Wow I can't believe it's that old! I thought - "FINALLY someone has made a video that's good and short." I hope I just now discovered it because it's becoming easier to find or some thing...
Here is the transcript: Living systems have been around for a few billions years, and will be around for many more. In the living world, there is no landfill: instead, materials flow. One species waste is another’s food, energy is provided by the sun, things grow, and dye, and nutrients return to the soil safely. And it works. Yet as humans, we have adopted a linear approach. We take, we make, and we dispose. A new phone comes out, so we ditch the old one. Our washing machine packs up, so we buy another. Each time we do this, we are eating in a finite supply of resources, and often producing toxic waste. It simply can’t work long-term. So what can? If we accept that the living world cyclical model works, can WE change our way of thinking, so that we too operate a circular economy. Let’s start with the biological cycle: how can our waste build capital rather than reduce it? By rethinking and redesigning products and components and the packaging they come in, we can create safe and compostable materials that help grow more stuff. As they say in the movies: no ressources have been lost in the making of this material! So what about the washing machines, mobile phones, fridges…? We know they don’t biodegrade. Here, we are talking about another sort of rethinking. A way to cycle valuable metals, polymers and alloys, so they maintain their quality and continue to be usueful beyond the shelf life of individual products. What if the goods of today become the resources of tomorrow? It makes commercial sense: instead of the throw away and replace culture we become used to, we adopt a return and renew one, where products and components are designed to be disassembled and regenerated. One solution maybe to rethink the way we view ownership. What if we actually never own our technologies? We simply licence them from the manufacturers. Now, let’s put the biological cycle and the technical cycle together. Imagine if we could design products to come back to their makers, their technical material being reused, and their biological increasing agricultural value. And imagine that these products are made and transported using renewable energy. Here we have a model that builds prosperity long-term. And the good news is, there are already companies out there who are beginning to adopt this way of working. But a circular economy is not about ONE manufacturer changing ONE product. It is about ALL the interconnecting companies that form our infrastructure and economy - coming together. It is about energy, it is about rethinking the operating system itself. We have a fantastic opportunity to open new perspectives and new horizons. Instead of remaining trapped in the frustrations of the present. With creativity and innovation, we really can rethink and redesign OUR future.
No, this should be made possible for orivate ownership, which is a critical human right which must remain. Waste is the fault of corporations, not individuals. They will benefot from this "licensing model" not you.
This all makes sense, however the not owning aspect pushes people away. Can we own them, and then one they break down, you return them for repairs or upgrades? Another challenge is planned obsolescence, where produces are designed to fail on purpose.... The world economy is broken and convoluted. Money is backed by debt, which is counter intuitive. Its a very complex issue.
It is great that this concept goes beyond recycling. Recycling alone does not deal with what happens with the end product- it can make one feel as though you are doing the right thing but still the world is filling up with that simultaneously fantastic and destructive plastic- we need an alternative and we need it now
@Jamrozio87 To clear things up: 1. Making prdocts from scratch both uses exothermic and endothermic reactions, which change the covalent molecular structure of the material. 2. Recycling means, in most cases, heating the materials up, changing the phase of the material from solid to liquid, and then letting the material cool down. When recycling materials, it will use energy to heat them up and it may be uneconomical if making the products from scratch is EXOTHERMIC. Comprenday?
2:15 re-think the way we view ownership - it's not clear how replacing ownership with licensing is necessarily a part the circular economy. There are other models that could result in products going back to their makers, such as (for example) the way disposal and recycling of packaging materials is the responsibility of manufacturers in Germany, or the way glass bottle deposits work in many countries.
@Juan Cardona Yeah I hate that idea. I am the type that likes to buy and not have to worry about paying more expenses. I also like to replace bad parts if the machine is broken. Things can last a long time if you take care of it and work on it. I don't mind giving back the materials to the company though. I just rather be able to keep my washing machine for 10+ years without worry than have to do another contract every x months or x years. When I am truly done with it, I do not mind giving it back to the company so they can reuse the materials. Its not rethinking ownership, its just putting yourself in debt.
Agreed, we don't need to change the way we view ownership. The thing that needs to be changed is waste disposal. We can have waste management companies refine resources from waste products and sell them to manufacturers. Basically changing everything behind the scenes, but nothing in how an ordinary person lives.
this is pure genius!! i loved the part about 'borrowing' from the manufactures. When we give it back, perhaps they could reuse the same material to create even more good stuff. And if the returned material isn't usable, they can simply recycle. Nothing goes in the landfill, which is awesome.
@Jamrozio87 To clear things up: 1. Making prdocts from scratch both uses exothermic and endothermic reactions, which change the covalent molecular structure of the material. 2. Recycling means, in most cases, heating the materials up, changing the phase of the material from solid to liquid, and then letting the material cool down. When recycling materials, it will use energy to heat them up and it may be uneconomical if making the products from scratch is EXOTHERMIC.
There are many alternatives within the market system that can make things work: taxes, laws etc. The problem is when the lobbying groups get the upper hand in convincing governments not to put those in place.
They'll only be able to operate that way for a little while longer if the people with the money in their pockets refuse to buy their stuff until they behave the way we demand.
This is basically what the WEF want to do. It sounds really awesome, but then there are the questions of who’s responsible for getting all the logistics done? A human will still need to supervise the AI systems.
One step: Designing products and their parts to be re-used, repaired, remanufactured etc. can be done en masse if we at least design products with 'Design for Disassembly' (DfD) as a main part in how we re-design goods. Active Disassembly is an advanced form of this as it results in undamaged, clean and automatic dismantling of all the major components of products. The components can be re-introduced which results in lower GHGs, energy and materials extraction, critical materials retention etc.
This video is 12 years old? Ah but isn't it depressing to realise that the world has not adopted the circular economy approach on a grand scale the way it has been imagined in this wonderful video?!
but how can we move to this new way of thinking if we are still using the same money marketing system? this would be inverse to economic growth because firms in a competitive market rely on cyclical consumption which needs products to be obsolete (break down making room for newer products) - in order to stay affordable to the consumer and to keep production costs to the very minimum. we would have to abandon the market system for this new system to work.
The insane thing is that as well as reducing waste and re-using resources, a circular economy would also help develop both skills and a sense of community among populations, as there are many ways a circular economy can and SHOULD operate at a community level e.g. neighbourhood mutual aid groups.
