She makes it out that people obscure our obvious lives and environmental impact, that is actually not the case and frankly I don't like how she believes people in this world are stupid or oblivious.
Exactly, I always contradict anyone saying to save the planet. The planet will be fine, and people have a hard time caring about "the world." Telling them we are saving ourselves is both far more relatable - better for prompting action - and more accurate to what's actually being done.
*People need to have a relationship with nature.* Back and forth. Give and take. Nature is not a product. Nature is a series of complex relationships of innumerable living things, lives and deaths and lives again.
1600 PPM is the minimum atmospheric CO2 for plant growth! Why aren't we providing it for nature? We can't on a global scale. The ocean temperature controls atmosphereic CO2!
Sadly egos and greed are human nature, notice how this host herself has a ring, earrings, and dental whitened teeth, why must she adorn herself in jewellery and such? Societal pressures.
@@thatguy5801 dude, you’ve completely missed the mark. We’ve had self adornment for as long as animals have existed. Stop using vanity as a moral indicator, that doesn’t help anyone, it’s the same as “you use an iPhone”. What is more important is reducing consumption, that is why individualist moral indicators like carbon footprints have been debunked as productive, when people don’t have control over where most of their consumption comes from, however people in power (political or wealth) do control the systems that control how people get their goods.
@@crayonburryHumans are inherently greedy, she choose to get those procedures done for an advantage over others, competitiveness which is apart of us all is "gotta get mine" mentality. And believe me this host outside the show "gets hers".
@@thatguy5801 humans are inherently nothing, we are shaped by our experiences in our environment. Your limited view of the human experience literally blinds you to the privilege you need to be able to work without making yourself appear pleasant. And like I said before, her jewelry and clothing are literally nothing compared to actual people in power who control how we source our needs. You’re literally just berating a black woman for existing in patriarchal society.
@@thatguy5801 humans are inherently nothing, we are shaped by our experiences in our environment. If you create a culture of greed like capitalism, that is what you get, if you create a culture of selflessness, that is what you get. Your limited view of the human experience literally blinds you to the privilege you need to be able to work without conforming to beauty standards. And like I said before, her jewelry and clothing are literally nothing compared to actual people in positions of power who control how we source our needs. You’re just berating a black woman for existing in patriarchal society.
I grew up in a rural area, and I've been saying this for years. I think some people are still missing point. We need to see everything as an ecosystem. New York city is an ecosystem regardless if it's healthy or not. So how do we optimize it for us and wildlife? How do produce what a city needs within the city itself? How do we encourage local plant and wildlife diversity in a city? If we can figure these things out, we'll benefit the planet. Tightening our belt won't work.
"New York city is an ecosystem" No it's not. It is a city inside a ecosystem. Maybe you mean microclimate. Those are still inside and together with their surrounding ecosytem.
@@stuartwithers8755 The complete interworking of flora and fauna of a given area usually limited by defined borders like mountains, lakes, sea. A city is not a ecosystem.
I don't think anyone is 'missing' the point. 'Avoiding' the point is the most likely scenario. The deniers won't face fear, won't face taking action, and definitely won't face taking personal responsibility. Indoctrinated from birth to believe their country is the greatest, and a religion that more or less says 'Help yourselves! This world is yours to exploit!' - you're never going to change that mindset very much. And as America generates so much 'want,' imposes so much influence, forces franchises and political alliances (or wrath and ruin) upon the rest of the world - it is there that the biggest changes could be and should be made for the environment. The peoples and infrastructure of any European country could magically vanish from the face of the Earth right now, and the change in the rate of global environmental influence would be incredibly small. America though? It would be planet-saving. I was astounded by how much electricity even environmentally conscious YT channel presenters joyfully burn through in a month. One, after loading his house roof with new solar panels and then covering his huge, sprawling house extension with even more solar panels was still spending $200 per month on electricity. What on Earth is he doing in that house? I spend less than £100 per month, British electricity is more expensive than American electricity - and I have no solar panels/turbines. If this is how Americans eat through resources, then no wonder we're all in trouble. And it's no wonder countries like Scotland have decided they have to push their net zero target dates back. Why bother to meet targets if no one else is really trying anyway? The rate we're going it will be only our bones that will see the net zero target date of 2040 and no more.
Global heat waves are killing land and marine biodiversity. Earth global tempature had exceeded 1.5c fir the first time in 10,000 years. Climate extinction isva real possibility be thr year 2100.
and humans shape natural processes, and if done correctly, its benefitial for everyone. every living being interfere with the environment they live in, what is different in humans is that we can decide how we are going to interfere, instead of our impact being directed by evolution, its directed by conscious decision. that was the point of the video, we are not separated from nature.
@@danilooliveira6580 Unfortunately we still have a very limited understanding of the far reaching consequences of our manipulation of nature. And we cannot yet replicate the processes of nature in any meaningful way. To really understand it we need to get over ourselves and our perceived superiority. Cognitive dissonance has always stood in the way of true scientific progress.
Yes. Every time someone talks to me about saving the planet I respond by saying “The planet will be fine. The planet will go on. Save the humans. We need to make the planet hospitable for our kids so that human beings don’t go extinct!”
It won't go on without suffering a tremendous and preventable loss of life. You might might be able to inanely giggle at the prospect but I won't. Save the planet.
She forgot to mention the billions of lives saved by the technological improvements made over the last century. Life expectancy has increased significantly and billions have been raised out of extreme poverty. Can we do better? Yes. But let's not forget all the benefits we enjoy.
@@Mrpersonman0 I think you missed the point. "Life" is not "the planet". "The planet" does not require life to continue being "the planet". What you are actually concerned about is NOT saving the PLANET, you are concerned about saving LIFE, so say that instead.
@@Mrpersonman0 The planet doesn't care if there is a massive loss of life. Life will go on just fine. Mass extinctions have happened time and again, and this will hardly be the last one. We are saving ourselves (as long as we can), not the planet.
That is highly unintelligent and ignorant. Humans cause mass extinction but in your feeble mind, you think the planet will be fine. Then you appeal to humans selfish nature saying the solution is to be even more selfish. Amazing,
I live in Sydney Australia, and I have turned my little garden into a safe-haven for wildlife just by planting native bushes and trees, and also putting fresh clean water out every day for wildlife. I also keep domestic cats out of my garden. My garden is full of life, there are lots of wildlife and tons of insects like bees in my garden. Everyone with a garden can do the same.
This shows the intelligence of the of the original native people on this continent in the west. Many thought the natives were very unintelligent and uncivilized because they wore little to no clothing in good weather. Many thought they were unintelligent because some western tribes had no concept of war, or weapons to kill people. They were very intelligent how they managed their environment, and clothing is not needed when the weather is comfortable. That is just a waste of resources. They were very civilized with how the people within tribes took care of the children and learned from and cared for the elderly. Modern society should look back a little and learn from the past from all people on the planet and use some of their knowledge to improve the environment. That can be done while also advancing science manufacturing and modern comforts, and urban environments. We are all a part of the environment, not apart from the environment.
Nonsense. Google: torture and cannibalism native Americans. You will be shocked. They raised their children to be sociopaths with no feelings of mercy or empathy. They were so violent that America tried to cause their extinction by wiping out the buffalo. They were put on reservations to keep them from torturing people. Eventuallly the children were taken away from the parents and given an education to break the cycle of violence. You have learned Hollywood's fake history.
“We often forget that WE ARE NATURE. Nature is not something separate from us. So when we say that we have lost our connection to nature, we’ve lost our connection to ourselves.” -Andy Goldsworthy
Duuuuuuuude!! I've been saying this for YEARS!!! We ought to save the environment for OURSELVES!! Be selfish! The planet was there before we were there, and it will go on without us, when we are not there....likely of our own making... People have got this all wrong! Also, it's simply better marketing/advertising strategy to appeal to people's own self-interest/self-preservation, rather than something altruistic, esp. for something as abstract and as expansive & complex as the 'environment' (or 'climate')....
I wish i was that optimistic... i think its going to take much more than what you say (no offense). Humans are too lazy, gullible, and greedy. Alot of folks out there couldn't care less about their own children, let alone their grandchildren's children. I think it will take a very brutal reset for humanity to really make any positive changes. The only thing that gives me any hope for life on earth is that it will go on long after we're gone... granted anything is left after we're gone. We're like a parasite too prolific for its own good, and our environment is the host.
True. I wish she would have said "for the benefit and well-being of all living beings" instead of "for us all" at the end, though. Part of saving the environment "for ourselves" is to aim to benefit all life, since we are so interdependent, even when that interdependence isn't obvious to us. I think we stand to lose much if we focus only on self-preservation (food, water, fuel, materials.) The animals, plants, and other beings that we share the Earth with are AMAZING, and I don't want to lose any of them, and I want everyone to have a chance to experience their wonders. The devastating thing about extinction is that it is PERMANENT -- once every member of a species is lost, the species and its genetic wisdom is gone forever.
Thank you! The Planet doesn't need Humanity to save it because it will still exist whether we are here or not. It existed as a Planet long before Humanity arrived. We need to save Humanity.
I feel this episode should have mentioned or went into how people can REDUCE the amount of garbage they produce. Figuratively and metaphorically. Love the mushroom sound effect in the beginning! 💛
@@Caldermologist One doesn't need to grow everything. But, anyone can do something. Heck, worm bins, grow mushrooms, something. Every little bit helps.
There are other videos PBS has made about that. These videos are meant to display one point, for effective messaging. This video tackles the separation our culture emphasizes on humans and nature. Saying that we are a part of it and shape it, and that we must steward it. We can’t include everything climate change in one video.
It’s the rate of change that is the problem. Living things can adapt as long as the pace of change is slow enough to allow them to evolve. in several million years, our demise in the fossil record will appear similar to the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs than any other extinction event, it is happening that fast. Geologic, time is a concept that is difficult to comprehend. If the entire history of the Earth was condensed to one years time human beings have been on the Earth since 11:25 PM on New Year’s Eve. The changes that initiate ice ages and interglacial periods happen over the course of thousands of years not in a human lifetime.
And yet we are now seeing changes faster than any human before us ever has. We have more CO2 in our atmosphere than any other humans before us have ever had, too. The fossil fuel industries are taking a HUGE gamble with the health of the planet to support humans and other living creatures, and just for money. You can't use money in an environment that won't support life for us.
