♻️ The plastic crisis gets a lot of attention as pollution, but the environmental impact of plastic’s life cycle starts long before it ends up in our waterways and ecosystems. Watch our latest animation, The Story of Plastic: ua-cam.com/video/iO3SA4YyEYU/v-deo.html
When she started talking about a 'game changer' I thought she was going to talk about a resource based economy but she started talking about activism which doesn't really change the game at all in the grand scheme of things. As long as we have the same monetary system nothing much will change
A lot of comments seem to think that this idea is incongruent with capitalism but imagine a scenario where the goal is not to buy the cheapest (in short term costs) item but the best item (where all of the costs, short term and long term) have been accounted for (internalized). Where instead of buying one "cheap" item that wears out quickly and it is necessary to buy many over your lifetime, one better (seemingly more expensive) item that lasts a life time (and thus saves you money in the long term).
We need a bigger change, a change in mindset. We have to stop buying things. We need to live simpler lives, with less stuff. Stuff doesn’t make us happy. Happiness is found through relationships, hobbies, etc.
It's a great video and initiative. In the same spirit, let''s be careful about "renewable energy" and the claims of clean energy... Wind energy creates a huge problem of artificialisation of soils (tons and tons of concrete for each windmill) and of what happens at the end of the quite short life of the windmill. There is also the huge problem of rare metals that are needed in abundance for all these options... Rare metals are... rare, and incredibly polluting in their extraction and refining. This is he same thing with electric cars, that only move the pollution. And actually most models of electric cars are so much heavier than regular cars that they lift just as much fine particulate pollution when driving around. A video or two on that topic would be great to inform people on the impact of those "solutions" and how they are not so great... and not a game changer...
I am hoping that videos like this will slowly get the public out of the current mindset that sees growth of GDP as the right measure by which to judge the success of government policy.
We need many more such videos and explanations to raise public awareness. The challenge starts with the vocabulary we use to talk about economics, and the semantics that have been built into the economic vocabulary over the last century (winning = more, wealth = financial assets, human nature = striving for personal gain, etc.), which makes it very hard for people to articulate alternatives without being misunderstood. Videos and illustrations can help overcome this difficulty. Beyond the challenge of language, there is also the real danger of inventing "alternative" systems that are simply reincarnations of the old system in a new package. For example any system that attempts to define a universal metric for "better" will run into the same old issues. Currencies such as Bitcoin that are designed for universal use are concrete examples of misguided alternatives. There is a need for domain-specific metrics, to track flows of all the different categories of resources and externalities. Only then can we begin to systematically think about the construction of waste-free value cycles.
Jorn Bettin , I agree with most of what you say. However I am not so sure that efforts to define a new metric for "better" should be avoided. Clearly the public, the media and the politicians want a metric to measure success, otherwise growth in GDP would not play such a big role. It seems the most realistic way to displace that misguided use of GDP is to advocate the use of an alternative, all the while of course continuing to warn of the inherent danger of any single metric.
I am not opposed to metrics for _better_. I am simply pointing out the need for *many* metrics for _better_, and not a simplistic universal one. For example a dedicated metric for measuring _better_ health is desirable, as well as dedicated metrics for measuring _less_ chemical externalities in production, transport, and agriculture, etc. The priorities that different local communities will attach to the various metrics heavily depend on the local context, specifically on the means that are (or are not) available locally to address economic externalities, and on the local severity of the effects of different kinds of externalities.
Interesting. Perhaps there should be an app for that: Using open government data, the app would provide a summary of "progress towards better" tailored to the user's local community and personal priorities. The app would also allow the user to opt in to feeding back anonymously to government this progress towards their personal priorities and those of their local community. That would provide valuable information for shaping government policy. Furthermore, that feedback could be aggregated into a single metric that could replace GDP. Do you think that metric might provide a useful and beneficial way to measure a government's success? Perhaps the measurement of "progress towards better" will not be the most important benefit of such an app. Instead the educational effect that choosing their own priority settings in the app will have might be substantial. I wonder, is the creation of such an app perhaps feasible already with currently available open data? And if it is, would a representative cross-section of the population adopt it? Or would it just again give even greater influence to the digitally savy? But, given the widespread adoption of smartphones, and the appetite of the public for personalised information, I don't think the idea is altogether unpromising. Perhaps this idea is not new? Perhaps there is already an app for that? I would really like to try it.
I very much like the app you outline. In my work I use the following approach s23m.com/methodology/index.html to value chain/cycle engineering. This 5-minute video s23m.com/logistics/index.html illustrates the essence. The approach can obviously be applied at any scale, including at the scale of economic relationships between customers and suppliers. Together with my colleagues I am working on software for representing the links within concrete local economic subsystems. I see no real technological obstacle for implementing the suggested app. The main stumbling block could be a lack of open data on resource and waste *flows*. Remember that waste flows are only required to be tracked to a certain extent, and only for materials where relevant and effective regulation is in place. Indeed the educational effect of gaining a better understanding of the effects of specific priorities could be the primary benefit of the app. I would expect priorities to be readjusted on a frequent basis , leading to an economy that becomes much more conscious of undesirable waste flows (externalities).
Ironic, yet so very sad, how the point of the presentation is being dissected for its content, by lots of commentators, as yet another distraction to keep from working towards change. I'll probably even get a few negative comments about this, but bring it on. We can only be ignorant for long!
+Igomene Joseph One thing is obvious is that we are on a crash course. Everyone will eventually realize this, it's just by the time most people do, it will be too late.
How about you make actual good arguments instead of saying some vague shit in the comments that doesn't add to the conversation. What did this comment actually contribute? Absolutely nothing. I can't stand people that say vague things like this to make themselves sound smart.... what a waste of a comment.
sharing kills jobs, not using plastic bags kills jobs etc... so we really need a minimum income for every person. We have to accept less working hours to be normal. We have to start living in the future where we dont have to work as much and are free to live more.
I agree with your second half of your statement but confused about the first half. sharing could create more jobs same with not using plastic bags. Just different jobs.
Having all this new Technology was to give us all back time to enjoy our families and leisure time, what has happened is the opposite we are all working longer and not having the family time and leisure time. We all spend so much time consuming and giving more to our children, we are addicted to all the new technologies and want what everyone else has. So we work more to consume more, it may be time to hop off the merry go round.
You're right Warren. It used to be called a Rat Race. Now we are on a Hamster Wheel. The real wealth is health and time to spend with our loved ones living a fulfilling life. Greed is not good, and sharing is not evil as much as some political 1% backed think tanks want us to believe it is.
Same old story as the one in the 1950s telling people that nuclear power would produce electricity that would be 'too cheap to meter'. And the story that having all kinds of new household appliances would give everybody more time for leisure? Maybe not so much. If only you could keep up with the monthly payments and interest on them and the cost of running them!
this video seems misleading and biased. what organization sponsored it? also this lady is sooooo annoying. ooooooh, make things 'BETTER'. i get it now.
The mess Europe is in now is fundamentally down to trying to lump different countries with different economies and different cultural values around work into one fused monetary currency. Add a global financial wobble and the damage has been great. What bothers me about the EU is that while there are occasional elections for MEPs, I don't really feel like there's democracy going on. European politics gets next to no time on British TV and media as anything we play any real part in.
This is absolutely my favorite channel! Such a helpful teaching tool and what amazing animations!! Thank you for all the work you do to inspire hope and action!
while making "Better" products is a good idea I think a "better" idea is to use a less ambiguous term. the term better itself can mean several hundred different things depending on context. For instance here is a hypothetical question "Which is BETTER a car or a cart?" on one hand the cart is better in terms of being green, its cheaper, and it promotes learning about things like how to handle horses. On the other hand the car is better in terms of practicality, it's faster, can travel longer distances, easier for the elderly, young, and sick to get around. One could argue that the current goal of MORE is BETTER, however i think in this case the term BETTER means Environmental. It's not bad but I just kind of prefer more solid terms.
Yeah I agree. I care very much about the environment and I do my best to lower my ecological footprint. But "better" to me does not equal plastic bag bans despite the fact that I don't use plastic bags.