A revolutionary idea. I think this could work. But it needs all of us to galvanise and realiser that this rethinking needs to be local, global and most importantly individually. Otherwise as Fraiser says in Dad's Army "We're doomed. Doomed". The earth has finite resources. But we need to act fast. Businessmen like Sugar, Gates etc need to be involved. They must be able to see that there is money in it for them if they get it right. Great film. Clear and attractive storytelling, Good Luck!
The text highlights a crucial paradigm shift from the linear to the circular economy, inspired by natural cycles. It's a perspective that not only promotes environmental sustainability, but also drives innovation and creates economic opportunities. The idea of rethinking ownership and adopting licensing rather than ownership models may seem counterintuitive at first, but it can lead to more efficient use of resources and a significant reduction in waste. Furthermore, the concept of recycling valuable materials such as metals and polymers to prolong their usefulness is essential to ensure that resources are used more effectively. Meanwhile, the emphasis on collaboration across companies and sectors to create a broader, interconnected circular economy may seem challenging initially, but it offers an incredible opportunity to rethink and redesign the entire operating system, driving systemic change toward sustainability. Therefore, the transition to a circular economy not only offers practical solutions to the environmental challenges we face today, but also presents exciting opportunities to fundamentally transform the way we live and do business.
The problem with free enterprise and personal ownership is that companies purposefully withdraw efficiency so that their products break down (on schedule just outside of the warranty). In the past the only item in your homes which would never break down would be your telephone, as it was owned by the phone companies who didn't want to have to come around and fix it! Hence the licensing idea in this video, not only will our economy become more cyclical, but product efficiency will improve!!
Not only that, but there is the issue of growing profits, market share competition and so on (which with goods merely being recycled, won't happen after the first year(s)). The current market structure rely on those competitive things, and unless there is a major catastrophic crises or through force, they will not simply agree. At most, they do as they do today, to take "green" initiatives that are merely for PR and marketing purposes (it is an investment), not actually changing the core.
You are right, money isn't real. It's an accounting device that frees our minds from remembering exactly what we owe and to whom, allowing us to focus our energy on more creative things instead. You're also right that businesses are mainly concerned with money. This can be actually seen as a solution, not the problem. All you have to do is tax polluters so that doing this damage hurts their pockets.
Something your teachers won't tell you is how this concept fits into agenda 21. Look it up. Shit is a coup on local business, giving carte blanche to multinationals
I'm absorbed by the potency of this material. A book with comparable insights shifted my worldview. "A Life Unplugged: Reclaiming Reality in a Digital Age" by Theodore Blaze
Slowly it's getting more traction here in Europe. If you don't have a circular mindset as a starting business here in Belgium you're totally missing the vibe and what is currently important for our planet :) I can recommend you the French docu "Demain"
The base idea is good - the practical implementation needs to be re-thinked upon, just implementing recycling will make more added trouble by the recycling process , In Amsterdam we stopped separating our garbage because a part of the process was not efficient. separation is still handled but further in the process. Just keep up coming with inventing new ideas modeled to what has been organically tested for millions of ages by nature. nature itself is a reacting and adapting living entity
This is a brilliant video and very pertinent now in the last few years as people start to actually wake up to the environmental issues going on and realise the the idea of a capitalist society of infinite growth doesn't work in the real world with finite resources. It's just a shame that it's almost 9 years old and nothing appears to have changed in the world since it was made.
The human economy is actually a subset of the natural economy (the Earth's ecology). It does not make economic sense in the short-term to recover raw materials from goods, no. But continuously extracting new materials is not sustainable in an ecological sense, so when they deplete, the human economy will suffer as a result. When ecosystem services are depleted, our materials and energy will become increasingly expensive on the market, and we may not have much of an economy left.
Since India and China have stopped accepting our recyclables, very little stuff is getting recycled. It is a broken system. The new model should rely on REFUSE, reuse, repurpose.
The Cradle to Cradle concept goes even a step further then circular economy. In cradle to cradle there's no waste ever as products can be used on and on.
13 yrs later and still the companies encourage use and throw culture atleast in majority of the countries. We as consumers atleast can do our best to refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle and reclaim.
@@JaejoongPrincess absolutely. 👍 The WEF recently released a video about having people rent everything. These technocrats think they know what's best for everyone and takes advantage of any chaos (manufactured or otherwise) to increase their draconian power.
I want to create applications that help people communicate about this over the Internet and work in teams on such projects. If you talk with me about your goals and needs, I'd try to help.
This vision is not just a matter of political will, it demands immense amounts of energy to do so. Energy is expensive - this is why it is cheaper to mine and produce things from virgin material than it is to recycle them. The only metals where it makes sense to recycle are copper, aluminium and (depending on the cost of energy in that country) steel. That is it. The heavy metals we find in our consumer electronics are hardly recyclable. It would be easier to dump it in third world countries where the poorest people in the world burn off the silicone conformal coating and melt down the contacts for gold and copper - which is what happens today. It is cheaper to crack heavy oils down into lighter fractions to produce fuel and plastics, than it is to sort, grade, clean, pelletise, and remould plastic. And actually the limiting factor for plastic recycling often isn't even the sorting and grading, but the removal of dyes, UV stabilisers, fireproofing additives, fillers like glass fiber and titanium dioxide and carbon black, as well as any lacquers or waxes that might have been applied to produce a better surface finish or promote mould release. It is cheaper to dump than recycle because of the cost of energy. Energy to break down finished goods into raw material again, and energy to build it back up. With the cost of energy for recycling far exceeding the cost of mining of course it will be easier to mine and dump. But there are technologies that we will need to work on and perfect in order to drive that recycling barrier down. - Plasma arc gasification breaks all products - organics, inorganics, metals, ceramics - into their component atoms. But it is extremely energy intensive, and wastes that are organic-poor, like electronic waste, make the process a net energy consumer. However, what is left after the process is slag, from which materials can be leached out using acids. But due to its (rather wrong) association with incinerators, and with waste management long having been devolved to municipal level as opposed to state level, the capital investment required to mature the technology has never materialised. And even if you don't leach the valuable metals from the slag, it is decent as a building material when ground up into powder and mixed with cement. - It is possible to recycle even concrete by heating it up to over 4000 degrees Celsius. This drives off the extra oxygen and leaves quicklime. But again, this process of heating to extreme temperatures is basically more expensive than mining limestone and calcining it. The cost of energy makes mining win out. - Organic wastes like food and garden waste are handled in a suboptimal fashion, again because of expensive energy. Diesel fuel is burned moving waste from households to the municipal landfill. It is cheaper to bury it. Even composting is more expensive, requiring energy to aerate and turn the compost as it decomposes. The time penalty of composting inexorably drives landfilling, as the rate of waste generation can easily outstrip the rate of composting. Here too, we can speed up the process and even generate some energy while doing it: ua-cam.com/video/xx2LLCuxdH4/v-deo.html Molten salt pyrolysis can turn organic waste into biochar in 10 minutes. In fact it is so rapid that the rate limiting step is actually the gathering of waste material and batching it into the vats of molten salt. The biochar can then be rinsed and spread onto arable land to restore the soil quality. Or if you leave it in the molten salt, it eventually turns into bio-coal, which is a low-ash, relatively carbon neutral substitute for mineral coal that you can use to produce steel with, or burn in a coal power plant (although I doubt you could ever produce bio-coal fast enough to feed a coal power plant - you would run out of organic waste). These technologies are all nascent and all require state involvement to mature them. Fully scaled up they can decarbonise large sectors of the economy while reducing the amount of waste that ultimately winds up in landfill. But all of them require energy - energy cheaper than even the fossil fuels we burn for energy today. Energy that is more reliable and steady across seasonal variations than wind and solar. The unlocking of vast amounts of cheap energy is the key to a circular economy. Calls for energy reduction and degrowth then, are therefore calls for more mining and less recycling.