What an important program! It shows us how essential it is that we first identify the needs of our ecosystems and THEN create whatever nature genuinely requires. "Feel Good" conservation needs to give way to "Objectively Good" thinking and action! What a tremendous lesson. Way to go PBS SoCal!
Several decades ago, Daniel Quinn published his book Ishmael, in which he tried to get across the idea that we are a part of nature. However, people didn't get it. Even today, so many people like to say "we're a part of nature," but then contradict themselves in the next sentence by saying "we need to get closer to nature" or "we need to be in balance with nature." (There are a few people who did exactly that in the comments to this video.) The reason: your separateness from nature is one of your core cultural assumptions, which are deeply ingrained at the subconscious level.
The Bible says to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. Nearly every American politician worships Abraham's god of anti-nature that manifests exclusively outside of ordinary reality as burning bushes and voices instead of actual phenomena like the sea. But on a serious note, what could a symbiotic relationship with the planet's ecosystems possibly mean at this point? Some regions are still photogenic, but the water is poisoned and the animals are gone. We live in a world fully transformed into a human environment. This is the middle of the end. Before long, it will be the end of the end. I agree it should have been as you said. It's pretty sad. We all have to continue making the situation worse for dollars backed by violence because there is no solidarity; no collective to assert a will beyond some immediate individually gratifying proxy for mutual interest. It's a flaw in our species from primordial days. Too bad. Major bummer. It sucks.
3:05 "To power our homes, phones, and cars". I think it would be better to say something along the lines of "To power our homes, phones, and transportation". There are more options than the car, and due to how incredibly inefficient cars are there are often way more convenient and more sustainable modes of transportation than cars. The constant focus of cars being at the core of our lives keeps solidifying this idea that life without a car isn't possible. But while it's currently not possible for many people, this can be changed
The cars aren't going anywhere. Same with the plastic. Same with the guns. If you have billions of dollars, you can vote with those dollars. Changing these things means a fundamental restructuring of society. People feel they're getting a good enough compensation for destroying the planet so there will be no unifying cause to prompt revolt. No moral equivalent of a war in a world where morality is considered quaint and self important. I would like to be wrong.
@@kg0173 Cars are only really so strongly associated with freedom in the US. Not entirely just a US thing but it's a bigger thing here for sure. Cars are not universally seen as some kind of symbol of freedom. And taking away cars does not inherently suggest taking away freedom. They're a mode of transportation, among many possible modes of transportation
I am studying environmental science and the human vs nature dichotomy is so annoying to encounter again and again. Old (and some current) conservation plans are just "no humans allowed in nature" as if we can divide the world into nature and not and staying in our cities will protect the nature from us. That's silly, humans are part of nature and have always been, we just need to learn better, less destructive ways that regenerate our surroundings rather than exploit them.
I always had the idea of “I want to live in a world where saving the world and saving the planet mean the same thing”. The world is the planet guys, thinking of “the world” only as human society is nothing short of imperial and selfish.
Really well done. Chief take away is we are a part of the entire environment. We took wolves and fire away. Reintroducing these has restored balance. Another step is to value where people live the same as a pristine natural world.
When something is hopeless then there's nothing to worry about and nothing that needs doing. The human animal is an animal that does what human animals do. Mass extinction is natural. As we accelerate down the fast track toward our own imminent extinction celebrate with joy, kindness and compassion.
How does saying "Save the Planet" imply a distinction between the "natural world" and the "human world"? I don't think we should be telling people to stop saving the planet...
Because obstructionists use ambiguity as a weapon in rhetoric. "Duh, the planet will still be here no matter how much carbon we emit. Humans cannot affect or destroy the planet you lefty nazi's just want to make billions by controlling my life for this stupidity." If we use language like: reduce pollution - save our resources - reduce risk - lower emissions - reduce consumption - new competitive solutions - new economy...then it is a lot harder to refute our logic without sounding moronic or just plain selfish.
Forget about saving the planet. We need to rethink our priorities. The planet is vast, resilient, and has survived countless changes over billions of years. We, on the other hand, are small and fragile. Nature will continue to evolve and adapt, regardless of our actions. Species that can survive will persist; those that can't, won't. This includes us humans. If we don't change our ways, we will face extinction. The planet will endure; we might not. So, what do we really need to save? It's not the planet - it's our own existence. Let's shift our focus from an abstract idea of saving the Earth to the concrete goal of preserving our future and ensuring a livable world for generations to come.
You defeated a strawman argument. I never heard any climate scientist, sustainability activist or environmentlist talking about their issues/ideas without circling back to the human interest/condition.
I don't think this sweeping dismissal (any, never) is warranted. Things are definitely changing, with the rise of climate activists who do not have their origins in environmentalism, but the assumptions described here are longstanding.
@@parketroutman4148 Ok, I aggree any/never are not good words to use. However when you ask climate activitcs why we should do it, they often refer to more storms destroying crops/housing/infrastructure, flooding of costal cities and so on. It still mostly comes back the human condition. Can you tell me a climate activst argument that does not refer to human preferences/conditions?
@@renezirkel I think you're talking about a really recent phenomenon. Both my parents were biologists and I was surrounded by people who took for granted a human/nature split as a kid. I remember being blown away by Cronon's "The problem with wilderness" essay (circa 1995). I volunteer a lot on climate change these days and I would say that high schoolers don't seem to be making the kind of distinction that was the air I breathed growing up (decades ago). They're very focused on environmental justice issues (i. e., impacts on frontline communities). This video probably lands very differently depending on your age.
@@parketroutman4148 Cool, we found a common ground. It was more true for the past than it is now, that nature was separted from humans. I can totally agree with that.
I agree, I have to say I'm a bit tired of the debate between people thinking we have to save the planet just for the sake of it, and people trying to argue that "the planet doesn't need us it's ourselves we need to save" In my opinion a pointless debate, as people who think we don't depend on the planet should probably go back to school
We need to find out how to live within our environment without changing it unwittingly, and when we do change it, we do so constructively for ourselves and the other residents of our world. First, we have to back away form the two degrees we have gained in the last few decades, then see what we have to do further. Has anybody thought about what it might take to restart the AMOC currents and the other ocean currents that made much of Earth a wonderful place for man? Those oceans, and the billions of creatures in them, are the common foundation stone for everything alive today; that would be a great place to start. To start a process that will take much longer than anyone wants and will cost us for generations to pay for. This time there is no easy alternative; neither the bull or the horns are particularly palatable to many.
The Yellowstone example is oversimplified at best. Yes, wolves reduced the elk (not "deer") population by over two thirds. The bison filled in that gap and now have overpopulated the park. Check out Lamar Valley. It's as least as bad when elk numbers were too high. We thought we were making progress, but in reality we're not. Let's tell the complete story.
Keep up the good work! The more people that can learn this about the planet, the better chance we will have to start behaving in ways that will not harm the environments we live in. Since the beginning of life on the planet, life has influenced and affected how the environment changed. When life became conscious, consciousness was another strong force that caused changes to the environment and when life started to become intelligent, intelligence was a much stronger and superior force that changed the planet’s environment and continues to change it to this day. Hopefully human intelligence can recognize when the changes it is causing are harmful to humans and other life and start making changes that will not harm human life. The forces of nature can easily out power the forces of human intelligence and the planet does not need to be saved from anyone and will continue to exist for a few more billon years and at some point when our sun starts do burn out, no life will be possible on it. If the majority of humans on this planet continue to believe that there are magical authorities that live in the sky that are responsible for creating the universe, the earth and human life and that no matter how humans behave or change the environment, everything will be wonderful for us after we die in some other magical place in the universe, then there is not much of a chance that humans can learn or even have the incentive to change the environment such that it can continue to sustain human life. Governments, corporations, businesses and academic institutions along with the wealthiest and brightest among us keep competing for power, status and wealth by playing the economics game with the same old rules and ideas that have been used for the past five hundred years and keep blaming each other when the economy is not performing and not benefiting everyone and causing damage to the environment. We may now need to play this game with different rules. When the scale of the planet was unknown, the old rules worked well to gain the knowledge and understanding how the game can be played to innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress on the planet and to learn the best ways to live comfortable long healthy lives.
There are also many that did not play by any rules and continue to break the rules. The mobsters, drug cartels, human traffickers, arms dealers and other criminals along with those in trusted government and corporate positions that became corrupted not only don’t care about competing fairly and honestly in the game they also do not care about any destruction or damages and many of them do not value human life. I am not sure how many of our government, business and academic leaders along with the wealthiest and brightest among us would agree that we have reached a point in human evolution and progress where the rules for how to live on this planet so that we can innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress need to be changed with the main goal now being sustainability not growth! If there are new rules, the winners from the old rules may not be winners anymore so changing the rules may not be possible. Their desire to keep winning with the old rules is stronger than their concern about the ability of the game to continue in the future. Either that or they believe in some type of magical authority that lives in the sky that will make everything wonderful again for everyone in some type of afterlife when life is no longer possible on this planet. I think the solution is to figure out and agree on some new rules where the economy and population can have periods of growth and periods of decline within some acceptable boundaries with the periods of decline not being a problem and in fact being just as innovative and prosperous as the periods of growth. The thinking that the population and economy of developed countries always has to grow by immigration from developing, failed or defeated countries for there to be innovation, prosperity and progress is old school economic thinking. Some of the new ideas in economics about transitioning to economic models based on sustainability instead of growth would not consider a declining population for a country a problem. Also, immigration from developing, failed or defeated countries would still be considered beneficial provided the immigration programs are well managed with the proper checks and balances. With the new economic thinking and models, the population would fluctuate between some sustainable boundaries so there would be periods of population growth and periods of population decline and during both these periods there would be innovation, prosperity and progress. Continuous population growth in a country is what eventually causes conflict, misery and poverty preventing it from developing. Continuous growth for any biological life causes it to self-destruct. Cancer cells are a good example of this. They keep growing in numbers until they use up all the resources they need to survive in the body they are living in and end up killing the body and are no longer able to survive. The rest of the cells in your body know how to live sustainably with in it because they don’t just keep growing. As they die off they are replaced and their numbers fluctuate between acceptable boundaries. Regardless how sophisticated the technology becomes, there are limits to how much biological life, including humans, a planet with finite resources can sustain. The long term economic plan and thinking for the planet being proposed in the new economic models is to try and bring all countries up to a sustainable level of development such that they do not need to be called a developing country. All countries can have an adequate level of development to maintain a sustainable population with the long term goal to bring all of the global population to a standard of living that they are comfortable with.