Unfortunately, this admirable goal won't be reached until society finds a way of increasing the intelligence (ability to notice difference and lack of difference) of a sufficient number of people towards the goal of environmentalism as well selecting highly intelligent and effective politicians.
More laws are not the solution, aware people are. And the US is not a democracy, it is fully a republic. Some would claim we are a democratic republic, but that could be argued.
What could go wrong if profit-driven corporations gained control your city's public water systems? Watch our latest animation, The Story of Water! 👉🏽 ua-cam.com/video/04jTleV0gK0/v-deo.html
Cooperatives are a good thing and everybody who wants some changes in business in this regard should support them. But that should be a free choice. Thankfully we live in a system, where cooperatives are allowed.
This video is totally right when it says that there really is something wrong with the sistem we live in nowadays. As usual, there are a lot of antagonic comments about the ideias presented here, but, hey guys, we all have to agree with something: Comsumption has grown in a level we can`t handle anymore. Moreover, most of people in the world are being prejudiced by the few most powerful. Until when we will praise this individualistic and destructive way of life?
Believe it or not, there is a system that uses money that DOES get us to Better. The problem is not with consumption. It's with production and the incentives hitherto. It also doesn't help that money itself functions in ways that exacerbate bad incentives. I'm for a resource-based economy a la TZM and VP, but those are mature visions of economies. To get there we need an interim. Perhaps Copiosis is that interim.
This is exactly the stuff that's been bugging me for a long time now. I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one noticing something's WAY off with the way people are living their lives through buying and buying and buying more and more and more THINGS...
At 0:20, Yes I do have one of those (it is actually a model older!)! I actually use it as my main iPod. I do not want to spend $200 on something that I will not use much, except to play music! I do have a 2005 iPod NANO!
Democracy is NOT a game changer. Majority rule is not the best nor someone else deciding FOR you what happens in your life. To make decisions work everyone has to be engaged, not 51%. People on the forefront of great ideas are not in the majority, nor are great leaders. Consent is the new game. Each person have decision making power over those things that directly affect their life. You can have representatives but not by election (majority rule) but by direct assignments -- you can represent me until I say you can't.
different towns have different levels of acceptability of these things. my town also flunked too but i know other towns making massive strides. progress is happening "the future is already here it's just not evenly distributed"
It's really a pity that these videos didn't mention about two essential reasons which drive the whole economy system toward MORE rather than BETTER: money created with debt, and the fanaticism of full employment. Sovereign money and Unconditional basic income are two radical solutions for these two problem. Just for your reference.
Let me start with, "people who don't get that, shouldn't have a say." You're positing that people who disagree with you should automatically lose their unalienable rights of free speech and/or right to vote? "People driving cars everywhere just don't know what's good for them" Or they know whats right for their life. Is a single mother with 5 kids is supposed to bike to the library to borrow a hammer? What about floor sanders, carpet steamers, table saws -- suppose to bike those home, too?
It's funny that she thinks there are "rules" to the economy. There aren't any rules to the economy any more than there are "rules" to any other set of voluntary human interactions. The economy isn't one monolithic thing with components but the sum of *all* economic activity between voluntary actors (i.e. more organic than mechanistic). It's even funnier that she thinks government can "fix" her "problem" when it's government "tipping the scales" that *causes* so many problems in the economy.
Just some thoughts on a couple of "ideas" in this video: "Collaborative Consumption, better know as sharing" - Tragedy of the commons! Shared items will only degrade quicker if shared among others. Ownership actually gives an insensitive to keep that object/machine functional! "Lessen the wealth gap" - Socialism (you already have your opinions on this) "Open people's eyes to the truth of happiness" - You cant tell someone how to be happy. Likelihood is, the people that need told how to be happy were already looking for a way to make themselves happy.
How often to you need to use a power drill? and have you heard of designed for the dump? People are making things so that they break just so people will buy more! We need better stuff that will be able to last longer. Its thoughts like that, that stop things like like the goal of better from happening
There are many products that are made to last a long time, they just cost more money. By purchasing a nice power drill, I have the ability to take care of that power drill and use it until something irreplaceable (like the motor ) breaks. If that same power drill had been shared between me and 4 of my neighbors, its lifespan would have been more than 4 times shorter. The reason it would not last as long is because of the idea called Tragedy of the commons: by utilizing a publicly shared piece of property, the upkeep tends to be neglected because no single person wants to claim responsibility for the damage others cause to the publicly shared property. By saving up to buy the nice drill myself, I am choosing to buy 1 nice tool that will last many years, while decreasing the number of power dills I would have otherwise bought. In order to decrease the quantity of things we buy, we have to choose the quality of the tings we buy.
It's such a lovely message, but when I thought about it an analysed it I found a profound problem. You see without this endless pursuit of better computers, buy, upgrade; computing power wouldn't have skyrocketed in growth like it has. Exponential growth is staggering. Now information processing is transforming our way of life in amazing ways. Smartphones may seem trivial, but they're not. The huge power saving is filtering to the datacenter, massively reducing energy costs! Look closer.
Yes unfortunately we are in a catch 22 position. It’s just like we get upset about 3rd world countries polluting, but we are unwilling to “give” them the technologies they need to make their lives better.
While I agree with some points this video has, I think the lady in it should just move to Italy where she can live happily ever after sharing drills with her neighbors, lending her car to a hobo, and bashing America and its never-changing ways of life
I admire the humility to admit that she says we're capable of great things and uses smartphones and iPods as an example, even if they may not be the thing we need the most. That's fair and not straight "You're wrong and I'm right" partisan head bashing. WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO WORK TOGETHER... Lord help us grow this garden.
I was thinking about this before I even found this video. I am so glad that there are others not just thinking, but working on this. If only we could all join in on this
Ah, sorry, I didn't see that your previous comment was part of a discussion with what meadowsgirl had said, and not a direct response to the video. Anyway, the problem I refer to is that human population is increasing, while resources aren't, but most of the world is afraid of replacing the financial growth model with something more sustainable. Sure traffic jams are innocuous, but my point is that you can't even walk out your door without seeing that there's a population/resource imbalance.
These are some good ideas but ONLY as OPTIONS not as a way of life forced on everyone. Please think this through before you get carried away by a clever animation skit. Its nice to be able to go to the library and get a free video now and then and check out a book or 10 but think about the quality of wheel barrel or pruning shears you will be checking out from the library- not to mention convenience being a thing of the past. Its wonderful to provide these types of options if you choose to participate in a co-op but to marry government and big business and call it the solution...well when has that EVER worked out in favor of the common man. You are just changing the control team. This model will erodes and diminishes the quality of life for everyone EXCEPT the very poor. I like the idea of improving and expanding and thinking outside of the box but I still like the box we have! My main point is to say to play the tape out and consider where the ship you are jumping to will ultimately take you..take us.. as a Nation. Is it really better or just different?
+Cherylanne Loop Why not. There always used to be equipment, dress, video and TV hire businesses until cheap goods from China flooded the market. If you use something occasionally it is better to hire it particularly if you live in an dense urban area and are within walking distance of hire places and don't have much room at home to store everything you need and if you use something regularly it is better to buy it particularly if you live in a big house in a sprawling suburb.
...just one thing for now... when she was describing what was good vs. bad in what was about describing what the gdp was there were two big things i didn't like implied. when she said more kids in jail and more traffic jams I feel that she implied that laws were made to throw more kids in jail or create more traffic jams to consume more gas. Even in terms of GDP the more people that are in jails and not getting a good education probably means more unqualified people in the future, and while traffic jams eat up a lot of gas they also eat up a lot of time that can be used doing other things... such as conducting business or consuming products which are probably overall better for the GDP/Economy than traffic jams are.
GhostsonAcid Yes, I watched the video, 4 times I watched the video. I also watched her other videos. 99% of her statements are false, but they may seem true, because she does not know anything about electricity! I only sometimes watch Pawn Stars and never heard of "Friends". What did I miss?