You could think about it in another way. In democracies we are making a conscious choice to choose between two things: problems and solutions. These both equal upto challenges that society must go through. Even corruption is a challenge societies must undergo, and is often the most difficult hurdle. But once solutions are found and applied, leading to long term change, that's progress. We go through this process of advancement everyday, and when there are no more challenges, no more problems to be solved, that's when another civilisation must rise and the cycle starts all over again.
Nicely explained and building on the C2C thinking. The real change will happen when we get people to ask "what's in it for US"in stead of "what's in it for ME?"...could take a while to change this egocentric attitude...
This is a great idea, and yes, I know of a scientist who has invented a technology to identify useful plastic from waste without human intervention, but cannot commercialise it because of patent issues, so I guess this will be used as wel... but if we rethink... can we not learn to consume "less"??? I know this would make our GDP grow slower, but may be we will be happier...
Sounds good until the end - you can't just suddenly change the whole way an economy works without serious negative disruption to an economy. Much better to change things slowly and incrementally. What is needed is the ideas in this video to be used by some clever entrepreneur to start creating product lines that are easy to fix. Also individuals need to make changes. I don't have a freezer or washing machine - I wash all my clothes by hand. I am also just waiting for a new button to come through the post for my broken mobile phone so that I can unsolder the old button and solder a new one in its place.
I came here from Davos' website. This is a very sound agenda, with global outreach. I would say it is by far the most important one out there, way above the AI hype. I believe such projects have more chances of coming to fruition in developing nations (Nigeria, Ghana, Chad, South Soudan, Angola, Indonesia, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Central India, etc.) rather than anywhere else in the world. This is because the current established industries are rife with monopolies and lobbying practices that make it IMPOSSIBLE to move a bolt without having somebody somewhere suing you instantly. The onus is on Venture Capital firms to quit pouring their money into BS "Tech companies" and start looking into this side of Emerging Economies and Economic development.
2:19 You can own nothing and be happy (aka World Economic Forum's Great Reset/Agenda 2030), if that's what you so choose, but it is immoral to violate other people's basic inherent right to private property.
@@shamusson members of the predatory World Economic Forum and their ilk are impotent to those who do not consent to be governed. Their only advantage is our failure to recognize and exercise our own inherent and inalienable rights. Their immorality is far less destructive than our Ignorance to our own power.
This economic model actually stagnates because what you are doing is removing the incentive to innovate by removing competition and pushing responsibility onto consumers. By removing ownership, what you have is corporation owning everything and someday will own you because everything you have and everything you need will be dependent on the corporation.
That’s actually the opposite of what this does. Under capitalism, a circular economy would mean corporations are incentivized to create products & services that are the least wasteful and are designed to be upgraded & repaired, rather than disposed of, because they are responsible for the cost, maintenance, and disposal & reuse of products. They are incentivized to innovate to find more effective products and services, AND to reduce the amount of energy & materials used and wasted when producing their products - limiting negative externalities like pollution that society has to pay for. There can still be competing firms & companies to offer products and services - this model just means that they will also be forced to take into account the cost of producing, maintaining, and disposing of their products, not just production. This incentivizes them to innovate in ways to update, refurbish, reuse, and recycle their products and materials because it adds a cost to the disposal of products. Currently it’s often cheaper to just make new models of things and design products to be broken, but if corporations are responsible for their products throughout their entire lifecycle it becomes more expensive to simply dispose of products when they’re broken or need to be upgraded. So that creates an incentive to innovate and provide customers with products that can be upgraded, reused and recycled. It will spark innovation, not stifle it, and there will still be competition. In terms of this making corporations “own you”, that’s not accurate. Under free market capitalism people are already heavily influenced by corporations through branding, advertisements, etc. They make products that purposefully can’t be repaired so that you’re forced to buy something new to replace it. Creating a circular economy will help lessen that by creating conditions that allow and encourage everyone to find ways to conserve resources, update and repair existing products, and recycle as much as possible. That helps lessen the dependency we have on corporations to a degree. It wouldn’t be completely changed or removed by a circular economy, but it would be improved.
The problem is that corporations won't allow it they only think about short therm profit not how it will effect the envaroment that's why Electronical equpment brakes so easly nawaydays .
It's not the fault of corporations. They only give people what they want. If their customers stopped buying their products because they didn't like the linear model and instead demanded access instead of ownership and the circular model shown in this video then corporations would be forced to adapt to their customers' desires. The power is with customers and always has been. The world looks like it does today because of the short term thinking of most consumers, not because of corporations, who are only subject to the whims of their customers.
I could (though I didn't) and the logic is very simple: I don't think it would work in practice, not as it is described. Why? It requires "everyone to agree". What was the last time we, humanity (or even within a single country/region) without some sort of domination and imposition. Quick answer: never. And that is the problem with many of the alternative movements, too much idealism and hypothesis (the excess being something I *dislike*), too little practical considerations.
Subscribe instead of owning it, which is a more sustainable way with lower cost and less waste. Microsoft is transforming into this new format for their software selling, and for other industries, it might also work.