I think capitalism is the best system with the best ideas but I also think some of the ideas of capitalism need to be amended with the primary focus and objective now being sustainability not growth. I also think the idea within capitalism that greed and selfishness are somehow a good thing and is rewarded needs to be forgotten. Greed and selfishness are not good in any economy and capitalism needs to correct this thinking. If this is eliminated from capitalism maybe we can’t call it capitalism anymore. We could be taking the good ideas from capitalism and the good ideas from socialism and calling this something else. Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden have had some success doing this. I do not think it is about loving everyone. We don’t even have to like everyone. A good starting point would be to begin with the understanding that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the basis for morality. If people are struggling to survive, they will not care about anybody else or about the devastation of the planet. Here are some books where I learned about these new economic ideas and models on how to build economies to be able to continue to innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress when trying to compete for power, status and wealth without discrimination, abusing, conquering or killing each other and without the mistrust that causes nations to spy on each other and to manufacture weapons that can wipe out most of the life on this planet. 1 “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth, 2 “Prosperity without Growth” by Tim Jackson, 3 “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins 4 “Beyond Growth” by Herman Daly Here are some other sources: 1 “The Centre for Advancements of the Steady State Economy” 2 “Growth Busters” website by Dave Gardner
We need to make space for our nonhuman relations to do their lives' works. We have a poorly substantiated authoritarian grip on them and we need to choose contexts (many) to let go.
What if we pushed these corporations into doing the right thing by way of taxation? To expand; Company A is making a product, method 1 is cheaper, but worse for the environment, but method 2 is good for the environment, but more expensive. Let's say Company A goes with the cheaper method, and then we tax them for it to offset the damages to the environment. Company A goes with method 2, and they get a tax break to offset the cost of the higher production cost. It's a win-win for everyone in my eyes
OK that was a nice introduction... where is the rest of the oh say hundereds of hours of information that shows us how to better change our human based environments? I'm looking for a series of shows here,
We are in profound ecological overshoot with eight billion of us consuming everything and eventually each other. We had a good ride and couldn't heed the warnings from over fifty years ago when we had four billion people. It's too late now, bottleneck time for the human enterprise.
Well explained. Yes, people see nature, the natural world, as this perfect untouchable piece of art, a portrait on a museum. Wrong, it is a system. A living and active system that is sensitive to the slightest bit of change. We are a part of it.The six rivers situation is a good example of how we have and must take up a more active part in this system. Though excessive deforestation is bad so is untouchable overgrowth.
The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis is due to overconsumption and overpopulation, as well as using unsustainable technologies such as fossil fuel burning. The only solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and only burn other things when really necessary. Wildfire is a huge component of greenhouse gas emissions. Smoke of all kinds is a serious health problem. Our "green" technologies are better and necessary, but they also have impacts, hence the need for much less consumption and fewer people. Let's go vegan, stop flying and think abou the impact of everything we spend on. And yes, we still need to protect wilderness and wild areas in order to protect biodiversity.
Another major problem I see as someone with degrees in natural resources, many environmental projects that involve habitat restoration don’t actually consult professionals in habitat restoration and management. For example, most tree planting campaigns are failures because they only select a few species, they don’t plant the right species in the right locations, and they don’t tend to them after. Trees require 3-5 years of weed control and watering if they are planted as large seedings. Many times, it’s better to let trees grow from natural seed sources if possible like in most of the Midwest. Even natural regeneration like this requires invasive species control at the very least and potentially deer exclosures since they selectively eat certain important species like oaks.
I live in the BC mountains. Good luck getting through to us with this message. Around here every one have at least 4 vehicles, 2 ATV’s, 2 snowmobiles, and 1 motor boat, along with every other vehicle they ever owned rusting in their yard. They dump their old tiers in the bush and if you bring any of this up to them, they tell you to mind your own business. They also like to complain about the cost of living. Is there any hope?
Here is what I see where I live. They are buying up pristine farmland and putting up mile upon mile of solar panels. But they are, like said...doing it wrong. They , like said are doing it the cheapest way possible...spread out for miles. They should be built tiered, like a football stadium and trees planted on the excess land. In turn, the farmer now cuts down his remaining stands of trees to offset the land he sold! This takes the last remaining place for animals to live. It is not regulated. You can drive all day and not see many stands of trees. We are definitely doing the transition wrong.
Throughout the "known" history of humanity (300,000+ years) there have been dozens of catastrophes that'd wipe out our civilization today in an instant. The oldest known civilization (that's about 8000 years old) has a story that begins with "In those ancient times..."
As an organic farmer, I work directly with my/our environment for benefits or suffer from loss. Actually, everyone is connected -- though often more insulated - yet the consequences remain.
We're not going to save the environment, and we're not going to save ourselves. The discussion we should begin having is how we want to experience our end.
They didn’t say we were saving the environment, she said we have to reshape our impacts on the environment again to fit our needs, which also happens to be the needs of other animals as well. There won’t be a doomsday just like there won’t be a savior day, it’s up to us on how we choose our connection to the land
@@crayonburry Explain "There won't be a doomsday." We have two massively stupid experiments being conducted. One, nuclear weapons, can initiate nuclear winter within a few hours of any and every day. Two is industrialism altering and destroying Earth's ecosystems, which we do not and likely never will fully grasp the conditions that allow them to continue functioning, and especially what the points of no return are.
Great video! Really unique perspective taken. It's just like our own bodies and our health. You cannot live in a pristine bubble and expect to be healthy once leaving that bubble. You also cannot constantly subject the body to stressors and conditions and expect to heal with no residual long term effects. Our bodies are a microcosm of our environment. Both operate optimally when there is an ebb and flow, or a give and take. Stress and relaxation, stamina and strength, summer and winter. Better to be sick occasionally but to recover each time than to only get sick once and never recover. We have the brains and the brawn to clean up the messes we've made. Hell, we have enough malaria vaccines to protect an entire generation of children Africa!! As long as capitalism is the primary economic system, there will only be solutions for problems if it makes someone rich.
Either both, or neither. If the industrial society cannot change its ways to be in tune with what the entire ecosystem (both the part untouched by humans, and the part that humans inhabit), then both the indigenous society and the industrial society will collapse alongside the natural world. Or if the industrial society can adapt (which at least is possible), then both will exist in the future as well.
For North American folks who are NOT indigenous and/or have not grown up with the understanding that we are part of nature (like me, thanks, Mom!) they can perhaps draw a sense of connection with Earth and our history from the Enlightenment Belief of Nature and Nature's God. (North America going from the Mexico/ Guatemala border to the northern islands of Nimavat)
Sorry, but a civilization adhering to unrestrained capitalism is driven by profit. That profit is maximized by externalizing the true costs to poor countries and the environment - and then claiming it's evil socialism if you don't let companies do their thing. We may be advanced mammals, but still living in a enclosed ecosystem with finite resources and it's insane to see how short-sighted people are. As if our 75+ yr lifespan and personal freedoms is so much more important than the good of society or lives of future generations in the grand scheme of things. I don't even have kids and I'm doing more than most westerners to reduce my environmental impacts.
There are good things to teach, and there are bad ones. Like: Growing gardens. If your idea of gardening is to buy soil, fertiliser and plants at the nursery and transport it to your stand, that is actually bad. If your idea of gardening is to improve your soil by making compost from what you can grow and introducing new species as you go along, that is good. People are part of nature- not something separate. And we need to grow more of our food and keep animals where we live.
Frankly, I expected better from PBS Terra. This information is largely incorrect, and it is based on a narrative that is being pushed by logging industry "experts" who want to gain access to harvesting trees in protected forests through "mechanical thinning." Also, the amount of burning and forest clearing that the native tribes engaged in has been largely overstated. In truth, our recent mega fires in the Pacific Northwest were the result of increasing average temperatures and reduced precipitation, which resulted in both bark beetle blooms and a reduction in the trees' natural defenses against bark beetle infestation. Why don't you go to the actual U.S. Forest Service for your data, rather than relying on privately funded "research"?
Tx for highlighting this issue. There are 9 planetary boundaries for a liveable planet - we have surpassed 6 (including climate) and close to surpassing the rest. It's estimated that 70 - 80% of people will live in cities by 2050'ish. Living in cities has disconnected us from the impacts of our everyday lives (we don't see the impacts of our everyday activities) - water from a tap - food from a supermarket - energy from a switch - want a house, go to the bank or property agent - waste gets collected from outside your house once a week - we use our cars to go EVERYWHERE - want something, use your phone to order it & it gets delivered to your door - when we're sick we go to a doctor or hospital - entertainment on our computers or phones If we want to "save the Earth", we have to "fix" cities... cities NEED to start becoming less parasitic and start providing more SOLUTIONS - blue, green & gey infrastructure awa protecting urban biodiversity - protecting urban water sources - rain & stormwater harvesting - urban agri via green roofs, community gardens, indoor farming - local mini grids & community energy storage (incl V2G) - active or puplic transit & ride shares - sustainable waste management & community composting - managing pollution And so on ALL human systems depend WHOLLY on environmental systems, processes, services & goods - NOT the other way around.
We are down to about 30% wildlife due to human expansion. Less forest, less animals, less nature in general. We have to live with nature, not replace it. If we continue, this world will be ugly, boring and industrial.
I fail to see the the relationship between the title and the content. The question is not to stop saving the planet. This conveys a wrong message. The true question is HOW can we save the planet. Also I found the structure of your video somewhat incoherent. And generalization of a conclusion from practices which didn't work well on specific cases is fallacious. I expected better from PBS Terra.
🎯🎯🎯. This channel seems to provide a lot of clickbait-y titles and cringeworthy simplistic discussions from various hosts. Maybe it's directed at children, but it should at least be accurate. I expect better from pbs.