Kevin Thai Go watch the critiques. They are really good. I think Annie Leonard is just some liberal that wants more stupid regulations! Then lies and says we need them, we don't, things were much better without all of the BS regulations of today. Things will not even be able to be made if she gets her way.
Sharing is good, but it must include accountability. A shared car should have a way to check it for damage and cleanliness after each person uses it, for example. If someone takes the loaner drill, they have to return it in as good of condition as it was when they got it, or be responsible for paying someone to clean/repair/replace it if they ruin it.
i see a light shining at the end of this dark tunnel...and it doesn't involve the burning of fossil fuels to make it illuminate! by golly, maybe there's hope for us yet.
Solution #1: Let people have choices and provide incentives when appropriate. Solution #2: Tyrannical socialism,aka "democracy by mob rule". Hmm... which one shall I choose?
You should start a new political party with this idea, loads of people would be interested, but those already in power will counter your argument with 'we already do this' and they will be able to provide proof too. They know all the stats and throw them around all the time. You need to know all the stats too and be able to throw up an opposite stat that proves them wrong, and the real stats that show them up that they are playing this game because most people just don't know that they are even doing this.
Look, I'm not a politician or an expert, but when you VOTE for a leader like in most countries, USA definitely included, you're by definition in a democracy. You can't deny this fact. The USA is a democratic republic, Nepal is too, most republics are. Not all democratic regimes are republics, monarchies are republics too nowadays, so yes, your metaphor is correct. Has nothing to do with Republican/Democrat party in the USA.
because in a republic, the leader is chosen by the people by voting, this means a republic is based on democracy. Not all democracies are republican, because there are some kingdoms still left (England, Belgium, etc). They are also a democracy, but in a different way (maybe slightly less democratic than e.g. the US or France, where there's an elected president. But the Belgian king has no real power anyway. Republicans and Democrats are both democratic, but have different beliefs
"not nearly enough resources for everyone in the world to live like we do" True but that's not the point."simple mathematics will tell you that a point of real scarcity must inevitably come, since human population is increasing but resources aren't." Also true but that's not what I was arguing against. It was this: "you can't even walk out your door without seeing that there's a population/resource imbalance" When there isn't. Not yet anyway. 3billion are starving but not because there's no food
If a neighbor wanted to create a waste incineration plant next door to your children's school or strip club would that growth be acceptable because an individual in the free market wanted it? If someone wanted to dump toxic sludge into their backyard nextdoor to you because it was his private property and it saved him money would that be acceptable because the individual rights of one outweighed the greater good? Or would you and your neighbors decide that your need for save environment for your children ie the greater good was more important than one company's plans to grow their part of the economy? We have rules we make together to keep each others greed and sometimes bad intentions from impacting the public safety that's why we have stoplights and lines on the roads and we arrest people who rob banks or steal from our companies. We have to understand that we are all connected and it is a rather small planet. What one individual does affects the rest of us even if they might be in the next county, state or even side of the planet. The word community comes from come-unity, bringing together. We are stronger when we work together and respect individuals rights and diversity at the same time. We better start learning how to work together and live together as good neighbors and stewards of this green Earth for our children's sakes. Because at the end of the day none of us will take our riches with us when we die, but we will leave behind children who deserve clean air, water and a fair path to personal growth and happiness (the pursuit of happiness- see U.S. Constitution.)
It has never existed anywhere. Ever over developed country in the world got that way by imposing import duties and supporting local manufacturers. The US is no different. It has always, and continues, to give huge subsidies to corporations.
Find the answer in the short film “Mankinder (Occupying Chairlifts)”! A guy working in the white house calls on an underachieving old college buddy, to solve the economy from it’s debt and unemployment troubles. A couple brief conversations with the reluctant skibum corrects the course of humanity’s future. A simple rule tweak on inheritance ends up changing the direction and purpose of modern human life! Watch “Mankinder (Occupying Chairlifts)” on youtube
Uh...sure some scarcity is artificial. Many resources could be distributed more equally. Still, there are currently not nearly enough resources for everyone in the world to live like we do in the west. But even if you don't believe that, simple mathematics will tell you that a point of real scarcity must inevitably come, since human population is increasing but resources aren't.
No one is ASSUMING that there is a problem; you just need to open your eyes and SEE it. You can see it in the traffic jams, in the food program lineups, housing markets, Wall Street, news channels, refugee camps, oceans, rain forests, congress, movie theaters, etc. And if you don't see the problem, maybe you need to get out more and interact with some people on the bum end of the deal.
She brings up the problems of planned obsolescence which is something none of us want and the shelf life of gadgets is getting smaller and smaller from ten years in the 60's on average to just one year now. But I don't want to see the solution as never owning anything and borrowing instead of hiring somebody to perform a service you used to with the tool you bought. Let people have the choice of whether they want to own a car or hire one, own a drill or borrow one and so on.
She wants a world where nobody owns anything and they have to borrow it for a fee. So no owning a bicycle or the pump to pump up the tyres with anymore. Just live in your tiny apartment in a high rise building owning only a few clothes and your lap top and everything else you need must be hired. You stop doing anything for yourself even cooking as all you do then is pay somebody else to do it for you and you eat out all the time or phone for a take away.
How do we transition from a money based system to RBE. One way is by having all the people that want RBE to use/live a Hybrid Money/No Money system to bridge us over to RBE. Anyone interested in helping us develop this bridge over to RBE please come join us now at: "BUILD A HYBRID RBE COMMUNITY NOW" group on Facebook. We are going to develop Hybrid communities/towns/cities/states/countries and show the world a better way of life now Together we can transition to RBE, let's get this done!
so who governs the idea of whats better? yes i do believe we all have a scene of whats right and wrong, but is bright to be seeking to get rid of all computers in the goal to make the world free from objects that cant brake down and recycle better? that will never happen. still all you can do is incite ideas without back bone. every video i have viewed from here either gets its information wrong, sturs up paranoia, or cant provide real value to the viewer.
If you have people in Peru, let me know to contact them, I'm very insterested. I'm making myself the same questions you had in the fist video (I'd learned a lot with you), and cannot be indiferent as well. Anyway, I'm not agree with everything you say in this video, but I respect a lot and would be very helpfull for me and my own research if you could share more info with me. I started to organize "Gratiferias" (free-fair) in Lima-Peru, a year ago. Thanks a lot for everything, and here are my reasons of disagreement: It's sounds good, but i'm not sure that the solution is to change the goal (better instead more), cause you can fall easily into the same. More and better can be synonimous, in fact the definition of better is "more of...", rigth? It's a comparative, and that's the base for competition. So, who says what is better or worst? What is the meassure? Then you need a power structure to stablish that (religious, military, scientific or economicaly) and set the rules. I think it's a little bit naif (even maybe stupid) to believe that changing for "better" is the solution. From the Neolitic Revolution to The French Revolution, from the ancients empires to the today's corporatocracy, capitalism and globalization, the human being is missunderstanding "the game". All of them wanted "more" and "better", each one of them changed the goal of their games, but the results where the same ever: wars, death, destruction and finally the imposition of the new non-sostainable wrong solution, the new stablisment of power and truth. If you want to change the game, stop playing it with a "goal". We need to change the whole game, not just replace the goal. We must eliminate the "sources" of the game: money and banks (speculation), the greedy (desire of more for me-us) and the soberby (the jugde of ego that decides what is good or bad, better or worst) and replace them for adaptation, sharing, cooperation, mutual trust, respect, etc without a goal, just with love. It sounds impossible and more naif (or the biggest stupid thing I ever heard). But recently I heard about people living that: the moneyless.
Ooh I was searching sth about sharing and came across this... Very inspiring well produced video (love the animation!), but I can't agree all of it. Yes BETTER is the goal, but it doesn't mean that we need to band or reduce the development. Somehow the video gave me this impression. Sharing in new technologies is also an important kind of "better" goal, and it even creates production!
