitty modern farming practices that destroy fertile soil and change soil pH with salts, concentrate manures that runoff into streams and destabilize the ecosystem of streams... Go ahead, that's legit.
heinrich: thats really interesting^^. i never understood wich fantasy such people like you build up to moralize their behaviour....thanks for this hilarious insight!^^
I think I saw "basically" used four times there.
Coronavirus will provide that force to the system...maybe.
We’re so f***ed.
11:04 INSECTORS OF OUR ECONOMY
How'd the Piranha breeding program turned out?
Hahahah that's the best way to put it.
Polar bears are doing fine. Whales are recovering. The Arctic and Antarctic still freeze up every year. The warmest part of the Holocene has been and gone with the Little Ice Age being the coldest event in the last 10,000 years. During the Holocene climate optimum the average world temperature was 2C warmer than now and the Sahara was green and wet with abundant life. The previous interglacial, the Eemian ended while CO2 remained elevated, in other words CO2 will not prevent the expansion of the great ice sheets, which is a possibility in the next 500 years. That seems a long time, but the gap between Inter-glacials in the last 5 cycles is roughly 100,000 years. I like Bret, having seen his plight at Evergreen and for his and his wife's Darkhourse Channel. However, I wonder if the Evergreen and Covid catastrophe has opened his eyes to the Climate Change hysteria?
Watch out Bret, a storm is coming.....
Lets hope he survives it. Let's hope we all do.
We are, across the board, more terrified of life than ever before. For instance, this globe has heated and cooled for eons with no input from man. The current mindset is to prefer to consider climate change as man made. It is less frightening seen that way. Man has some control then. If we refuse to consider any other possibilities, that's when we are truly unaware, unprepared, helpless.
Take down the Recycling Cartels!!!!💸💰💸💲💸💰💲
He is implying limits to inheritance.
Not gonna fly.
No, he isn't.
Intermediaries ruin feedback loops. We need to disintermediate in order to fix the world.
"heritability"
Not one boo? .... is this actually Bret ?
He's not a hero or a victim. He's just like the people who were screaming at him. Ideologically they are identical. It's people like him who created this Frankenstein's monster and now it's turned on it's creators. Stop putting this guy on a pedestal and please don't compare him to Jordan Peterson. He isn't in the same league.
Why would people scream at him if they're the same? That makes no sense
anyone who chooses to focus on selective, negative factors in a complex system is an ideologue. and now Bret himself was overwhelmed by ideologues like himself, but worse. now that's evolutionary adaptation.
Is it just me, or is 2012 Bret kinda hot?
Negative externality much?
Echc..."Sustainable sucks"
working class voters need to hear this guy,