For Now, we need PBS to take the lead on setting people straight. I am a retired environmental engineer. Many people hated me because they believed I was an "environmentalist." WE ARE THE OPPOSITE. We are enemies of each other. WE seek logical science-based solutions. THEY do slogans, fads, protest signs, and all things emotional. MANY things we do in this country in the name of "saving the environment" IS BAD For the Environment. BUT THE "RIGHT" PEOPLE ARE GETTING RICH. Generally, doing the right thing and reversing the damage is going to cost money, but political power is insanity. People like PBS might be our only hope.
I think the problem with the global destruction of the environment is the sheer size and complexity of the phenomenon itself. Since no processes in nature are as simple and straightforward as they may seem to some I think it is going to be a very tough strategy trying to “engineer” and produce a sustainable and wholesome environment by our own hands. I just don’t think we are capable or have the capacity for that level of engineering. My suggestion is instead to go to the root of the problem. Where did all this destruction and insensibility towards our living planet begin? As far as I can understand it always begins in the mind of you and me! We are all part of this development. That’s actually good news because we know if there’s one thing we have the power over it it’s our own thinking and decisions we take. What’s happening to the environment is a clear signal that we haven’t made the best decisions in the past. We need to take a much deeper look into our own minds to discover what the factors within us are that make us take bad decisions over and over again. The current capitalist system completely rely on you and me being hooked up as consumers. If we decide to reduce our consumption to a level that is in a much more realistic relationship with a sustainable consumption that in itself would send shockwaves across the whole economic world and major changes would start to take place from within the system itself. But that whole strategy relies on the premise that we all do our part in reducing our demands on the environment drastically and indefinitely. I don’t see any other way since our own consumption levels are the root of the problem. Presently, we are feeding a monster with our obscene consumption and it can only end one way. If we take a closer and much more honest look at what our true needs living as human beings on this planet are we discover that a much more sustainable lifestyle is possible without the increase of suffering. Most of the “needs” we claim to have and cannot seem live without are in fact mental fabrications and psychological shortcomings. As such material consumption can never satisfy them anyway. But so much of our consumption today circulates around the insatiable thirst of the mind, which is a black hole within that cannot be filled however much we try. The planet as a whole is paying the ultimate prise right now for our own inabilities to take care of our own inner health and sanity. The result of that insanity is clearly visible everywhere we look.
They are right. Maybe you don't like it because it's causes cognitive dissonance. Thinking of nature as all around us at all times requires breaking preconceptions that somehow humans are separated from the environment.
People like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson and others like them are narcissists who love to hear their own voice, regardless of how brainless their sperging wouldn't be.
Also, how do we rectify caring about the environment and also caring for the native population? if we were to take a step back to before Israel Palestine before Russia, Ukraine, before Black Lives Matter, the Native Americans had the spotlight, and we were told that we need to give them their way of life back and give them their land and let them live their traditional way of life the way their ancestors did how do we do that if we also need to take that land away from them and use it to build our wind farms and solar farms, and God knows what else. Plus, I thought animals live in nature and we’re not supposed to destroy animal habitats
Right now, Indigenous nations are negotiating the terms with Federal and State governments and working it out among themselves. It is not about having the spotlight, it is about having the status to do the hard work of sorting these complicated conflicts. Small controlled fires prevent the big ones. Manageable controlled INSPECTED mining with remediation instead of strip mining for quick hit and run profit. And so on.
@@eric2500 I wasn’t talking about natives doing the controlled burns I was talking about how do we reconcile caring about the native population but also taking their land away from them for solar farms, windfarms and mine for minerals for electric car batteries. And that’s not the only problems that they already have with us trying to limit their use of firearms, which they need to traditionally hunt for their food the way they ancestors would’ve done. This is just colonization 2.0 we already took their language. We took their lifestyle we told them they need to change and now we’re doing it again.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the video. It's not that we have to save ourselves from ourselves. We have to save ourselves from the companies. I don't control how the electricity is produced. I don't control what materials manufacturers use to make and package products. My contribution compared to that of a company is miniscule. But like with the plastic recycling initiatives. People believed the propaganda of companies that it's the people's fault for the actions of companies.
i feel like we lose touch of the truth that we are a part of nature just like the plants and animals, we came from the earth. plants, animals and humans are all here to help each other in different ways. the earth isn’t here to just be a vessel for our vain pleasures
In the natural world there is no concept of trash. The great barrier reef is an amazing example of light being transformed into life and all else is recycled. If humans want to survive we need to adopt a similar style of recycling. Voting for environmentally conscious regulators is a way to get there.
The inscription on the gravestone of humanity future civilization may find along with the remaining dinosaur bones. "They lived, they loved They invented and created. Now they're quiet, they thought they knew better."
One of the most ridiculous things is the stance that we have taken on forest fires, essentially forbidding them and blaming them on climate change. Forest fires have always been a natural phenomena and are necessary for reasons that I won't get into here so for us to be thinking that they should never occur (and that we are to blame for any that do) is nonsense. Instead of continually trying to put them out, we should be letting nature take its course.
Watch Dr Doug Tallamy's lectures. Grow your own Homegrown National Park. Remove invasive plants. Learn from, and really respect, indigenous cultures. We need to utilize all that we have, to restore our ecosystems. We haven't got much time left.
I don't think I have ever heard a more pragmatic statement about the situations we are facing. Use this as your bellwether for everything you do and we will all be fine. Great job!
The first step towards reconnecting with nature is reconnecting with our bodies. If we can't stay present with ourselves we can't stay present with our surroundings. It is impossible to properly care for something you are disconnected from.
Can't say I agree with everything said in here. Some truths, but not very helpful in how we can approach this larger than life civilisational issue humans have caused. We cannot start looking at how we change our environments (in here, man made products, homes, studios etc carved and plundered via production, pollution, and pillaging) to s.c 'sustainable' practices. If we look at how indigenous people lived on land and as part of the ecosystem we can find the solutions to start reversing corporate destruction and pollution that has been caused by human greed. For as long as everyone just accepts life and life how we've been living these past 100s of years, we won't get anywhere. Human greed and selfishness lies at the root of our problem. But we as humans are also the solution (not sole solution, and not superior or better than anything nature already does on its own) for restoring balance on this planet.
Thank you for talking about healthy forests needing active stewardship, like the Native Americans did. Selective logging to thin the forests and reduce fuel is also healthy for them. It is better to harvest sustainably from the forests than for them to burn uncontrollably when lightning strikes, and that gives us more lumber to build homes and sequester carbon that way.
the problem is that the responsibilty of being environmentally responsible has been thrust onto the consumer, even though the majority of carbon emissions come from just fifty companies.
This is what I've complained about for a long time. Everyone says to save the environment as if we're not a part of it. A beaver builds a dam, its natural, we build a dam, and we're altering/destroying the environment. Instead, we need to live alongside the rest of the world and learn to be a productive and sustainable part of it.
"Our lives are foundationally environmental." 🎯 Thank you for clearly articulating something that should be obvious, but gets obscured.
As much as cancer is...
She makes it out that people obscure our obvious lives and environmental impact, that is actually not the case and frankly I don't like how she believes people in this world are stupid or oblivious.
@@candaistopor1114maybe just the western part of the world? This video confuses me as well
There was a shaman who laughed at the slogan 'Save the Planet!' He said that the planet would be fine, it is humans that need saving from themselves.
George Carlin?
Charlton Heston said this too
Exactly, I always contradict anyone saying to save the planet. The planet will be fine, and people have a hard time caring about "the world." Telling them we are saving ourselves is both far more relatable - better for prompting action - and more accurate to what's actually being done.
Sounds like a complete fool, considering how many animals and plants humans have made extinct and cause to suffer.
damn...
*People need to have a relationship with nature.* Back and forth. Give and take. Nature is not a product. Nature is a series of complex relationships of innumerable living things, lives and deaths and lives again.
Well said!
❤
Well put! Have you read Braiding Sweetgrass by chance?
1600 PPM is the minimum atmospheric CO2 for plant growth! Why aren't we providing it for nature? We can't on a global scale. The ocean temperature controls atmosphereic CO2!
@@terenceiutzi4003 "Why aren't we providing it for nature? "
we ARE, you utter twunt. in overabundance.
I'm stoked PBS just said all this out loud and for everyone to hear. 📣 (you are it.) 💛🌱
Sadly egos and greed are human nature, notice how this host herself has a ring, earrings, and dental whitened teeth, why must she adorn herself in jewellery and such? Societal pressures.
@@thatguy5801 dude, you’ve completely missed the mark. We’ve had self adornment for as long as animals have existed. Stop using vanity as a moral indicator, that doesn’t help anyone, it’s the same as “you use an iPhone”. What is more important is reducing consumption, that is why individualist moral indicators like carbon footprints have been debunked as productive, when people don’t have control over where most of their consumption comes from, however people in power (political or wealth) do control the systems that control how people get their goods.
@@crayonburryHumans are inherently greedy, she choose to get those procedures done for an advantage over others, competitiveness which is apart of us all is "gotta get mine" mentality. And believe me this host outside the show "gets hers".
@@thatguy5801 humans are inherently nothing, we are shaped by our experiences in our environment.
Your limited view of the human experience literally blinds you to the privilege you need to be able to work without making yourself appear pleasant. And like I said before, her jewelry and clothing are literally nothing compared to actual people in power who control how we source our needs. You’re literally just berating a black woman for existing in patriarchal society.
@@thatguy5801 humans are inherently nothing, we are shaped by our experiences in our environment. If you create a culture of greed like capitalism, that is what you get, if you create a culture of selflessness, that is what you get.
Your limited view of the human experience literally blinds you to the privilege you need to be able to work without conforming to beauty standards. And like I said before, her jewelry and clothing are literally nothing compared to actual people in positions of power who control how we source our needs. You’re just berating a black woman for existing in patriarchal society.
I grew up in a rural area, and I've been saying this for years. I think some people are still missing point. We need to see everything as an ecosystem. New York city is an ecosystem regardless if it's healthy or not.
So how do we optimize it for us and wildlife? How do produce what a city needs within the city itself? How do we encourage local plant and wildlife diversity in a city? If we can figure these things out, we'll benefit the planet. Tightening our belt won't work.
"New York city is an ecosystem" No it's not. It is a city inside a ecosystem. Maybe you mean microclimate. Those are still inside and together with their surrounding ecosytem.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 What is your definition of an ecosystem?
@@stuartwithers8755 The complete interworking of flora and fauna of a given area usually limited by defined borders like mountains, lakes, sea.