Redbox is a good example of successful sharing (except we have to pay). If you know of better examples of society sharing -- please post bye the way ....Google+ is killing youtube comments
This was absolutely painful to watch. The free market is full of solutions, this video on the other hand is not. The ONLY way to make a profit in a free market is to do things that people want.
iPhones/battery life and their alternatives are very important. They give millions of people direct access to the world's knowledge (the internet). In some countries the only access to the internet that most have is through a mobile phone. Technology like this is definitely not part of the problem. It helps educate more people who can then go on to solve more important problems.
That's a very legitimate scenario, but in that scenario it creates an opportunity for a a fourth entrepreneur. If D, the producer company, won't sell to C, Entrepreneur E can join the market and sell his product with C at a lower price and the two of them will take market share away from A, B, and D. That's the great thing about the free market, every decision that is bad for consumers only creates an opportunity for an entrepreneur who wants to do good for consumers. Ultimately all free market transactions are voluntary, and customers can't be forced to buy your product if your product is too expensive or of poor quality. Only the government, and government mandates can force customers into those sorts of involuntary transactions, which is by definition NOT-Free Market. Customers will always flow toward the sellers with the best product at the best price, which always brings the market price to "equilibrium", the lowest price the market will bear.
No need to ban plastic bags. A small tax on them will do and has shown to be successful in many countries. People will not pay a few pennies or cents on a plastic bag that will spit so they are made a bit stronger and reused several times before being thrown away.
As Isaac Asimov said people won't sacrifice their own comfort for saving the planet. Plastic bottles are cheap, lightweight and resistant. Few people will pay double for their milk only not to use plastic bottle. Till we make a bottle that will be enviromental friendly and cheap, recicling business can be a solution. Finding solutions depends also of knowledge of the time. Charles Babbage tried to build first computer in early 1800, but he didn't succeeded because the technology wasn't developed enough, they didn't have electricity.
For 2023 I have stopped buying everything except food and beverages. I'm not buying any thing else. I drive very little and have saved a tremendous amount of money. I'm pretty much boycotting everything not necessary to sustaining a simple life.
Another impediment is 401K & IRA accounts. More GDP makes them look fatter & you'd have to convince retirees that there will be a future for them that they have some control of, not just a safety net but something in which we can all invest, maybe a different way to invest.
I'm not much for democracy. I don't think it's effective. I'm more tribalistic and do things only on a voluntary level. I'm not submitting to politics or politicians. Government is too inefficient and could be a 1/4 of its current size and cost. Very wasteful.
Joe striker , If someone makes a stainless steel hammer with a fused carbon fiber handle, there would be little to no chance of breaking it by accident. If some psycho carpenter destroyed the shared hammer, that person would no longer be allowed to participate in sharing and would probably have to pay for it! no one ever said we would do away with responsibility! ! ! Duh ...people are inherently cooperative ! ! ! Read up man.
1. one will not safe the world with recycling plastik-bags 2. what is possible to do - will be done 3. the big interesting part for humanity is not ... a trade community - even though it's nice to have - but energy issues - if one could produce stuff without wasting the environment - it would have long be done - and yeah life is comfortable with cars and computers ... and yes there are people out there searching for ways to solve this energy issues --- little hint it will not be solved with hugging each other... another little hint - most of the people who will solve the most difficult problems ... will not engage to much in community _ but sit alone at there desk thinking ... -> Conclusion you're not so important as you think you are - so don't worry - instead understand that even with the best will some problems are not solved easily -> cause human have the tendency for irrational behaviours - so if you're serious - in what you're saying stop using cars - stop using computers - till we found another and better source for energy - and make sure - that in regions with overpopulation people use condoms (i know it's such an easy goal)... and yeah a bit of modification of human dna would also be nice ... there is a reason for this more ... and not for the better -> it's inside our genetics ----- what does a man need to have to be attratictive to a woman... let me think status - prestige and money? hmmm some call it character but this a flaw - cause every man has a character - we're primarly driven by the desire of reproduction and safety ... having stuff feels safe (financial... safety etc.).... so just and simply rewrite the way of human thinking and behaving - there might be some groups getting a kick out of feeling greatly rewarded by the feeling if every one would do the same as i did , all problems would be solved - but this is simply not true.
This video is not the story of solutions. After 3:15, it is just an apology of the capitalist world and arguments in favor of partial solutions that have no hard foundation and are very much prone to debate. Here is one comment: Negative points about recycling and in favor of bag-banishing: you do not evolve by stopping change. There are always going to be people to disagree and willing to stop change. Giving people money for recycling is an enormous game-changin solution: even people that do not have strong opinion on the subject of environnement (which is the case of the majority) will play teh game to get this money. This helps banishing wastes and recycle wasted materiel. I see so many homeless people in my city cleaning the street to get such money. Those people gets the benefit of it wit the money, the environnement gets it with being more clean, and the industry wins too by reusing the mraw materiel. This is far more game changing to involve the majority by such actions than getting a few people's efforts to block others actions and telling others how to be happy (as Arizona Striker pointed out). Your goal is good but you are going to the same path as all the other people aroud you., so do not try to block other people's way (banishing plastic bags?), give them ways to get more by doing better.
A bit wider thinking than usual, but... halfway thinking gives "not enough solutions". The rules of the game now is: profit, and that is what need to change. As long as we give power to institutions that only are ment to create money, the game stays more or less the same. It may seam impossible to exchange the economic system with a more sane one, like participoatory economy or democratic economy. But that´s what it takes, if we are serious about saving the majority of living organisms (humans included).
thousands of Citizen campaigns... see where we're at? ... lol this means it takes thousands of people marching thousands of times to "undo" what we are currently allowing corporations to do over night
so the correct solution is to put a gun to someone's head and force them to act the way you deem better and healthier? Isn't that where the problem stemmed from in the beginning?
I fully agree. However, is the definition of 'better' sufficient or would additional principles help to prevent mistakes also made in the past with well willing people? The Natural Step sustainability principles help me to innovate towards that better future without creating new problems elsewhere.
Who pays for the sharing? How will the law work with sharing unless its owned by the people with tax money and government. This is a socialist idea. Why would u trust the government who is being paid off by the corporations?
♻️ The plastic crisis gets a lot of attention as pollution, but the environmental impact of plastic’s life cycle starts long before it ends up in our waterways and ecosystems. Watch our latest animation, The Story of Plastic: ua-cam.com/video/iO3SA4YyEYU/v-deo.html
Believe it or not, this video is my science homework.
sup bro same here
my sustainability homework
cao Christina ikejejenjs
Just now, mine
cao Christina same, I hate science
When she started talking about a 'game changer' I thought she was going to talk about a resource based economy but she started talking about activism which doesn't really change the game at all in the grand scheme of things. As long as we have the same monetary system nothing much will change
A lot of comments seem to think that this idea is incongruent with capitalism but imagine a scenario where the goal is not to buy the cheapest (in short term costs) item but the best item (where all of the costs, short term and long term) have been accounted for (internalized). Where instead of buying one "cheap" item that wears out quickly and it is necessary to buy many over your lifetime, one better (seemingly more expensive) item that lasts a life time (and thus saves you money in the long term).
Unfortunately quarterly profit forecasts still rule the world.
@@josecortez5213 People NEED to be re-educated.
We need a bigger change, a change in mindset. We have to stop buying things. We need to live simpler lives, with less stuff. Stuff doesn’t make us happy. Happiness is found through relationships, hobbies, etc.
Yep… tell that to everyone living paycheck to paycheck under this system
It's a great video and initiative. In the same spirit, let''s be careful about "renewable energy" and the claims of clean energy... Wind energy creates a huge problem of artificialisation of soils (tons and tons of concrete for each windmill) and of what happens at the end of the quite short life of the windmill. There is also the huge problem of rare metals that are needed in abundance for all these options... Rare metals are... rare, and incredibly polluting in their extraction and refining. This is he same thing with electric cars, that only move the pollution. And actually most models of electric cars are so much heavier than regular cars that they lift just as much fine particulate pollution when driving around. A video or two on that topic would be great to inform people on the impact of those "solutions" and how they are not so great... and not a game changer...
I am hoping that videos like this will slowly get the public out of the current mindset that sees growth of GDP as the right measure by which to judge the success of government policy.