Rather than licensing from the manufacturer, as we already know that is a path rife with graft. We need to think more along the lines of shared ownership of the manufacturer.
I think if you had options for purchase or lease (similar to software now) that it would be a lot more palatable and less scary. Or, we could call it something different -- you "own" it while you have it -- but returning a product to the manufacturer is a convenient feature and protocol built into "ownership." We have to be careful not to get caught up in a war of semantics. Example: If we were fighting against pollution because it's ugly and bad there would be no "deniers" blocking the way to progress.
@@qazwsxedcrfvtgb8877 the dictionary says communism is "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." Karl Marx lived from 1818 to 1883.
Other reasons to dislike is that it doesnt address issues such as poverty, and misery (specially at birth, and let us not even get into the several other complications). It could in fact keep them stagnated: resources are recycled, so it is likely that money too get out of hands just temporarily (because then someone will need your service and you get it back). Therefore, those who have it (specially plenty) will keep it. Those without, who never had, never will. Save the Earth, doom the people
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: Living systems follow a circular model where waste is minimal and nutrients flow back into the soil Human society operates on a linear approach of take, make, and dispose, which is unsustainable Shifting towards a circular economy involves rethinking and redesigning products to be compostable and recyclable Products can be designed to be disassembled and regenerated instead of being thrown away Shifting towards a circular economy requires collaboration among all companies to create systemic change and use renewable energy sources Made with HARPA AI
In other words, the corporations will own everything, you will rent all of your products from them, and when you want something new you will turn in your old products and exchange them. And the best part is, since you don't actually own anything, it will be a lot easier for the government to control and suppress political dissent.
This video beautifully illustrates how the principles of the circular economy can guide us towards a more sustainable future. It's inspiring to see how we can learn from the efficiency and resilience of natural systems to reimagine our economic model. Let's continue to spread awareness and take action towards building a world where resources are valued, waste is minimized, and prosperity is shared. Together, we can make a difference! #circulareconomy ♻🌍
This all makes sense, however the not owning aspect pushes people away. Can we own them, and then one they break down, you return them for repairs or upgrades? Another challenge is planned obsolescence, where produces are designed to fail on purpose.... The world economy is broken and convoluted. Money is backed by debt, which is counter intuitive. Its a very complex issue.
if you've considered this video good and useful, you should probably read some of Marx, Engels, Lenin and communism in general. This kind of model can't me carried out in the world of capitalism.
Indeed. I do agree that conclusions should be based off of research - your's, however, seem not to be. If this is untrue, then please point me to peer-reviewed studies showing the tendencies of which you speak. If I really am wrong, I want to hear it, research it myself, and learn from it :)
Everything works in cycle, whether we like it or not. Nature will always prevail. It's just a question of whether those cycles work in our favour or not. In the case of our current "linear" way of living, it is still part of a different cycle that leads a path to our own extinction. If we perish from this planet, we will but the laws of nature will carry on without a glitch. So it is really a matter of choice for us to shift from the current cycle that leads to extinction to a different cycle which works in favour of our own survival.
Even better for many devices and appliances would be to make electrical products that are modular and repairable, things used to be that way and we've taken a big step backwards over the decades. There is no need to have a completely new washing machine or TV every five years, a mobile phone every couple of years, and deliberately built in obscellence should be regulated and illegal.
We are living the true "war" between skeptical people and convenient skeptical. How to earn this "battle" only waiting the supposed CEOs around the world wake up? I was in Hannover 2000 sustainable business and the subject was the same! How win it if every day we go back behind? Can you imagine how many good ideias goes to the garbage every day? Now we are 20 years affter and many warriors loosed this battle.
I was watching this video for assignment, but after watching it, I realized that we have never concerned about this planet. Now is the time to wake up to the current environmental impacts and acknowledge that the idea of an infinitely growing capitalist society does not function in the actual world with limited resources.
Capitalsm is the way to solve the problem. It is occuring to manufacturers that we have a finite supply of resources and that people don't like you if you destroy the environment. I agree with everything in the video exept for the stuff about ownership. Instead of the idea suggested in the video, I believe that there will be companies that look to buy waste to refine resources that cannot biodegrade and sell them back to manufacturers.
Socialism led to the centralization of the monetary system, the central banking system, which funds infinite wars, destroying not only the environment but costing human lives and suffering. Governments are the biggest polluters of the world. Giving them more power by destroying the free market will only make pollution worse.
They don't want... yet. But imagine, if the company actually made good quality products that would last for years, the longer they'd license it, the more money they'd make. Part of the problem here is to manage to sell it to us, the consumers. Maybe rather than buying a 480$ washing machine in one go, which many people can't do, you could pay 5 or 10$ a month. If the manufacturer did it's job well in 4 years they'd made their money back, and people would "own" good quality products "forever".
complimenti alla fondazione. stimoli come questo sono importantissimi per sviluppare una sensibilità alla fragilità del nostro contesto. moltissimo lavoro deve essere fatto per ridurre l'approccio ancora di prossimità e miope dell'attuale sistema produttivo, gestionale e modificare abitudini di consumo che oggi consumano eccessive risorse. certamente il percorso è difficilissimo e lungo, ma va fatto. il futuro è domani.
This video is made TEN YEARS AGO and it is one of the BEST made videos im currently watching in 2021.
Wow I can't believe it's that old! I thought - "FINALLY someone has made a video that's good and short." I hope I just now discovered it because it's becoming easier to find or some thing...
Watching in 2024!
0:36 When you replace your old phone with a new washing machine.
Haha LMAO
Yes, you've captured the main argument perfectly. Well done.