A city is not a ecosystem.
I don't think anyone is 'missing' the point. 'Avoiding' the point is the most likely scenario.
The deniers won't face fear, won't face taking action, and definitely won't face taking personal responsibility.
Indoctrinated from birth to believe their country is the greatest, and a religion that more or less says 'Help yourselves! This world is yours to exploit!' - you're never going to change that mindset very much.
And as America generates so much 'want,' imposes so much influence, forces franchises and political alliances (or wrath and ruin) upon the rest of the world - it is there that the biggest changes could be and should be made for the environment.
The peoples and infrastructure of any European country could magically vanish from the face of the Earth right now, and the change in the rate of global environmental influence would be incredibly small. America though? It would be planet-saving.
I was astounded by how much electricity even environmentally conscious YT channel presenters joyfully burn through in a month.
One, after loading his house roof with new solar panels and then covering his huge, sprawling house extension with even more solar panels was still spending $200 per month on electricity.
What on Earth is he doing in that house?
I spend less than £100 per month, British electricity is more expensive than American electricity - and I have no solar panels/turbines.
If this is how Americans eat through resources, then no wonder we're all in trouble. And it's no wonder countries like Scotland have decided they have to push their net zero target dates back. Why bother to meet targets if no one else is really trying anyway? The rate we're going it will be only our bones that will see the net zero target date of 2040 and no more.
@@Debbie-henri Very well said. Thank you.
Unfortunately, we live in a "what's in it for me society."
😮
That’s the point, we need to change how we do things and think
Yes, it's frightening but at least we can act differently.
Give it another 20 or 30 years, they'll see what's in it for them. It won't be what they thought.
@@mfg4919 Not "WE"
There are roughly estimated 2 Billion people living within planetary boundaries. They don't have the money.
In other words, our lives are utterly dependent on natural processes. We destroy nature, we destroy ourselves. It's that simple.
Global heat waves are killing land and marine biodiversity. Earth global tempature had exceeded 1.5c fir the first time in 10,000 years. Climate extinction isva real possibility be thr year 2100.
Well put in a very succinct way.
and humans shape natural processes, and if done correctly, its benefitial for everyone. every living being interfere with the environment they live in, what is different in humans is that we can decide how we are going to interfere, instead of our impact being directed by evolution, its directed by conscious decision. that was the point of the video, we are not separated from nature.
Fundamentally, humans are a part of nature. Destroying the whole will leave no part unscathed.
@@danilooliveira6580 Unfortunately we still have a very limited understanding of the far reaching consequences of our manipulation of nature. And we cannot yet replicate the processes of nature in any meaningful way. To really understand it we need to get over ourselves and our perceived superiority. Cognitive dissonance has always stood in the way of true scientific progress.
You are in relationship with everything. It’s up to you whether it’s a loving relationship or not.
Nice.
It doesn't have to be anything so pretentious, that's the whole point.
It's not an "up to you" thing anymore, though.
Yes. Every time someone talks to me about saving the planet I respond by saying “The planet will be fine. The planet will go on. Save the humans. We need to make the planet hospitable for our kids so that human beings don’t go extinct!”
It won't go on without suffering a tremendous and preventable loss of life. You might might be able to inanely giggle at the prospect but I won't.
Save the planet.
She forgot to mention the billions of lives saved by the technological improvements made over the last century. Life expectancy has increased significantly and billions have been raised out of extreme poverty.
Can we do better? Yes. But let's not forget all the benefits we enjoy.
@@Mrpersonman0 I think you missed the point. "Life" is not "the planet". "The planet" does not require life to continue being "the planet". What you are actually concerned about is NOT saving the PLANET, you are concerned about saving LIFE, so say that instead.
@@Mrpersonman0 The planet doesn't care if there is a massive loss of life. Life will go on just fine. Mass extinctions have happened time and again, and this will hardly be the last one. We are saving ourselves (as long as we can), not the planet.
That is highly unintelligent and ignorant. Humans cause mass extinction but in your feeble mind, you think the planet will be fine. Then you appeal to humans selfish nature saying the solution is to be even more selfish. Amazing,
I live in Sydney Australia, and I have turned my little garden into a safe-haven for wildlife just by planting native bushes and trees, and also putting fresh clean water out every day for wildlife. I also keep domestic cats out of my garden. My garden is full of life, there are lots of wildlife and tons of insects like bees in my garden. Everyone with a garden can do the same.
You are a very good example of the 70's slogan of "Think Globally, Act Locally".
Do what you can, where you can, with whatever you have.
@@Tamaresque So true🙂
This shows the intelligence of the of the original native people on this continent in the west. Many thought the natives were very unintelligent and uncivilized because they wore little to no clothing in good weather. Many thought they were unintelligent because some western tribes had no concept of war, or weapons to kill people. They were very intelligent how they managed their environment, and clothing is not needed when the weather is comfortable. That is just a waste of resources. They were very civilized with how the people within tribes took care of the children and learned from and cared for the elderly. Modern society should look back a little and learn from the past from all people on the planet and use some of their knowledge to improve the environment. That can be done while also advancing science manufacturing and modern comforts, and urban environments. We are all a part of the environment, not apart from the environment.
Nonsense. Google: torture and cannibalism native Americans. You will be shocked. They raised their children to be sociopaths with no feelings of mercy or empathy. They were so violent that America tried to cause their extinction by wiping out the buffalo. They were put on reservations to keep them from torturing people. Eventuallly the children were taken away from the parents and given an education to break the cycle of violence. You have learned Hollywood's fake history.
“We often forget that WE ARE NATURE. Nature is not something separate from us. So when we say that we have lost our connection to nature, we’ve lost our connection to ourselves.”
-Andy Goldsworthy
Duuuuuuuude!!
I've been saying this for YEARS!!!
We ought to save the environment for OURSELVES!! Be selfish!
The planet was there before we were there, and it will go on without us, when we are not there....likely of our own making...
People have got this all wrong!
Also, it's simply better marketing/advertising strategy to appeal to people's own self-interest/self-preservation, rather than something altruistic, esp. for something as abstract and as expansive & complex as the 'environment' (or 'climate')....
That’s what I thought we were doing
@@franimal86 Sure. Sure.
My issue was/is with the phrasing/'marketing'/messaging/communication aspect...
I wish i was that optimistic... i think its going to take much more than what you say (no offense). Humans are too lazy, gullible, and greedy. Alot of folks out there couldn't care less about their own children, let alone their grandchildren's children.
I think it will take a very brutal reset for humanity to really make any positive changes. The only thing that gives me any hope for life on earth is that it will go on long after we're gone... granted anything is left after we're gone.
We're like a parasite too prolific for its own good, and our environment is the host.
True. I wish she would have said "for the benefit and well-being of all living beings" instead of "for us all" at the end, though. Part of saving the environment "for ourselves" is to aim to benefit all life, since we are so interdependent, even when that interdependence isn't obvious to us. I think we stand to lose much if we focus only on self-preservation (food, water, fuel, materials.) The animals, plants, and other beings that we share the Earth with are AMAZING, and I don't want to lose any of them, and I want everyone to have a chance to experience their wonders. The devastating thing about extinction is that it is PERMANENT -- once every member of a species is lost, the species and its genetic wisdom is gone forever.
@@tbailen 100% agree with this/you!
Thank you! The Planet doesn't need Humanity to save it because it will still exist whether we are here or not. It existed as a Planet long before Humanity arrived. We need to save Humanity.
from aberrant capitalism
I feel this episode should have mentioned or went into how people can REDUCE the amount of garbage they produce. Figuratively and metaphorically.
Love the mushroom sound effect in the beginning! 💛
One easy way to reduce waste is to grow your own food. Unfortunately that is not an option for enough people.
@@Caldermologist One doesn't need to grow everything. But, anyone can do something. Heck, worm bins, grow mushrooms, something. Every little bit helps.
The economy we live under demands a financial incentive to make any significant changes ie. reducing garbage.
There are other videos PBS has made about that.
These videos are meant to display one point, for effective messaging. This video tackles the separation our culture emphasizes on humans and nature. Saying that we are a part of it and shape it, and that we must steward it. We can’t include everything climate change in one video.
@@tccragun I disagree. When enough people care enough, society changes even without financial incentives.
It’s the rate of change that is the problem. Living things can adapt as long as the pace of change is slow enough to allow them to evolve. in several million years, our demise in the fossil record will appear similar to the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs than any other extinction event, it is happening that fast.
Geologic, time is a concept that is difficult to comprehend. If the entire history of the Earth was condensed to one years time human beings have been on the Earth since 11:25 PM on New Year’s Eve. The changes that initiate ice ages and interglacial periods happen over the course of thousands of years not in a human lifetime.
Sometimes events go slowly sometimes go abrupt and rapid
Loos of Habitat can be a quick dynamic
And yet we are now seeing changes faster than any human before us ever has.
We have more CO2 in our atmosphere than any other humans before us have ever had, too. The fossil fuel industries are taking a HUGE gamble with the health of the planet to support humans and other living creatures, and just for money.
You can't use money in an environment that won't support life for us.
Thankfully humans will not go extinct in spite of all the climate change doomsday predictions
Thank you for this content! My hometown is an industrial city and it's clear my health issues stem from growing up near the factories.
Or your health is caused by eating highly processed foods. Watch Dr Robert lustig for his detailed explanation.
Because of solar panels and windmills the factories are going to get only bigger and causing more harm.
What an important program! It shows us how essential it is that we first identify the needs of our ecosystems and THEN create whatever nature genuinely requires. "Feel Good" conservation needs to give way to "Objectively Good" thinking and action! What a tremendous lesson. Way to go PBS SoCal!
Beautifully crafted, educational and inspiring. Just need to convince corporate and governmental entities that life is more important than dollars.😢
^this
Yes! Thank you. Put more succinctly than I ever could.👍
Several decades ago, Daniel Quinn published his book Ishmael, in which he tried to get across the idea that we are a part of nature. However, people didn't get it. Even today, so many people like to say "we're a part of nature," but then contradict themselves in the next sentence by saying "we need to get closer to nature" or "we need to be in balance with nature." (There are a few people who did exactly that in the comments to this video.) The reason: your separateness from nature is one of your core cultural assumptions, which are deeply ingrained at the subconscious level.