We need many more such videos and explanations to raise public awareness.
The challenge starts with the vocabulary we use to talk about economics, and the semantics that have been built into the economic vocabulary over the last century (winning = more, wealth = financial assets, human nature = striving for personal gain, etc.), which makes it very hard for people to articulate alternatives without being misunderstood.
Videos and illustrations can help overcome this difficulty.
Beyond the challenge of language, there is also the real danger of inventing "alternative" systems that are simply reincarnations of the old system in a new package. For example any system that attempts to define a universal metric for "better" will run into the same old issues. Currencies such as Bitcoin that are designed for universal use are concrete examples of misguided alternatives.
There is a need for domain-specific metrics, to track flows of all the different categories of resources and externalities. Only then can we begin to systematically think about the construction of waste-free value cycles.
Jorn Bettin , I agree with most of what you say. However I am not so sure that efforts to define a new metric for "better" should be avoided. Clearly the public, the media and the politicians want a metric to measure success, otherwise growth in GDP would not play such a big role. It seems the most realistic way to displace that misguided use of GDP is to advocate the use of an alternative, all the while of course continuing to warn of the inherent danger of any single metric.
I am not opposed to metrics for _better_. I am simply pointing out the need for *many* metrics for _better_, and not a simplistic universal one. For example a dedicated metric for measuring _better_ health is desirable, as well as dedicated metrics for measuring _less_ chemical externalities in production, transport, and agriculture, etc. The priorities that different local communities will attach to the various metrics heavily depend on the local context, specifically on the means that are (or are not) available locally to address economic externalities, and on the local severity of the effects of different kinds of externalities.
Interesting. Perhaps there should be an app for that: Using open government data, the app would provide a summary of "progress towards better" tailored to the user's local community and personal priorities. The app would also allow the user to opt in to feeding back anonymously to government this progress towards their personal priorities and those of their local community. That would provide valuable information for shaping government policy. Furthermore, that feedback could be aggregated into a single metric that could replace GDP. Do you think that metric might provide a useful and beneficial way to measure a government's success?
Perhaps the measurement of "progress towards better" will not be the most important benefit of such an app. Instead the educational effect that choosing their own priority settings in the app will have might be substantial.
I wonder, is the creation of such an app perhaps feasible already with currently available open data? And if it is, would a representative cross-section of the population adopt it? Or would it just again give even greater influence to the digitally savy? But, given the widespread adoption of smartphones, and the appetite of the public for personalised information, I don't think the idea is altogether unpromising.
Perhaps this idea is not new? Perhaps there is already an app for that? I would really like to try it.
I very much like the app you outline. In my work I use the following approach s23m.com/methodology/index.html to value chain/cycle engineering. This 5-minute video s23m.com/logistics/index.html illustrates the essence. The approach can obviously be applied at any scale, including at the scale of economic relationships between customers and suppliers. Together with my colleagues I am working on software for representing the links within concrete local economic subsystems.
I see no real technological obstacle for implementing the suggested app. The main stumbling block could be a lack of open data on resource and waste *flows*. Remember that waste flows are only required to be tracked to a certain extent, and only for materials where relevant and effective regulation is in place.
Indeed the educational effect of gaining a better understanding of the effects of specific priorities could be the primary benefit of the app. I would expect priorities to be readjusted on a frequent basis , leading to an economy that becomes much more conscious of undesirable waste flows (externalities).
I remember 5 years ago, I was 8 when I saw for first time The Story of Stuff. Carry on, Annie! I'm sure we are going to win this game!
Ironic, yet so very sad, how the point of the presentation is being dissected for its content, by lots of commentators, as yet another distraction to keep from working towards change. I'll probably even get a few negative comments about this, but bring it on. We can only be ignorant for long!
+Igomene Joseph One thing is obvious is that we are on a crash course. Everyone will eventually realize this, it's just by the time most people do, it will be too late.
How about you make actual good arguments instead of saying some vague shit in the comments that doesn't add to the conversation. What did this comment actually contribute? Absolutely nothing. I can't stand people that say vague things like this to make themselves sound smart.... what a waste of a comment.
My eyes have been opened...great video.
@Begin Transformation but some things she's saying are sadly true
I'm here for my geography lesson
Same
Searching for all the world's treasures again?
We all are
sharing kills jobs, not using plastic bags kills jobs etc... so we really need a minimum income for every person. We have to accept less working hours to be normal. We have to start living in the future where we dont have to work as much and are free to live more.
I agree with your second half of your statement but confused about the first half. sharing could create more jobs same with not using plastic bags. Just different jobs.
in my opinion the world is forgetting why we develop economies. we are becoming an overpopulated place for the number of real economy involving jobs.
Very compelling... to those that have never studied the works of any economist beside Krugman.
Having all this new Technology was to give us all back time to enjoy our families and leisure time, what has happened is the opposite we are all working longer and not having the family time and leisure time.
We all spend so much time consuming and giving more to our children, we are addicted to all the new technologies and want what everyone else has. So we work more to consume more, it may be time to hop off the merry go round.
You're right Warren. It used to be called a Rat Race. Now we are on a Hamster Wheel. The real wealth is health and time to spend with our loved ones living a fulfilling life. Greed is not good, and sharing is not evil as much as some political 1% backed think tanks want us to believe it is.
Easier said than done, for a variety of reasons.......but maybe in large mostly self sufficient communes of around 300 people.
Same old story as the one in the 1950s telling people that nuclear power would produce electricity that would be 'too cheap to meter'. And the story that having all kinds of new household appliances would give everybody more time for leisure? Maybe not so much. If only you could keep up with the monthly payments and interest on them and the cost of running them!
Living off grid might be the solution ;)
Why would you characterize citizens as 'pawns' on a game board? Ironic.
this video seems misleading and biased. what organization sponsored it? also this lady is sooooo annoying.
ooooooh, make things 'BETTER'. i get it now.
The mess Europe is in now is fundamentally down to trying to lump different countries with different economies and different cultural values around work into one fused monetary currency.
Add a global financial wobble and the damage has been great.
What bothers me about the EU is that while there are occasional elections for MEPs, I don't really feel like there's democracy going on. European politics gets next to no time on British TV and media as anything we play any real part in.
Great informative video... I wish we all had the same thinking cap.. *wink wink
This is absolutely my favorite channel! Such a helpful teaching tool and what amazing animations!! Thank you for all the work you do to inspire hope and action!
Me too!!
Me too
while making "Better" products is a good idea I think a "better" idea is to use a less ambiguous term. the term better itself can mean several hundred different things depending on context. For instance here is a hypothetical question "Which is BETTER a car or a cart?" on one hand the cart is better in terms of being green, its cheaper, and it promotes learning about things like how to handle horses. On the other hand the car is better in terms of practicality, it's faster, can travel longer distances, easier for the elderly, young, and sick to get around.
One could argue that the current goal of MORE is BETTER, however i think in this case the term BETTER means Environmental. It's not bad but I just kind of prefer more solid terms.
Yeah I agree. I care very much about the environment and I do my best to lower my ecological footprint. But "better" to me does not equal plastic bag bans despite the fact that I don't use plastic bags.
Better=G.O.A.L.
You're absolutely right.
BETTER is a non specific & vague term that isn't really helpful at all!
Unfortunately, this admirable goal won't be reached until society finds a way of increasing the intelligence (ability to notice difference and lack of difference) of a sufficient number of people towards the goal of environmentalism as well selecting highly intelligent and effective
politicians.
Totally agree
I would personally donate 5,000$ to charity for a one hour debate with this woman and Lee Doren if she agrees to post it on her website and channel.
More laws are not the solution, aware people are.
And the US is not a democracy, it is fully a republic.
Some would claim we are a democratic republic, but that could be argued.
What could go wrong if profit-driven corporations gained control your city's public water systems? Watch our latest animation, The Story of Water! 👉🏽 ua-cam.com/video/04jTleV0gK0/v-deo.html
time to move to timbuktu or deserted island?
Cooperatives are a good thing and everybody who wants some changes in business in this regard should support them. But that should be a free choice.