'Ev,55
lmao
@@emilianoh4001 lol
Here is the transcript:
Living systems have been around for a few billions years, and will be around for many more. In the living world, there is no landfill: instead, materials flow. One species waste is another’s food, energy is provided by the sun, things grow, and dye, and nutrients return to the soil safely. And it works. Yet as humans, we have adopted a linear approach. We take, we make, and we dispose. A new phone comes out, so we ditch the old one. Our washing machine packs up, so we buy another. Each time we do this, we are eating in a finite supply of resources, and often producing toxic waste. It simply can’t work long-term. So what can? If we accept that the living world cyclical model works, can WE change our way of thinking, so that we too operate a circular economy. Let’s start with the biological cycle: how can our waste build capital rather than reduce it? By rethinking and redesigning products and components and the packaging they come in, we can create safe and compostable materials that help grow more stuff. As they say in the movies: no ressources have been lost in the making of this material! So what about the washing machines, mobile phones, fridges…? We know they don’t biodegrade. Here, we are talking about another sort of rethinking. A way to cycle valuable metals, polymers and alloys, so they maintain their quality and continue to be usueful beyond the shelf life of individual products. What if the goods of today become the resources of tomorrow? It makes commercial sense: instead of the throw away and replace culture we become used to, we adopt a return and renew one, where products and components are designed to be disassembled and regenerated. One solution maybe to rethink the way we view ownership. What if we actually never own our technologies? We simply licence them from the manufacturers. Now, let’s put the biological cycle and the technical cycle together. Imagine if we could design products to come back to their makers, their technical material being reused, and their biological increasing agricultural value. And imagine that these products are made and transported using renewable energy. Here we have a model that builds prosperity long-term. And the good news is, there are already companies out there who are beginning to adopt this way of working. But a circular economy is not about ONE manufacturer changing ONE product. It is about ALL the interconnecting companies that form our infrastructure and economy - coming together. It is about energy, it is about rethinking the operating system itself. We have a fantastic opportunity to open new perspectives and new horizons. Instead of remaining trapped in the frustrations of the present. With creativity and innovation, we really can rethink and redesign OUR future.
what a legend
respect ++
No, this should be made possible for orivate ownership, which is a critical human right which must remain. Waste is the fault of corporations, not individuals. They will benefot from this "licensing model" not you.
It's been 4 years but you still saving lives
This all makes sense, however the not owning aspect pushes people away. Can we own them, and then one they break down, you return them for repairs or upgrades? Another challenge is planned obsolescence, where produces are designed to fail on purpose.... The world economy is broken and convoluted. Money is backed by debt, which is counter intuitive. Its a very complex issue.
It is great that this concept goes beyond recycling. Recycling alone does not deal with what happens with the end product- it can make one feel as though you are doing the right thing but still the world is filling up with that simultaneously fantastic and destructive plastic- we need an alternative and we need it now
@Jamrozio87 To clear things up:
1. Making prdocts from scratch both uses exothermic and endothermic reactions, which change the covalent molecular structure of the material.
2. Recycling means, in most cases, heating the materials up, changing the phase of the material from solid to liquid, and then letting the material cool down.
When recycling materials, it will use energy to heat them up and it may be uneconomical if making the products from scratch is EXOTHERMIC. Comprenday?
2:15 re-think the way we view ownership - it's not clear how replacing ownership with licensing is necessarily a part the circular economy. There are other models that could result in products going back to their makers, such as (for example) the way disposal and recycling of packaging materials is the responsibility of manufacturers in Germany, or the way glass bottle deposits work in many countries.
@Juan Cardona Yeah I hate that idea. I am the type that likes to buy and not have to worry about paying more expenses. I also like to replace bad parts if the machine is broken. Things can last a long time if you take care of it and work on it. I don't mind giving back the materials to the company though. I just rather be able to keep my washing machine for 10+ years without worry than have to do another contract every x months or x years. When I am truly done with it, I do not mind giving it back to the company so they can reuse the materials. Its not rethinking ownership, its just putting yourself in debt.
Agreed, we don't need to change the way we view ownership. The thing that needs to be changed is waste disposal.
We can have waste management companies refine resources from waste products and sell them to manufacturers. Basically changing everything behind the scenes, but nothing in how an ordinary person lives.
They want to put it in for a reason.
My students from the wood sector are very happy with these explanations. Thank you.
Thank you for this great course
Take you mister 👍
🔥🔥🌺❤️❤️💌
In the circular economy, the technocrats will own everything, while "you will own nothing and be happy." 😑
Great video and informative
If only companies would allow for broken machines to be returned, making re-cycling of machines more visible
this is pure genius!! i loved the part about 'borrowing' from the manufactures. When we give it back, perhaps they could reuse the same material to create even more good stuff. And if the returned material isn't usable, they can simply recycle. Nothing goes in the landfill, which is awesome.
Elena will own nothing and be happy, Klaus was right!
@@christinaann7118 lol
@Jamrozio87 To clear things up:
1. Making prdocts from scratch both uses exothermic and endothermic reactions, which change the covalent molecular structure of the material.
2. Recycling means, in most cases, heating the materials up, changing the phase of the material from solid to liquid, and then letting the material cool down.
When recycling materials, it will use energy to heat them up and it may be uneconomical if making the products from scratch is EXOTHERMIC.
There are many alternatives within the market system that can make things work: taxes, laws etc. The problem is when the lobbying groups get the upper hand in convincing governments not to put those in place.
They'll only be able to operate that way for a little while longer if the people with the money in their pockets refuse to buy their stuff until they behave the way we demand.
Watching this a day before my environmental science exam!
Circular economy = the Orwellian "you will own nothing and be happy" Agenda 2021 of the technocratic World Economic Forum 😐
My english teacher made me watch this. Very interesting
This is basically what the WEF want to do. It sounds really awesome, but then there are the questions of who’s responsible for getting all the logistics done? A human will still need to supervise the AI systems.
Lease instead of own? We are really being desensitized into thinking ownership isn’t good. I don’t want to pay a subscription for everything.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *Living Systems Efficient*
00:29 *Linear Approach Unsustainable*
00:58 *Operate Circular Economy*
01:25 *Rethink Recycling Methods*
01:53 *Goods Become Resources*
02:18 *Design for Regeneration*
02:48 *Companies Adopting New Methods*
03:11 *Rethink Operating System*
Made with HARPA AI
One step: Designing products and their parts to be re-used, repaired, remanufactured etc. can be done en masse if we at least design products with 'Design for Disassembly' (DfD) as a main part in how we re-design goods. Active Disassembly is an advanced form of this as it results in undamaged, clean and automatic dismantling of all the major components of products. The components can be re-introduced which results in lower GHGs, energy and materials extraction, critical materials retention etc.
This video is 12 years old? Ah but isn't it depressing to realise that the world has not adopted the circular economy approach on a grand scale the way it has been imagined in this wonderful video?!
but how can we move to this new way of thinking if we are still using the same money marketing system? this would be inverse to economic growth because firms in a competitive market rely on cyclical consumption which needs products to be obsolete (break down making room for newer products) - in order to stay affordable to the consumer and to keep production costs to the very minimum. we would have to abandon the market system for this new system to work.