I have always believed we are suppose to live with nature, not control it.
The Bible says to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. Nearly every American politician worships Abraham's god of anti-nature that manifests exclusively outside of ordinary reality as burning bushes and voices instead of actual phenomena like the sea. But on a serious note, what could a symbiotic relationship with the planet's ecosystems possibly mean at this point? Some regions are still photogenic, but the water is poisoned and the animals are gone. We live in a world fully transformed into a human environment. This is the middle of the end. Before long, it will be the end of the end. I agree it should have been as you said. It's pretty sad. We all have to continue making the situation worse for dollars backed by violence because there is no solidarity; no collective to assert a will beyond some immediate individually gratifying proxy for mutual interest. It's a flaw in our species from primordial days. Too bad. Major bummer. It sucks.
Yes, humans are a keystone species, our fire is like beavers and their dams.
And once other people actually do that, after that, I too will gain that responsibility. But not before.
So people are trying to help and they're making it worse? Sounds like the humans we all know and love.
3:05 "To power our homes, phones, and cars".
I think it would be better to say something along the lines of "To power our homes, phones, and transportation". There are more options than the car, and due to how incredibly inefficient cars are there are often way more convenient and more sustainable modes of transportation than cars. The constant focus of cars being at the core of our lives keeps solidifying this idea that life without a car isn't possible. But while it's currently not possible for many people, this can be changed
Car culture has ruined a lot of things, not least of which, the millions of people who die in or by cars every year
++++++++
The cars aren't going anywhere. Same with the plastic. Same with the guns. If you have billions of dollars, you can vote with those dollars. Changing these things means a fundamental restructuring of society. People feel they're getting a good enough compensation for destroying the planet so there will be no unifying cause to prompt revolt. No moral equivalent of a war in a world where morality is considered quaint and self important. I would like to be wrong.
Cars is a symbol of freedom. Maybe we need to be slaves again?
@@kg0173 Cars are only really so strongly associated with freedom in the US. Not entirely just a US thing but it's a bigger thing here for sure. Cars are not universally seen as some kind of symbol of freedom. And taking away cars does not inherently suggest taking away freedom. They're a mode of transportation, among many possible modes of transportation
Yes, we are part of this planet. We don't exist without it.
I am studying environmental science and the human vs nature dichotomy is so annoying to encounter again and again. Old (and some current) conservation plans are just "no humans allowed in nature" as if we can divide the world into nature and not and staying in our cities will protect the nature from us. That's silly, humans are part of nature and have always been, we just need to learn better, less destructive ways that regenerate our surroundings rather than exploit them.
I agree its a flawed concept, better balance is what we need not banning humanity.
Currently reading "The Biggest Estate on Earth" by Bill Gammage, which details the use of fire based land management in pre colonial Australia.
Great book. And a great example of how human presence can be a beneficial. We need to get back to that system in conjunction with modern science.
I think you mean pre-invasion/genocide Australia.
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 Yes well nobody has a time machine. So paying attention to and respecting indigenous practice is the next best thing.
And if we want to survive, we need to honor the indigenous people and their wisdom.
I always had the idea of “I want to live in a world where saving the world and saving the planet mean the same thing”.
The world is the planet guys, thinking of “the world” only as human society is nothing short of imperial and selfish.
So much truth and clarity. I hope somehow as humans we can come to understand this. Where we are right now is quite sad and not very promising
Really well done. Chief take away is we are a part of the entire environment. We took wolves and fire away. Reintroducing these has restored balance. Another step is to value where people live the same as a pristine natural world.
When something is hopeless then there's nothing to worry about and nothing that needs doing. The human animal is an animal that does what human animals do. Mass extinction is natural. As we accelerate down the fast track toward our own imminent extinction celebrate with joy, kindness and compassion.
How does saying "Save the Planet" imply a distinction between the "natural world" and the "human world"? I don't think we should be telling people to stop saving the planet...
Because obstructionists use ambiguity as a weapon in rhetoric.
"Duh, the planet will still be here no matter how much carbon we emit. Humans cannot affect or destroy the planet you lefty nazi's just want to make billions by controlling my life for this stupidity."
If we use language like: reduce pollution - save our resources - reduce risk - lower emissions - reduce consumption - new competitive solutions - new economy...then it is a lot harder to refute our logic without sounding moronic or just plain selfish.
It's to force a recalibration of thinking.
Forget about saving the planet. We need to rethink our priorities. The planet is vast, resilient, and has survived countless changes over billions of years. We, on the other hand, are small and fragile.
Nature will continue to evolve and adapt, regardless of our actions. Species that can survive will persist; those that can't, won't. This includes us humans. If we don't change our ways, we will face extinction. The planet will endure; we might not.
So, what do we really need to save? It's not the planet - it's our own existence. Let's shift our focus from an abstract idea of saving the Earth to the concrete goal of preserving our future and ensuring a livable world for generations to come.
You defeated a strawman argument. I never heard any climate scientist, sustainability activist or environmentlist talking about their issues/ideas without circling back to the human interest/condition.
I don't think this sweeping dismissal (any, never) is warranted. Things are definitely changing, with the rise of climate activists who do not have their origins in environmentalism, but the assumptions described here are longstanding.
@@parketroutman4148 Ok, I aggree any/never are not good words to use. However when you ask climate activitcs why we should do it, they often refer to more storms destroying crops/housing/infrastructure, flooding of costal cities and so on. It still mostly comes back the human condition. Can you tell me a climate activst argument that does not refer to human preferences/conditions?
@@renezirkel I think you're talking about a really recent phenomenon. Both my parents were biologists and I was surrounded by people who took for granted a human/nature split as a kid. I remember being blown away by Cronon's "The problem with wilderness" essay (circa 1995). I volunteer a lot on climate change these days and I would say that high schoolers don't seem to be making the kind of distinction that was the air I breathed growing up (decades ago). They're very focused on environmental justice issues (i. e., impacts on frontline communities). This video probably lands very differently depending on your age.
@@parketroutman4148 Cool, we found a common ground. It was more true for the past than it is now, that nature was separted from humans. I can totally agree with that.
I agree, I have to say I'm a bit tired of the debate between people thinking we have to save the planet just for the sake of it, and people trying to argue that "the planet doesn't need us it's ourselves we need to save"
In my opinion a pointless debate, as people who think we don't depend on the planet should probably go back to school
We need to find out how to live within our environment without changing it unwittingly, and when we do change it, we do so constructively for ourselves and the other residents of our world. First, we have to back away form the two degrees we have gained in the last few decades, then see what we have to do further. Has anybody thought about what it might take to restart the AMOC currents and the other ocean currents that made much of Earth a wonderful place for man? Those oceans, and the billions of creatures in them, are the common foundation stone for everything alive today; that would be a great place to start. To start a process that will take much longer than anyone wants and will cost us for generations to pay for. This time there is no easy alternative; neither the bull or the horns are particularly palatable to many.
The Yellowstone example is oversimplified at best. Yes, wolves reduced the elk (not "deer") population by over two thirds. The bison filled in that gap and now have overpopulated the park. Check out Lamar Valley. It's as least as bad when elk numbers were too high. We thought we were making progress, but in reality we're not. Let's tell the complete story.
Thousand dollars for a 🦬 tag would sell like hotcakes
Keep up the good work! The more people that can learn this about the planet, the better chance we will have to start behaving in ways that will not harm the environments we live in.
Since the beginning of life on the planet, life has influenced and affected how the environment changed. When life became conscious, consciousness was another strong force that caused changes to the environment and when life started to become intelligent, intelligence was a much stronger and superior force that changed the planet’s environment and continues to change it to this day. Hopefully human intelligence can recognize when the changes it is causing are harmful to humans and other life and start making changes that will not harm human life. The forces of nature can easily out power the forces of human intelligence and the planet does not need to be saved from anyone and will continue to exist for a few more billon years and at some point when our sun starts do burn out, no life will be possible on it.
If the majority of humans on this planet continue to believe that there are magical authorities that live in the sky that are responsible for creating the universe, the earth and human life and that no matter how humans behave or change the environment, everything will be wonderful for us after we die in some other magical place in the universe, then there is not much of a chance that humans can learn or even have the incentive to change the environment such that it can continue to sustain human life.
Governments, corporations, businesses and academic institutions along with the wealthiest and brightest among us keep competing for power, status and wealth by playing the economics game with the same old rules and ideas that have been used for the past five hundred years and keep blaming each other when the economy is not performing and not benefiting everyone and causing damage to the environment. We may now need to play this game with different rules.
When the scale of the planet was unknown, the old rules worked well to gain the knowledge and understanding how the game can be played to innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress on the planet and to learn the best ways to live comfortable long healthy lives.
There are also many that did not play by any rules and continue to break the rules. The mobsters, drug cartels, human traffickers, arms dealers and other criminals along with those in trusted government and corporate positions that became corrupted not only don’t care about competing fairly and honestly in the game they also do not care about any destruction or damages and many of them do not value human life.
I am not sure how many of our government, business and academic leaders along with the wealthiest and brightest among us would agree that we have reached a point in human evolution and progress where the rules for how to live on this planet so that we can innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress need to be changed with the main goal now being sustainability not growth!
If there are new rules, the winners from the old rules may not be winners anymore so changing the rules may not be possible. Their desire to keep winning with the old rules is stronger than their concern about the ability of the game to continue in the future. Either that or they believe in some type of magical authority that lives in the sky that will make everything wonderful again for everyone in some type of afterlife when life is no longer possible on this planet.
I think the solution is to figure out and agree on some new rules where the economy and population can have periods of growth and periods of decline within some acceptable boundaries with the periods of decline not being a problem and in fact being just as innovative and prosperous as the periods of growth.
The thinking that the population and economy of developed countries always has to grow by immigration from developing, failed or defeated countries for there to be innovation, prosperity and progress is old school economic thinking. Some of the new ideas in economics about transitioning to economic models based on sustainability instead of growth would not consider a declining population for a country a problem. Also, immigration from developing, failed or defeated countries would still be considered beneficial provided the immigration programs are well managed with the proper checks and balances.
With the new economic thinking and models, the population would fluctuate between some sustainable boundaries so there would be periods of population growth and periods of population decline and during both these periods there would be innovation, prosperity and progress. Continuous population growth in a country is what eventually causes conflict, misery and poverty preventing it from developing.