Thankfully we live in a system, where cooperatives are allowed.
This video is totally right when it says that there really is something wrong with the sistem we live in nowadays. As usual, there are a lot of antagonic comments about the ideias presented here, but, hey guys, we all have to agree with something: Comsumption has grown in a level we can`t handle anymore. Moreover, most of people in the world are being prejudiced by the few most powerful. Until when we will praise this individualistic and destructive way of life?
Oh yeah, I agree to you man.
It is we man!
Luis Henrique Malaquias Vieira I agree to you? It is " I agree with you". don't use google translator dude coz that's a crappy web
Hohoho stupid baixaki349
I love your channel, please continue the great job!
Awesome! Stop thinking negative thoughts, think of the positive.
Believe it or not, there is a system that uses money that DOES get us to Better. The problem is not with consumption. It's with production and the incentives hitherto. It also doesn't help that money itself functions in ways that exacerbate bad incentives. I'm for a resource-based economy a la TZM and VP, but those are mature visions of economies. To get there we need an interim. Perhaps Copiosis is that interim.
This is exactly the stuff that's been bugging me for a long time now. I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one noticing something's WAY off with the way people are living their lives through buying and buying and buying more and more and more THINGS...
At 0:20, Yes I do have one of those (it is actually a model older!)! I actually use it as my main iPod. I do not want to spend $200 on something that I will not use much, except to play music!
I do have a 2005 iPod NANO!
U poor ;)
Felmer washere No, I just use things as long as I can.
Democracy is NOT a game changer. Majority rule is not the best nor someone else deciding FOR you what happens in your life. To make decisions work everyone has to be engaged, not 51%. People on the forefront of great ideas are not in the majority, nor are great leaders. Consent is the new game. Each person have decision making power over those things that directly affect their life. You can have representatives but not by election (majority rule) but by direct assignments -- you can represent me until I say you can't.
+Feral Cares You look for perfection and it does not exist.
Great Video! I'll share it everywhere.
different towns have different levels of acceptability of these things. my town also flunked too but i know other towns making massive strides. progress is happening "the future is already here it's just not evenly distributed"
Thanks for this video 👏
Its amazing how profound points you make in 10 minutes in such an effective way... Thanks :-)
It's really a pity that these videos didn't mention about two essential reasons which drive the whole economy system toward MORE rather than BETTER: money created with debt, and the fanaticism of full employment. Sovereign money and Unconditional basic income are two radical solutions for these two problem. Just for your reference.
i believe that is implied when the goal is to constant growth
Let me start with, "people who don't get that, shouldn't have a say." You're positing that people who disagree with you should automatically lose their unalienable rights of free speech and/or right to vote?
"People driving cars everywhere just don't know what's good for them"
Or they know whats right for their life. Is a single mother with 5 kids is supposed to bike to the library to borrow a hammer? What about floor sanders, carpet steamers, table saws -- suppose to bike those home, too?
It's funny that she thinks there are "rules" to the economy. There aren't any rules to the economy any more than there are "rules" to any other set of voluntary human interactions. The economy isn't one monolithic thing with components but the sum of *all* economic activity between voluntary actors (i.e. more organic than mechanistic). It's even funnier that she thinks government can "fix" her "problem" when it's government "tipping the scales" that *causes* so many problems in the economy.
Just some thoughts on a couple of "ideas" in this video:
"Collaborative Consumption, better know as sharing" - Tragedy of the commons! Shared items will only degrade quicker if shared among others. Ownership actually gives an insensitive to keep that object/machine functional!
"Lessen the wealth gap" - Socialism (you already have your opinions on this)
"Open people's eyes to the truth of happiness" - You cant tell someone how to be happy. Likelihood is, the people that need told how to be happy were already looking for a way to make themselves happy.
You might be interested in an article of Mine...
stateofglobe.com/2014/03/07/liberty-and-the-american-way/
Redefine "wealth."
How often to you need to use a power drill? and have you heard of designed for the dump? People are making things so that they break just so people will buy more! We need better stuff that will be able to last longer. Its thoughts like that, that stop things like like the goal of better from happening
There are many products that are made to last a long time, they just cost more money. By purchasing a nice power drill, I have the ability to take care of that power drill and use it until something irreplaceable (like the motor ) breaks. If that same power drill had been shared between me and 4 of my neighbors, its lifespan would have been more than 4 times shorter. The reason it would not last as long is because of the idea called Tragedy of the commons: by utilizing a publicly shared piece of property, the upkeep tends to be neglected because no single person wants to claim responsibility for the damage others cause to the publicly shared property. By saving up to buy the nice drill myself, I am choosing to buy 1 nice tool that will last many years, while decreasing the number of power dills I would have otherwise bought. In order to decrease the quantity of things we buy, we have to choose the quality of the tings we buy.
Okay but not everything works that way, like table saws, you don't need one that often. And thats part of what shes says quality v.s quantity
Yes; everything is subject to the tragedy of the commons. Everything from public roads to publicly shared construction equipment.
It's such a lovely message, but when I thought about it an analysed it I found a profound problem.
You see without this endless pursuit of better computers, buy, upgrade; computing power wouldn't have skyrocketed in growth like it has. Exponential growth is staggering.
Now information processing is transforming our way of life in amazing ways.
Smartphones may seem trivial, but they're not. The huge power saving is filtering to the datacenter, massively reducing energy costs!
Look closer.
Yes unfortunately we are in a catch 22 position. It’s just like we get upset about 3rd world countries polluting, but we are unwilling to “give” them the technologies they need to make their lives better.
While I agree with some points this video has, I think the lady in it should just move to Italy where she can live happily ever after sharing drills with her neighbors, lending her car to a hobo, and bashing America and its never-changing ways of life
+Bob Parks She can find that way of life in Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas. No need to move to Europe.
I am curious who did the animation work? Can you provide a bit of detail on how the visual animation work was done? Thanks!
I was wondering the same thing...
0:01 "free range studios"
I admire the humility to admit that she says we're capable of great things and uses smartphones and iPods as an example, even if they may not be the thing we need the most. That's fair and not straight "You're wrong and I'm right" partisan head bashing. WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO WORK TOGETHER... Lord help us grow this garden.
Let´s connect with the Cradle to Cradle Way of production
I was thinking about this before I even found this video. I am so glad that there are others not just thinking, but working on this. If only we could all join in on this
Ah, sorry, I didn't see that your previous comment was part of a discussion with what meadowsgirl had said, and not a direct response to the video.
Anyway, the problem I refer to is that human population is increasing, while resources aren't, but most of the world is afraid of replacing the financial growth model with something more sustainable. Sure traffic jams are innocuous, but my point is that you can't even walk out your door without seeing that there's a population/resource imbalance.
To whoever is reading this: I love you & God bless you
i love the sketching animations in these videos :D
Nice! Not sure about using the plastic bag example as it is such a small percentage of the problem, but it is a very accessible example.
These are some good ideas but ONLY as OPTIONS not as a way of life forced on everyone. Please think this through before you get carried away by a clever animation skit. Its nice to be able to go to the library and get a free video now and then and check out a book or 10 but think about the quality of wheel barrel or pruning shears you will be checking out from the library- not to mention convenience being a thing of the past. Its wonderful to provide these types of options if you choose to participate in a co-op but to marry government and big business and call it the solution...well when has that EVER worked out in favor of the common man. You are just changing the control team. This model will erodes and diminishes the quality of life for everyone EXCEPT the very poor. I like the idea of improving and expanding and thinking outside of the box but I still like the box we have! My main point is to say to play the tape out and consider where the ship you are jumping to will ultimately take you..take us.. as a Nation. Is it really better or just different?
+Cherylanne Loop Why not. There always used to be equipment, dress, video and TV hire businesses until cheap goods from China flooded the market. If you use something occasionally it is better to hire it particularly if you live in an dense urban area and are within walking distance of hire places and don't have much room at home to store everything you need and if you use something regularly it is better to buy it particularly if you live in a big house in a sprawling suburb.