The insane thing is that as well as reducing waste and re-using resources, a circular economy would also help develop both skills and a sense of community among populations, as there are many ways a circular economy can and SHOULD operate at a community level e.g. neighbourhood mutual aid groups.
this is so true
A revolutionary idea. I think this could work. But it needs all of us to galvanise and realiser that this rethinking needs to be local, global and most importantly individually. Otherwise as Fraiser says in Dad's Army "We're doomed. Doomed". The earth has finite resources. But we need to act fast. Businessmen like Sugar, Gates etc need to be involved. They must be able to see that there is money in it for them if they get it right. Great film. Clear and attractive storytelling, Good Luck!
Excellent!! The video was designed to last and be strict to the point. Congrats!
The text highlights a crucial paradigm shift from the linear to the circular economy, inspired by natural cycles. It's a perspective that not only promotes environmental sustainability, but also drives innovation and creates economic opportunities. The idea of rethinking ownership and adopting licensing rather than ownership models may seem counterintuitive at first, but it can lead to more efficient use of resources and a significant reduction in waste.
Furthermore, the concept of recycling valuable materials such as metals and polymers to prolong their usefulness is essential to ensure that resources are used more effectively. Meanwhile, the emphasis on collaboration across companies and sectors to create a broader, interconnected circular economy may seem challenging initially, but it offers an incredible opportunity to rethink and redesign the entire operating system, driving systemic change toward sustainability.
Therefore, the transition to a circular economy not only offers practical solutions to the environmental challenges we face today, but also presents exciting opportunities to fundamentally transform the way we live and do business.
World Economic Forum
"You'll own nothing and be happy for it "
The problem with free enterprise and personal ownership is that companies purposefully withdraw efficiency so that their products break down (on schedule just outside of the warranty). In the past the only item in your homes which would never break down would be your telephone, as it was owned by the phone companies who didn't want to have to come around and fix it! Hence the licensing idea in this video, not only will our economy become more cyclical, but product efficiency will improve!!
Not only that, but there is the issue of growing profits, market share competition and so on (which with goods merely being recycled, won't happen after the first year(s)). The current market structure rely on those competitive things, and unless there is a major catastrophic crises or through force, they will not simply agree. At most, they do as they do today, to take "green" initiatives that are merely for PR and marketing purposes (it is an investment), not actually changing the core.
You are right, money isn't real. It's an accounting device that frees our minds from remembering exactly what we owe and to whom, allowing us to focus our energy on more creative things instead.
You're also right that businesses are mainly concerned with money. This can be actually seen as a solution, not the problem. All you have to do is tax polluters so that doing this damage hurts their pockets.
Cap
Carbon tax isn't a solution because we won't hurt them enough to make them change their behavior. Just a business expense
Who is watching this video because of the pandemic and they are forced to watch this because of your Biology teacher?
I have to do this for geography about the circular economy and stuff
@@sxnny_stars6881 lmao me too
Something your teachers won't tell you is how this concept fits into agenda 21. Look it up. Shit is a coup on local business, giving carte blanche to multinationals
For me cdt
Grade 9 geography for me
I have assisted in throwing a refrigerator into the sea in 1981 on board MV Bunga Melor.
I'm absorbed by the potency of this material. A book with comparable insights shifted my worldview. "A Life Unplugged: Reclaiming Reality in a Digital Age" by Theodore Blaze
Crazy, 9 Years later and it still hasnit even partially happened enough eventhigh it gets more and more urgent every day!🤔🌱♻️
Slowly it's getting more traction here in Europe. If you don't have a circular mindset as a starting business here in Belgium you're totally missing the vibe and what is currently important for our planet :) I can recommend you the French docu "Demain"
@@jochensecoinspiration5293 Thank you! Will have a look at it. :)
The base idea is good - the practical implementation needs to be re-thinked upon, just implementing recycling will make more added trouble by the recycling process , In Amsterdam we stopped separating our garbage because a part of the process was not efficient. separation is still handled but further in the process.
Just keep up coming with inventing new ideas modeled to what has been organically tested for millions of ages by nature. nature itself is a reacting and adapting living entity
This is a brilliant video and very pertinent now in the last few years as people start to actually wake up to the environmental issues going on and realise the the idea of a capitalist society of infinite growth doesn't work in the real world with finite resources.
It's just a shame that it's almost 9 years old and nothing appears to have changed in the world since it was made.
Please, someone put subtitles on this film. Subtitles is enough. Thank you.
The human economy is actually a subset of the natural economy (the Earth's ecology). It does not make economic sense in the short-term to recover raw materials from goods, no. But continuously extracting new materials is not sustainable in an ecological sense, so when they deplete, the human economy will suffer as a result. When ecosystem services are depleted, our materials and energy will become increasingly expensive on the market, and we may not have much of an economy left.
I agree and that's why Reuse comes before Recycling.
Since India and China have stopped accepting our recyclables, very little stuff is getting recycled. It is a broken system. The new model should rely on REFUSE, reuse, repurpose.
this was 10 years ago and its 2021 and i havent seen anything close to this besides telsla's cars and really nothing else with the products
Motion Graphics, at its finest.
This is the cradle to cradle concept
The Cradle to Cradle concept goes even a step further then circular economy. In cradle to cradle there's no waste ever as products can be used on and on.
@Pink Rhino How many of their lectures have you sat through to start talking like them? Near impeccable impression, I say
13 yrs later and still the companies encourage use and throw culture atleast in majority of the countries.
We as consumers atleast can do our best to refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle and reclaim.
This is awesome. I could get passionate about this!!!
Do it.
"You will own nothing and be happy!" - World Economic Forum 😃
No its not!
@@AgoristsRising This exactly what it is and is using the plandemic to push it and transition into it.
@@JaejoongPrincess absolutely. 👍 The WEF recently released a video about having people rent everything. These technocrats think they know what's best for everyone and takes advantage of any chaos (manufactured or otherwise) to increase their draconian power.
I want to create applications that help people communicate about this over the Internet and work in teams on such projects.
If you talk with me about your goals and needs, I'd try to help.
Hello Iulian! I am interested, please contact me on admin@justoneplanet.org
Hello Luilian, I am interested on such projects. You can conatct me ellias.aed@gmail.com
Hey Iulian, if you’re still interested in circular economy, please contact us at info@circularblueprint.com, looking forward to hearing from you man!
Dayz of Noah brought me here from Anchorage, AK... "Lets Go Brandon!!!"