Continuous growth for any biological life causes it to self-destruct. Cancer cells are a good example of this. They keep growing in numbers until they use up all the resources they need to survive in the body they are living in and end up killing the body and are no longer able to survive. The rest of the cells in your body know how to live sustainably with in it because they don’t just keep growing. As they die off they are replaced and their numbers fluctuate between acceptable boundaries.
Regardless how sophisticated the technology becomes, there are limits to how much biological life, including humans, a planet with finite resources can sustain. The long term economic plan and thinking for the planet being proposed in the new economic models is to try and bring all countries up to a sustainable level of development such that they do not need to be called a developing country. All countries can have an adequate level of development to maintain a sustainable population with the long term goal to bring all of the global population to a standard of living that they are comfortable with.
I think capitalism is the best system with the best ideas but I also think some of the ideas of capitalism need to be amended with the primary focus and objective now being sustainability not growth. I also think the idea within capitalism that greed and selfishness are somehow a good thing and is rewarded needs to be forgotten. Greed and selfishness are not good in any economy and capitalism needs to correct this thinking. If this is eliminated from capitalism maybe we can’t call it capitalism anymore. We could be taking the good ideas from capitalism and the good ideas from socialism and calling this something else. Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden have had some success doing this.
I do not think it is about loving everyone. We don’t even have to like everyone. A good starting point would be to begin with the understanding that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the basis for morality. If people are struggling to survive, they will not care about anybody else or about the devastation of the planet.
Here are some books where I learned about these new economic ideas and models on how to build economies to be able to continue to innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress when trying to compete for power, status and wealth without discrimination, abusing, conquering or killing each other and without the mistrust that causes nations to spy on each other and to manufacture weapons that can wipe out most of the life on this planet.
1 “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth,
2 “Prosperity without Growth” by Tim Jackson,
3 “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
4 “Beyond Growth” by Herman Daly
Here are some other sources:
1 “The Centre for Advancements of the Steady State Economy”
2 “Growth Busters” website by Dave Gardner
We need to make space for our nonhuman relations to do their lives' works. We have a poorly substantiated authoritarian grip on them and we need to choose contexts (many) to let go.
What if we pushed these corporations into doing the right thing by way of taxation? To expand; Company A is making a product, method 1 is cheaper, but worse for the environment, but method 2 is good for the environment, but more expensive. Let's say Company A goes with the cheaper method, and then we tax them for it to offset the damages to the environment. Company A goes with method 2, and they get a tax break to offset the cost of the higher production cost. It's a win-win for everyone in my eyes
OK that was a nice introduction... where is the rest of the oh say hundereds of hours of information that shows us how to better change our human based environments? I'm looking for a series of shows here,
Thank you for highlighting that it's our ideas, our conceptions of the world, that need to change.
We are in profound ecological overshoot with eight billion of us consuming everything and eventually each other. We had a good ride and couldn't heed the warnings from over fifty years ago when we had four billion people. It's too late now, bottleneck time for the human enterprise.
This is precisely something I'm trying to learn~ THANK YOU for making this!
Our lives are a symptom of the system. We have to change it in order to change our trajectory. Outro music sounds like Daft Punk's Contact.
And yet plenty of people still strive to undo the damage.
Permaculture and Regenerative Agriculture are the future for our species.
Biological engineering is the future for our species 😂
Well explained. Yes, people see nature, the natural world, as this perfect untouchable piece of art, a portrait on a museum. Wrong, it is a system. A living and active system that is sensitive to the slightest bit of change. We are a part of it.The six rivers situation is a good example of how we have and must take up a more active part in this system. Though excessive deforestation is bad so is untouchable overgrowth.
The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis is due to overconsumption and overpopulation, as well as using unsustainable technologies such as fossil fuel burning. The only solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and only burn other things when really necessary. Wildfire is a huge component of greenhouse gas emissions. Smoke of all kinds is a serious health problem. Our "green" technologies are better and necessary, but they also have impacts, hence the need for much less consumption and fewer people. Let's go vegan, stop flying and think abou the impact of everything we spend on. And yes, we still need to protect wilderness and wild areas in order to protect biodiversity.
Another major problem I see as someone with degrees in natural resources, many environmental projects that involve habitat restoration don’t actually consult professionals in habitat restoration and management. For example, most tree planting campaigns are failures because they only select a few species, they don’t plant the right species in the right locations, and they don’t tend to them after. Trees require 3-5 years of weed control and watering if they are planted as large seedings. Many times, it’s better to let trees grow from natural seed sources if possible like in most of the Midwest. Even natural regeneration like this requires invasive species control at the very least and potentially deer exclosures since they selectively eat certain important species like oaks.
I'm impressed with how balanced this coverage was.
We don't need to save the planet. The planet will be fine. We need to save ourselves by repairing the world around us, back to how we received it.
I live in the BC mountains. Good luck getting through to us with this message. Around here every one have at least 4 vehicles, 2 ATV’s, 2 snowmobiles, and 1 motor boat, along with every other vehicle they ever owned rusting in their yard. They dump their old tiers in the bush and if you bring any of this up to them, they tell you to mind your own business. They also like to complain about the cost of living. Is there any hope?
Here is what I see where I live. They are buying up pristine farmland and putting up mile upon mile of solar panels. But they are, like said...doing it wrong. They , like said are doing it the cheapest way possible...spread out for miles. They should be built tiered, like a football stadium and trees planted on the excess land. In turn, the farmer now cuts down his remaining stands of trees to offset the land he sold! This takes the last remaining place for animals to live. It is not regulated. You can drive all day and not see many stands of trees. We are definitely doing the transition wrong.
See George Carlin’s routine on saving the planet, he was truly ahead of his time
I love that bit
It's not the world that's ending, it's our world that is ending. Also this episode is a great foray into Frank Herbert isms.
Throughout the "known" history of humanity (300,000+ years) there have been dozens of catastrophes that'd wipe out our civilization today in an instant.
The oldest known civilization (that's about 8000 years old) has a story that begins with "In those ancient times..."
Creative Society 22 November 2022 forum
2036 mathematical model
As an organic farmer, I work directly with my/our environment for benefits or suffer from loss. Actually, everyone is connected -- though often more insulated - yet the consequences remain.
We're not going to save the environment, and we're not going to save ourselves. The discussion we should begin having is how we want to experience our end.
Yep
US militarism is pushing hard for nuclear winter.
They didn’t say we were saving the environment, she said we have to reshape our impacts on the environment again to fit our needs, which also happens to be the needs of other animals as well.
There won’t be a doomsday just like there won’t be a savior day, it’s up to us on how we choose our connection to the land
@@crayonburry Explain "There won't be a doomsday." We have two massively stupid experiments being conducted. One, nuclear weapons, can initiate nuclear winter within a few hours of any and every day. Two is industrialism altering and destroying Earth's ecosystems, which we do not and likely never will fully grasp the conditions that allow them to continue functioning, and especially what the points of no return are.
Great video! Really unique perspective taken. It's just like our own bodies and our health. You cannot live in a pristine bubble and expect to be healthy once leaving that bubble. You also cannot constantly subject the body to stressors and conditions and expect to heal with no residual long term effects. Our bodies are a microcosm of our environment. Both operate optimally when there is an ebb and flow, or a give and take. Stress and relaxation, stamina and strength, summer and winter. Better to be sick occasionally but to recover each time than to only get sick once and never recover. We have the brains and the brawn to clean up the messes we've made. Hell, we have enough malaria vaccines to protect an entire generation of children Africa!! As long as capitalism is the primary economic system, there will only be solutions for problems if it makes someone rich.
Indigenous humans and Industrial society. That’s what this comes down to. I’ll let you guess who will be around in 100 years.
Both
Either both, or neither. If the industrial society cannot change its ways to be in tune with what the entire ecosystem (both the part untouched by humans, and the part that humans inhabit), then both the indigenous society and the industrial society will collapse alongside the natural world. Or if the industrial society can adapt (which at least is possible), then both will exist in the future as well.
We are all sensitive about our environment but beware there are people who would exploit those sentiments for their own gains to our detriment.
A most excellent video. We are all part of this biological entity called Earth.
It's doubtful that the environment can be saved with the current population levels.
One reason to not be too upset over human population decline.
This should be on major TV networks, prime-time either Saturday night, or Sunday afternoon...with links to repeat presentations on-line!!!
Great video. Never thought burning the forest intentionally systematically would prevent huge forest fires.
For North American folks who are NOT indigenous and/or have not grown up with the understanding that we are part of nature (like me, thanks, Mom!) they can perhaps draw a sense of connection with Earth and our history from the Enlightenment Belief of Nature and Nature's God.
(North America going from the Mexico/ Guatemala border to the northern islands of Nimavat)
Sorry, but a civilization adhering to unrestrained capitalism is driven by profit. That profit is maximized by externalizing the true costs to poor countries and the environment - and then claiming it's evil socialism if you don't let companies do their thing. We may be advanced mammals, but still living in a enclosed ecosystem with finite resources and it's insane to see how short-sighted people are. As if our 75+ yr lifespan and personal freedoms is so much more important than the good of society or lives of future generations in the grand scheme of things. I don't even have kids and I'm doing more than most westerners to reduce my environmental impacts.
There are good things to teach, and there are bad ones. Like: Growing gardens. If your idea of gardening is to buy soil, fertiliser and plants at the nursery and transport it to your stand, that is actually bad. If your idea of gardening is to improve your soil by making compost from what you can grow and introducing new species as you go along, that is good. People are part of nature- not something separate. And we need to grow more of our food and keep animals where we live.
Frankly, I expected better from PBS Terra. This information is largely incorrect, and it is based on a narrative that is being pushed by logging industry "experts" who want to gain access to harvesting trees in protected forests through "mechanical thinning." Also, the amount of burning and forest clearing that the native tribes engaged in has been largely overstated. In truth, our recent mega fires in the Pacific Northwest were the result of increasing average temperatures and reduced precipitation, which resulted in both bark beetle blooms and a reduction in the trees' natural defenses against bark beetle infestation.
Why don't you go to the actual U.S. Forest Service for your data, rather than relying on privately funded "research"?