...just one thing for now... when she was describing what was good vs. bad in what was about describing what the gdp was there were two big things i didn't like implied. when she said more kids in jail and more traffic jams I feel that she implied that laws were made to throw more kids in jail or create more traffic jams to consume more gas. Even in terms of GDP the more people that are in jails and not getting a good education probably means more unqualified people in the future, and while traffic jams eat up a lot of gas they also eat up a lot of time that can be used doing other things... such as conducting business or consuming products which are probably overall better for the GDP/Economy than traffic jams are.
no offense, I love your videos, but I smell communism here in this video lol
It smells bad!
give everyone a T-shirt to remind us THE GAME CHNAGE message on it.
Cool idea!
Congratulations Annie. Great initiative, Great communications. I am in. Best regards, Ricardo.
This is awful!!! So wait, you want us to stop making new electronics??
Did you watch the video? Ugh...
Go back to watching Pawn Stars and re-runs of Friends.
GhostsonAcid Yes, I watched the video, 4 times I watched the video. I also watched her other videos. 99% of her statements are false, but they may seem true, because she does not know anything about electricity! I only sometimes watch Pawn Stars and never heard of "Friends". What did I miss?
Joshua's Recordings - What's false?
Kevin Thai Go watch the critiques. They are really good. I think Annie Leonard is just some liberal that wants more stupid regulations! Then lies and says we need them, we don't, things were much better without all of the BS regulations of today. Things will not even be able to be made if she gets her way.
Sharing is good, but it must include accountability. A shared car should have a way to check it for damage and cleanliness after each person uses it, for example. If someone takes the loaner drill, they have to return it in as good of condition as it was when they got it, or be responsible for paying someone to clean/repair/replace it if they ruin it.
Smoke another joint woman.
i see a light shining at the end of this dark tunnel...and it doesn't involve the burning of fossil fuels to make it illuminate! by golly, maybe there's hope for us yet.
Am I the only one here who has to watch this kinds of videos for homework... :((
Good points,I understand.
Solution #1: Let people have choices and provide incentives when appropriate.
Solution #2: Tyrannical socialism,aka "democracy by mob rule".
Hmm... which one shall I choose?
You should start a new political party with this idea, loads of people would be interested, but those already in power will counter your argument with 'we already do this' and they will be able to provide proof too. They know all the stats and throw them around all the time. You need to know all the stats too and be able to throw up an opposite stat that proves them wrong, and the real stats that show them up that they are playing this game because most people just don't know that they are even doing this.
Awesome video! Really glad I've found this channel! Thank you. :)
Look, I'm not a politician or an expert, but when you VOTE for a leader like in most countries, USA definitely included, you're by definition in a democracy. You can't deny this fact. The USA is a democratic republic, Nepal is too, most republics are. Not all democratic regimes are republics, monarchies are republics too nowadays, so yes, your metaphor is correct. Has nothing to do with Republican/Democrat party in the USA.
because in a republic, the leader is chosen by the people by voting, this means a republic is based on democracy. Not all democracies are republican, because there are some kingdoms still left (England, Belgium, etc). They are also a democracy, but in a different way (maybe slightly less democratic than e.g. the US or France, where there's an elected president. But the Belgian king has no real power anyway. Republicans and Democrats are both democratic, but have different beliefs
"not nearly enough resources for everyone in the world to live like we do" True but that's not the point."simple mathematics will tell you that a point of real scarcity must inevitably come, since human population is increasing but resources aren't." Also true but that's not what I was arguing against. It was this: "you can't even walk out your door without seeing that there's a population/resource imbalance" When there isn't. Not yet anyway. 3billion are starving but not because there's no food
If a neighbor wanted to create a waste incineration plant next door to your children's school or strip club would that growth be acceptable because an individual in the free market wanted it? If someone wanted to dump toxic sludge into their backyard nextdoor to you because it was his private property and it saved him money would that be acceptable because the individual rights of one outweighed the greater good? Or would you and your neighbors decide that your need for save environment for your children ie the greater good was more important than one company's plans to grow their part of the economy?
We have rules we make together to keep each others greed and sometimes bad intentions from impacting the public safety that's why we have stoplights and lines on the roads and we arrest people who rob banks or steal from our companies.
We have to understand that we are all connected and it is a rather small planet. What one individual does affects the rest of us even if they might be in the next county, state or even side of the planet.
The word community comes from come-unity, bringing together. We are stronger when we work together and respect individuals rights and diversity at the same time.
We better start learning how to work together and live together as good neighbors and stewards of this green Earth for our children's sakes. Because at the end of the day none of us will take our riches with us when we die, but we will leave behind children who deserve clean air, water and a fair path to personal growth and happiness (the pursuit of happiness- see U.S. Constitution.)
It has never existed anywhere. Ever over developed country in the world got that way by imposing import duties and supporting local manufacturers. The US is no different. It has always, and continues, to give huge subsidies to corporations.
Find the answer in the short film “Mankinder (Occupying Chairlifts)”! A guy working in the white house calls on an underachieving old college buddy, to solve the economy from it’s debt and unemployment troubles. A couple brief conversations with the reluctant skibum corrects the course of humanity’s future. A simple rule tweak on inheritance ends up changing the direction and purpose of modern human life! Watch “Mankinder (Occupying Chairlifts)” on youtube
Uh...sure some scarcity is artificial. Many resources could be distributed more equally. Still, there are currently not nearly enough resources for everyone in the world to live like we do in the west. But even if you don't believe that, simple mathematics will tell you that a point of real scarcity must inevitably come, since human population is increasing but resources aren't.
No one is ASSUMING that there is a problem; you just need to open your eyes and SEE it. You can see it in the traffic jams, in the food program lineups, housing markets, Wall Street, news channels, refugee camps, oceans, rain forests, congress, movie theaters, etc. And if you don't see the problem, maybe you need to get out more and interact with some people on the bum end of the deal.
She brings up the problems of planned obsolescence which is something none of us want and the shelf life of gadgets is getting smaller and smaller from ten years in the 60's on average to just one year now. But I don't want to see the solution as never owning anything and borrowing instead of hiring somebody to perform a service you used to with the tool you bought. Let people have the choice of whether they want to own a car or hire one, own a drill or borrow one and so on.
She wants a world where nobody owns anything and they have to borrow it for a fee. So no owning a bicycle or the pump to pump up the tyres with anymore. Just live in your tiny apartment in a high rise building owning only a few clothes and your lap top and everything else you need must be hired. You stop doing anything for yourself even cooking as all you do then is pay somebody else to do it for you and you eat out all the time or phone for a take away.
How do we transition from a money based system to RBE. One way is by having all the people that want RBE to use/live a Hybrid Money/No Money system to bridge us over to RBE.
Anyone interested in helping us develop this bridge over to RBE please come join us now at:
"BUILD A HYBRID RBE COMMUNITY NOW" group on Facebook.
We are going to develop Hybrid communities/towns/cities/states/countries and show the world a better way of life now
Together we can transition to RBE, let's get this done!
so who governs the idea of whats better? yes i do believe we all have a scene of whats right and wrong, but is bright to be seeking to get rid of all computers in the goal to make the world free from objects that cant brake down and recycle better? that will never happen. still all you can do is incite ideas without back bone. every video i have viewed from here either gets its information wrong, sturs up paranoia, or cant provide real value to the viewer.