This vision is not just a matter of political will, it demands immense amounts of energy to do so. Energy is expensive - this is why it is cheaper to mine and produce things from virgin material than it is to recycle them. The only metals where it makes sense to recycle are copper, aluminium and (depending on the cost of energy in that country) steel. That is it.
The heavy metals we find in our consumer electronics are hardly recyclable. It would be easier to dump it in third world countries where the poorest people in the world burn off the silicone conformal coating and melt down the contacts for gold and copper - which is what happens today.
It is cheaper to crack heavy oils down into lighter fractions to produce fuel and plastics, than it is to sort, grade, clean, pelletise, and remould plastic. And actually the limiting factor for plastic recycling often isn't even the sorting and grading, but the removal of dyes, UV stabilisers, fireproofing additives, fillers like glass fiber and titanium dioxide and carbon black, as well as any lacquers or waxes that might have been applied to produce a better surface finish or promote mould release.
It is cheaper to dump than recycle because of the cost of energy. Energy to break down finished goods into raw material again, and energy to build it back up. With the cost of energy for recycling far exceeding the cost of mining of course it will be easier to mine and dump.
But there are technologies that we will need to work on and perfect in order to drive that recycling barrier down.
- Plasma arc gasification breaks all products - organics, inorganics, metals, ceramics - into their component atoms. But it is extremely energy intensive, and wastes that are organic-poor, like electronic waste, make the process a net energy consumer. However, what is left after the process is slag, from which materials can be leached out using acids. But due to its (rather wrong) association with incinerators, and with waste management long having been devolved to municipal level as opposed to state level, the capital investment required to mature the technology has never materialised. And even if you don't leach the valuable metals from the slag, it is decent as a building material when ground up into powder and mixed with cement.
- It is possible to recycle even concrete by heating it up to over 4000 degrees Celsius. This drives off the extra oxygen and leaves quicklime. But again, this process of heating to extreme temperatures is basically more expensive than mining limestone and calcining it. The cost of energy makes mining win out.
- Organic wastes like food and garden waste are handled in a suboptimal fashion, again because of expensive energy. Diesel fuel is burned moving waste from households to the municipal landfill. It is cheaper to bury it. Even composting is more expensive, requiring energy to aerate and turn the compost as it decomposes. The time penalty of composting inexorably drives landfilling, as the rate of waste generation can easily outstrip the rate of composting. Here too, we can speed up the process and even generate some energy while doing it:
ua-cam.com/video/xx2LLCuxdH4/v-deo.html
Molten salt pyrolysis can turn organic waste into biochar in 10 minutes. In fact it is so rapid that the rate limiting step is actually the gathering of waste material and batching it into the vats of molten salt. The biochar can then be rinsed and spread onto arable land to restore the soil quality. Or if you leave it in the molten salt, it eventually turns into bio-coal, which is a low-ash, relatively carbon neutral substitute for mineral coal that you can use to produce steel with, or burn in a coal power plant (although I doubt you could ever produce bio-coal fast enough to feed a coal power plant - you would run out of organic waste).
These technologies are all nascent and all require state involvement to mature them. Fully scaled up they can decarbonise large sectors of the economy while reducing the amount of waste that ultimately winds up in landfill. But all of them require energy - energy cheaper than even the fossil fuels we burn for energy today. Energy that is more reliable and steady across seasonal variations than wind and solar. The unlocking of vast amounts of cheap energy is the key to a circular economy. Calls for energy reduction and degrowth then, are therefore calls for more mining and less recycling.
You could think about it in another way. In democracies we are making a conscious choice to choose between two things: problems and solutions. These both equal upto challenges that society must go through.
Even corruption is a challenge societies must undergo, and is often the most difficult hurdle. But once solutions are found and applied, leading to long term change, that's progress.
We go through this process of advancement everyday, and when there are no more challenges, no more problems to be solved, that's when another civilisation must rise and the cycle starts all over again.
Nicely explained and building on the C2C thinking. The real change will happen when we get people to ask "what's in it for US"in stead of "what's in it for ME?"...could take a while to change this egocentric attitude...
This is a great idea, and yes, I know of a scientist who has invented a technology to identify useful plastic from waste without human intervention, but cannot commercialise it because of patent issues, so I guess this will be used as wel... but if we rethink... can we not learn to consume "less"??? I know this would make our GDP grow slower, but may be we will be happier...
Sounds good until the end - you can't just suddenly change the whole way an economy works without serious negative disruption to an economy.
Much better to change things slowly and incrementally.
What is needed is the ideas in this video to be used by some clever entrepreneur to start creating product lines that are easy to fix.
Also individuals need to make changes.
I don't have a freezer or washing machine - I wash all my clothes by hand.
I am also just waiting for a new button to come through the post for my broken mobile phone so that I can unsolder the old button and solder a new one in its place.
Did it arrive?
I came here from Davos' website.
This is a very sound agenda, with global outreach. I would say it is by far the most important one out there, way above the AI hype.
I believe such projects have more chances of coming to fruition in developing nations (Nigeria, Ghana, Chad, South Soudan, Angola, Indonesia, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Central India, etc.) rather than anywhere else in the world.
This is because the current established industries are rife with monopolies and lobbying practices that make it IMPOSSIBLE to move a bolt without having somebody somewhere suing you instantly.
The onus is on Venture Capital firms to quit pouring their money into BS "Tech companies" and start looking into this side of Emerging Economies and Economic development.
2:19 You can own nothing and be happy (aka World Economic Forum's Great Reset/Agenda 2030), if that's what you so choose, but it is immoral to violate other people's basic inherent right to private property.
@@AgoristsRising It being immoral will not stop them from doing it, only taking away their tools of power will.
@@shamusson members of the predatory World Economic Forum and their ilk are impotent to those who do not consent to be governed. Their only advantage is our failure to recognize and exercise our own inherent and inalienable rights. Their immorality is far less destructive than our Ignorance to our own power.
@@shamusson Their immorality is far less destructive than our Ignorance to our own power.
@@shamusson Their only advantage is our failure to recognize and exercise our own inherent and inalienable rights.
How incredibly powerful to have such a short and effective video. Hats off to you all!
This economic model actually stagnates because what you are doing is removing the incentive to innovate by removing competition and pushing responsibility onto consumers. By removing ownership, what you have is corporation owning everything and someday will own you because everything you have and everything you need will be dependent on the corporation.