Tx for highlighting this issue. There are 9 planetary boundaries for a liveable planet - we have surpassed 6 (including climate) and close to surpassing the rest.
It's estimated that 70 - 80% of people will live in cities by 2050'ish. Living in cities has disconnected us from the impacts of our everyday lives (we don't see the impacts of our everyday activities)
- water from a tap
- food from a supermarket
- energy from a switch
- want a house, go to the bank or property agent
- waste gets collected from outside your house once a week
- we use our cars to go EVERYWHERE
- want something, use your phone to order it & it gets delivered to your door
- when we're sick we go to a doctor or hospital
- entertainment on our computers or phones
If we want to "save the Earth", we have to "fix" cities... cities NEED to start becoming less parasitic and start providing more SOLUTIONS
- blue, green & gey infrastructure awa protecting urban biodiversity
- protecting urban water sources
- rain & stormwater harvesting
- urban agri via green roofs, community gardens, indoor farming
- local mini grids & community energy storage (incl V2G)
- active or puplic transit & ride shares
- sustainable waste management & community composting
- managing pollution
And so on
ALL human systems depend WHOLLY on environmental systems, processes, services & goods - NOT the other way around.
We are down to about 30% wildlife due to human expansion. Less forest, less animals, less nature in general. We have to live with nature, not replace it. If we continue, this world will be ugly, boring and industrial.
You know, all around in every aspect, humans are AMAZING at DESTROYING everything we touch.
Edit: So maybe we should stop fkng with everything?!
I fail to see the the relationship between the title and the content. The question is not to stop saving the planet. This conveys a wrong message.
The true question is HOW can we save the planet. Also I found the structure of your video somewhat incoherent. And generalization of a conclusion from practices which didn't work well on specific cases is fallacious. I expected better from PBS Terra.
🎯🎯🎯. This channel seems to provide a lot of clickbait-y titles and cringeworthy simplistic discussions from various hosts. Maybe it's directed at children, but it should at least be accurate. I expect better from pbs.
For Now, we need PBS to take the lead on setting people straight. I am a retired environmental engineer. Many people hated me because they believed I was an "environmentalist." WE ARE THE OPPOSITE. We are enemies of each other. WE seek logical science-based solutions. THEY do slogans, fads, protest signs, and all things emotional. MANY things we do in this country in the name of "saving the environment" IS BAD For the Environment. BUT THE "RIGHT" PEOPLE ARE GETTING RICH. Generally, doing the right thing and reversing the damage is going to cost money, but political power is insanity. People like PBS might be our only hope.
Too many humans
The planet is not in danger from our doings. WE are in danger!
I think the problem with the global destruction of the environment is the sheer size and complexity of the phenomenon itself. Since no processes in nature are as simple and straightforward as they may seem to some I think it is going to be a very tough strategy trying to “engineer” and produce a sustainable and wholesome environment by our own hands. I just don’t think we are capable or have the capacity for that level of engineering.
My suggestion is instead to go to the root of the problem. Where did all this destruction and insensibility towards our living planet begin? As far as I can understand it always begins in the mind of you and me! We are all part of this development. That’s actually good news because we know if there’s one thing we have the power over it it’s our own thinking and decisions we take. What’s happening to the environment is a clear signal that we haven’t made the best decisions in the past. We need to take a much deeper look into our own minds to discover what the factors within us are that make us take bad decisions over and over again. The current capitalist system completely rely on you and me being hooked up as consumers. If we decide to reduce our consumption to a level that is in a much more realistic relationship with a sustainable consumption that in itself would send shockwaves across the whole economic world and major changes would start to take place from within the system itself. But that whole strategy relies on the premise that we all do our part in reducing our demands on the environment drastically and indefinitely. I don’t see any other way since our own consumption levels are the root of the problem. Presently, we are feeding a monster with our obscene consumption and it can only end one way. If we take a closer and much more honest look at what our true needs living as human beings on this planet are we discover that a much more sustainable lifestyle is possible without the increase of suffering. Most of the “needs” we claim to have and cannot seem live without are in fact mental fabrications and psychological shortcomings. As such material consumption can never satisfy them anyway. But so much of our consumption today circulates around the insatiable thirst of the mind, which is a black hole within that cannot be filled however much we try. The planet as a whole is paying the ultimate prise right now for our own inabilities to take care of our own inner health and sanity. The result of that insanity is clearly visible everywhere we look.
Ummm, I don't appreciate your choice of title. It's very click bait and infuriating. I don't know if it's good for y'all
Many of the titles on this channel seem overly simplistic and clickbait-y. I expect better from pbs.
They are right. Maybe you don't like it because it's causes cognitive dissonance. Thinking of nature as all around us at all times requires breaking preconceptions that somehow humans are separated from the environment.
If I summarize this video, it says "treat your environment wisely". That is a meager message for a video of this length.
She basically yaps about the same points environmentalists use, while saying we shouldn’t save the environment?
Stop regarding Bill Nye as anything more than a TV personality.
People like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson and others like them are narcissists who love to hear their own voice, regardless of how brainless their sperging wouldn't be.
He couldn’t even get the science right on the Ideal Gas Law and its relation to footballs 😂 He’s a putz.
@@LecherousLizardThey can be annoying lol but brainless is a bit of a stretch
@@Andy_Babb When you ask NDT how's he feeling today, he'll go on a tangent about how bad his childhood was in relation to Big Bang.
@@LecherousLizard True lolol Kinda funny, a little obnoxious… not brainless but I getcha haha
Don't forget the wood in your studio brought to you by a timber industry capable of forest tending with much less fire and much less waste.
Also, how do we rectify caring about the environment and also caring for the native population? if we were to take a step back to before Israel Palestine before Russia, Ukraine, before Black Lives Matter, the Native Americans had the spotlight, and we were told that we need to give them their way of life back and give them their land and let them live their traditional way of life the way their ancestors did how do we do that if we also need to take that land away from them and use it to build our wind farms and solar farms, and God knows what else. Plus, I thought animals live in nature and we’re not supposed to destroy animal habitats
Ask them? ETA: pull in experts? There are people with multiple degrees on how to manage these problems
Right now, Indigenous nations are negotiating the terms with Federal and State governments and working it out among themselves. It is not about having the spotlight, it is about having the status to do the hard work of sorting these complicated conflicts. Small controlled fires prevent the big ones. Manageable controlled INSPECTED mining with remediation instead of strip mining for quick hit and run profit. And so on.
@@eric2500 I wasn’t talking about natives doing the controlled burns I was talking about how do we reconcile caring about the native population but also taking their land away from them for solar farms, windfarms and mine for minerals for electric car batteries. And that’s not the only problems that they already have with us trying to limit their use of firearms, which they need to traditionally hunt for their food the way they ancestors would’ve done. This is just colonization 2.0 we already took their language. We took their lifestyle we told them they need to change and now we’re doing it again.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the video. It's not that we have to save ourselves from ourselves. We have to save ourselves from the companies. I don't control how the electricity is produced. I don't control what materials manufacturers use to make and package products. My contribution compared to that of a company is miniscule.
But like with the plastic recycling initiatives. People believed the propaganda of companies that it's the people's fault for the actions of companies.
i feel like we lose touch of the truth that we are a part of nature just like the plants and animals, we came from the earth. plants, animals and humans are all here to help each other in different ways. the earth isn’t here to just be a vessel for our vain pleasures
In the natural world there is no concept of trash. The great barrier reef is an amazing example of light being transformed into life and all else is recycled. If humans want to survive we need to adopt a similar style of recycling. Voting for environmentally conscious regulators is a way to get there.
The inscription on the gravestone of humanity future civilization may find along with the remaining dinosaur bones.
"They lived, they loved
They invented and created.
Now they're quiet, they thought they knew better."
love this channel and it's topics. Sometimes they hit you deep and you may need to take a break but the growth is always here to tap back into ❤
It isn't save the planet is save ourselves save humanity. Save humanity that just started to walk a blink in the cosmos history.
We’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves
Getting people to think differently is a pipe dream. People don't change they die.
One of the most ridiculous things is the stance that we have taken on forest fires, essentially forbidding them and blaming them on climate change. Forest fires have always been a natural phenomena and are necessary for reasons that I won't get into here so for us to be thinking that they should never occur (and that we are to blame for any that do) is nonsense. Instead of continually trying to put them out, we should be letting nature take its course.
Watch Dr Doug Tallamy's lectures. Grow your own Homegrown National Park. Remove invasive plants. Learn from, and really respect, indigenous cultures. We need to utilize all that we have, to restore our ecosystems. We haven't got much time left.
I don't think I have ever heard a more pragmatic statement about the situations we are facing. Use this as your bellwether for everything you do and we will all be fine. Great job!
The first step towards reconnecting with nature is reconnecting with our bodies. If we can't stay present with ourselves we can't stay present with our surroundings. It is impossible to properly care for something you are disconnected from.
Can't say I agree with everything said in here. Some truths, but not very helpful in how we can approach this larger than life civilisational issue humans have caused. We cannot start looking at how we change our environments (in here, man made products, homes, studios etc carved and plundered via production, pollution, and pillaging) to s.c 'sustainable' practices. If we look at how indigenous people lived on land and as part of the ecosystem we can find the solutions to start reversing corporate destruction and pollution that has been caused by human greed. For as long as everyone just accepts life and life how we've been living these past 100s of years, we won't get anywhere. Human greed and selfishness lies at the root of our problem. But we as humans are also the solution (not sole solution, and not superior or better than anything nature already does on its own) for restoring balance on this planet.
Thank you for talking about healthy forests needing active stewardship, like the Native Americans did. Selective logging to thin the forests and reduce fuel is also healthy for them. It is better to harvest sustainably from the forests than for them to burn uncontrollably when lightning strikes, and that gives us more lumber to build homes and sequester carbon that way.
Thank you so much for giving me a little drop of hope... I'll try to do my best
What an incredible perspective
Very thoughtful. Thank you.
the problem is that the responsibilty of being environmentally responsible has been thrust onto the consumer, even though the majority of carbon emissions come from just fifty companies.
This is what I've complained about for a long time. Everyone says to save the environment as if we're not a part of it. A beaver builds a dam, its natural, we build a dam, and we're altering/destroying the environment. Instead, we need to live alongside the rest of the world and learn to be a productive and sustainable part of it.