If you have people in Peru, let me know to contact them, I'm very insterested. I'm making myself the same questions you had in the fist video (I'd learned a lot with you), and cannot be indiferent as well. Anyway, I'm not agree with everything you say in this video, but I respect a lot and would be very helpfull for me and my own research if you could share more info with me. I started to organize "Gratiferias" (free-fair) in Lima-Peru, a year ago. Thanks a lot for everything, and here are my reasons of disagreement:
It's sounds good, but i'm not sure that the solution is to change the goal (better instead more), cause you can fall easily into the same. More and better can be synonimous, in fact the definition of better is "more of...", rigth? It's a comparative, and that's the base for competition. So, who says what is better or worst? What is the meassure? Then you need a power structure to stablish that (religious, military, scientific or economicaly) and set the rules. I think it's a little bit naif (even maybe stupid) to believe that changing for "better" is the solution. From the Neolitic Revolution to The French Revolution, from the ancients empires to the today's corporatocracy, capitalism and globalization, the human being is missunderstanding "the game". All of them wanted "more" and "better", each one of them changed the goal of their games, but the results where the same ever: wars, death, destruction and finally the imposition of the new non-sostainable wrong solution, the new stablisment of power and truth. If you want to change the game, stop playing it with a "goal". We need to change the whole game, not just replace the goal. We must eliminate the "sources" of the game: money and banks (speculation), the greedy (desire of more for me-us) and the soberby (the jugde of ego that decides what is good or bad, better or worst) and replace them for adaptation, sharing, cooperation, mutual trust, respect, etc without a goal, just with love. It sounds impossible and more naif (or the biggest stupid thing I ever heard). But recently I heard about people living that: the moneyless.
This is the kind of thinking that we need today.
***** check out Will Work For Free 2013,Humans need not apply and technological unemployment 60 minutes
Shane Nolan
Thank you, I will check it out! :)
Ooh I was searching sth about sharing and came across this... Very inspiring well produced video (love the animation!), but I can't agree all of it. Yes BETTER is the goal, but it doesn't mean that we need to band or reduce the development. Somehow the video gave me this impression. Sharing in new technologies is also an important kind of "better" goal, and it even creates production!
Redbox is a good example of successful sharing (except we have to pay). If you know of better examples of society sharing -- please post
bye the way ....Google+ is killing youtube comments
This was absolutely painful to watch. The free market is full of solutions, this video on the other hand is not. The ONLY way to make a profit in a free market is to do things that people want.
iPhones/battery life and their alternatives are very important. They give millions of people direct access to the world's knowledge (the internet). In some countries the only access to the internet that most have is through a mobile phone. Technology like this is definitely not part of the problem. It helps educate more people who can then go on to solve more important problems.
newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/10/internet-org-app-launches-in-tanzania/
That's a very legitimate scenario, but in that scenario it creates an opportunity for a a fourth entrepreneur. If D, the producer company, won't sell to C, Entrepreneur E can join the market and sell his product with C at a lower price and the two of them will take market share away from A, B, and D.
That's the great thing about the free market, every decision that is bad for consumers only creates an opportunity for an entrepreneur who wants to do good for consumers. Ultimately all free market transactions are voluntary, and customers can't be forced to buy your product if your product is too expensive or of poor quality. Only the government, and government mandates can force customers into those sorts of involuntary transactions, which is by definition NOT-Free Market.
Customers will always flow toward the sellers with the best product at the best price, which always brings the market price to "equilibrium", the lowest price the market will bear.
No need to ban plastic bags. A small tax on them will do and has shown to be successful in many countries. People will not pay a few pennies or cents on a plastic bag that will spit so they are made a bit stronger and reused several times before being thrown away.
As Isaac Asimov said people won't sacrifice their own comfort for saving the planet. Plastic bottles are cheap, lightweight and resistant. Few people will pay double for their milk only not to use plastic bottle. Till we make a bottle that will be enviromental friendly and cheap, recicling business can be a solution. Finding solutions depends also of knowledge of the time. Charles Babbage tried to build first computer in early 1800, but he didn't succeeded because the technology wasn't developed enough, they didn't have electricity.
For 2023 I have stopped buying everything except food and beverages. I'm not buying any thing else. I drive very little and have saved a tremendous amount of money. I'm pretty much boycotting everything not necessary to sustaining a simple life.
Another impediment is 401K & IRA accounts. More GDP makes them look fatter & you'd have to convince retirees that there will be a future for them that they have some control of, not just a safety net but something in which we can all invest, maybe a different way to invest.
I'm not much for democracy. I don't think it's effective. I'm more tribalistic and do things only on a voluntary level. I'm not submitting to politics or politicians. Government is too inefficient and could be a 1/4 of its current size and cost. Very wasteful.
Joe striker ,
If someone makes a stainless steel hammer with a fused carbon fiber handle, there would be little to no chance of breaking it by accident. If some psycho carpenter destroyed the shared hammer, that person would no longer be allowed to participate in sharing and would probably have to pay for it! no one ever said we would do away with responsibility! ! ! Duh ...people are inherently cooperative ! ! ! Read up man.
1. one will not safe the world with recycling plastik-bags
2. what is possible to do - will be done
3. the big interesting part for humanity is not ... a trade community - even though it's nice to have - but energy issues - if one could produce stuff without wasting the environment - it would have long be done - and yeah life is comfortable with cars and computers ... and yes there are people out there searching for ways to solve this energy issues --- little hint it will not be solved with hugging each other...
another little hint - most of the people who will solve the most difficult problems ... will not engage to much in community _ but sit alone at there desk thinking ... -> Conclusion you're not so important as you think you are - so don't worry - instead understand that even with the best will some problems are not solved easily -> cause human have the tendency for irrational behaviours - so if you're serious - in what you're saying stop using cars - stop using computers - till we found another and better source for energy - and make sure - that in regions with overpopulation people use condoms (i know it's such an easy goal)...
and yeah a bit of modification of human dna would also be nice ... there is a reason for this more ... and not for the better -> it's inside our genetics -----
what does a man need to have to be attratictive to a woman... let me think status - prestige and money? hmmm some call it character but this a flaw - cause every man has a character - we're primarly driven by the desire of reproduction and safety ... having stuff feels safe (financial... safety etc.).... so just and simply rewrite the way of human thinking and behaving - there might be some groups getting a kick out of feeling greatly rewarded by the feeling if every one would do the same as i did , all problems would be solved - but this is simply not true.
This video is not the story of solutions. After 3:15, it is just an apology of the capitalist world and arguments in favor of partial solutions that have no hard foundation and are very much prone to debate. Here is one comment:
Negative points about recycling and in favor of bag-banishing: you do not evolve by stopping change. There are always going to be people to disagree and willing to stop change. Giving people money for recycling is an enormous game-changin solution: even people that do not have strong opinion on the subject of environnement (which is the case of the majority) will play teh game to get this money. This helps banishing wastes and recycle wasted materiel. I see so many homeless people in my city cleaning the street to get such money. Those people gets the benefit of it wit the money, the environnement gets it with being more clean, and the industry wins too by reusing the mraw materiel. This is far more game changing to involve the majority by such actions than getting a few people's efforts to block others actions and telling others how to be happy (as Arizona Striker pointed out).
Your goal is good but you are going to the same path as all the other people aroud you., so do not try to block other people's way (banishing plastic bags?), give them ways to get more by doing better.
A bit wider thinking than usual, but... halfway thinking gives "not enough solutions". The rules of the game now is: profit, and that is what need to change. As long as we give power to institutions that only are ment to create money, the game stays more or less the same. It may seam impossible to exchange the economic system with a more sane one, like participoatory economy or democratic economy. But that´s what it takes, if we are serious about saving the majority of living organisms (humans included).
I'm not starting my fuckin self, I'm on BLOG TV WITH MY FING HANDS UP :);;;;;;;)
I think hemp could replace a LOT of plastics. Bottles for water could be created using hemp and is biodegradable... 9 months later it is decomposed...
Well it is in a lesser way.
But communism is not necessarily pure evil. It's not it's idea that got people mad, but the way it was being applied.
Sharing can be great but there is still a place for private ownership. Some things cannot and should not be shared.
thousands of Citizen campaigns... see where we're at? ... lol this means it takes thousands of people marching thousands of times to "undo" what we are currently allowing corporations to do over night
so the correct solution is to put a gun to someone's head and force them to act the way you deem better and healthier? Isn't that where the problem stemmed from in the beginning?
I fully agree. However, is the definition of 'better' sufficient or would additional principles help to prevent mistakes also made in the past with well willing people? The Natural Step sustainability principles help me to innovate towards that better future without creating new problems elsewhere.
Who pays for the sharing? How will the law work with sharing unless its owned by the people with tax money and government. This is a socialist idea. Why would u trust the government who is being paid off by the corporations?
communism!!!!!!