That’s actually the opposite of what this does. Under capitalism, a circular economy would mean corporations are incentivized to create products & services that are the least wasteful and are designed to be upgraded & repaired, rather than disposed of, because they are responsible for the cost, maintenance, and disposal & reuse of products. They are incentivized to innovate to find more effective products and services, AND to reduce the amount of energy & materials used and wasted when producing their products - limiting negative externalities like pollution that society has to pay for. There can still be competing firms & companies to offer products and services - this model just means that they will also be forced to take into account the cost of producing, maintaining, and disposing of their products, not just production. This incentivizes them to innovate in ways to update, refurbish, reuse, and recycle their products and materials because it adds a cost to the disposal of products.
Currently it’s often cheaper to just make new models of things and design products to be broken, but if corporations are responsible for their products throughout their entire lifecycle it becomes more expensive to simply dispose of products when they’re broken or need to be upgraded. So that creates an incentive to innovate and provide customers with products that can be upgraded, reused and recycled. It will spark innovation, not stifle it, and there will still be competition.
In terms of this making corporations “own you”, that’s not accurate. Under free market capitalism people are already heavily influenced by corporations through branding, advertisements, etc. They make products that purposefully can’t be repaired so that you’re forced to buy something new to replace it. Creating a circular economy will help lessen that by creating conditions that allow and encourage everyone to find ways to conserve resources, update and repair existing products, and recycle as much as possible. That helps lessen the dependency we have on corporations to a degree. It wouldn’t be completely changed or removed by a circular economy, but it would be improved.
The problem is that corporations won't allow it they only think about short therm profit not how it will effect the envaroment that's why Electronical equpment brakes so easly nawaydays .
It's not the fault of corporations. They only give people what they want. If their customers stopped buying their products because they didn't like the linear model and instead demanded access instead of ownership and the circular model shown in this video then corporations would be forced to adapt to their customers' desires. The power is with customers and always has been. The world looks like it does today because of the short term thinking of most consumers, not because of corporations, who are only subject to the whims of their customers.
What animation program was used to create this video?
I could (though I didn't) and the logic is very simple: I don't think it would work in practice, not as it is described. Why? It requires "everyone to agree". What was the last time we, humanity (or even within a single country/region) without some sort of domination and imposition. Quick answer: never. And that is the problem with many of the alternative movements, too much idealism and hypothesis (the excess being something I *dislike*), too little practical considerations.
Subscribe instead of owning it, which is a more sustainable way with lower cost and less waste.
Microsoft is transforming into this new format for their software selling, and for other industries, it might also work.
What software did u use to create this video!
Rather than licensing from the manufacturer, as we already know that is a path rife with graft.
We need to think more along the lines of shared ownership of the manufacturer.
I think if you had options for purchase or lease (similar to software now) that it would be a lot more palatable and less scary.
Or, we could call it something different -- you "own" it while you have it -- but returning a product to the manufacturer is a convenient feature and protocol built into "ownership."
We have to be careful not to get caught up in a war of semantics.
Example: If we were fighting against pollution because it's ugly and bad there would be no "deniers" blocking the way to progress.
Imagine if a billion air owned very thing you have. Isn't that called communism.
@@qazwsxedcrfvtgb8877 the dictionary says communism is "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." Karl Marx lived from 1818 to 1883.
is it possible that I use this video in my blog?
Other reasons to dislike is that it doesnt address issues such as poverty, and misery (specially at birth, and let us not even get into the several other complications). It could in fact keep them stagnated: resources are recycled, so it is likely that money too get out of hands just temporarily (because then someone will need your service and you get it back). Therefore, those who have it (specially plenty) will keep it. Those without, who never had, never will. Save the Earth, doom the people
Is licensing goods the only way to achieve material reuse? This sounds like serfdom for sustainability.
0:45 reducing toxic waste??
This is gd one, combined with a Resource Based Economy, the transition of a sustainable society of abundance is completed
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
Living systems follow a circular model where waste is minimal and nutrients flow back into the soil
Human society operates on a linear approach of take, make, and dispose, which is unsustainable
Shifting towards a circular economy involves rethinking and redesigning products to be compostable and recyclable
Products can be designed to be disassembled and regenerated instead of being thrown away
Shifting towards a circular economy requires collaboration among all companies to create systemic change and use renewable energy sources
Made with HARPA AI
In other words, the corporations will own everything, you will rent all of your products from them, and when you want something new you will turn in your old products and exchange them. And the best part is, since you don't actually own anything, it will be a lot easier for the government to control and suppress political dissent.
This video beautifully illustrates how the principles of the circular economy can guide us towards a more sustainable future. It's inspiring to see how we can learn from the efficiency and resilience of natural systems to reimagine our economic model. Let's continue to spread awareness and take action towards building a world where resources are valued, waste is minimized, and prosperity is shared. Together, we can make a difference! #circulareconomy ♻🌍
Great Video,from 10 billion GLA
No fundo conceitos bem simples e que fazem todo o sentido ... porque será que ainda são tão pouco aplicados?
Greed, profit and propaganda
What programs do you used for create this video ? Is very cool congratulations
what its the soft you are use to make this?.
Great video!
Explain its roles in attaining sustainable development?
TopDog Empire27 gay
You'd be reducing the load on nature for it's resources if you're going to keep reusing already existing products in different ways.
This is a really informative video! Any chance you could turn on community contributions so we can translate it in other languages too?
This all makes sense, however the not owning aspect pushes people away. Can we own them, and then one they break down, you return them for repairs or upgrades? Another challenge is planned obsolescence, where produces are designed to fail on purpose.... The world economy is broken and convoluted. Money is backed by debt, which is counter intuitive. Its a very complex issue.
if you've considered this video good and useful, you should probably read some of Marx, Engels, Lenin and communism in general. This kind of model can't me carried out in the world of capitalism.
Hey, Thank you for your effort. Could you help me upload Chinese subtitle into this video?
Great content! Really informative, thank you for this.
Indeed. I do agree that conclusions should be based off of research - your's, however, seem not to be. If this is untrue, then please point me to peer-reviewed studies showing the tendencies of which you speak. If I really am wrong, I want to hear it, research it myself, and learn from it :)
Everything works in cycle, whether we like it or not. Nature will always prevail. It's just a question of whether those cycles work in our favour or not. In the case of our current "linear" way of living, it is still part of a different cycle that leads a path to our own extinction. If we perish from this planet, we will but the laws of nature will carry on without a glitch. So it is really a matter of choice for us to shift from the current cycle that leads to extinction to a different cycle which works in favour of our own survival.
Thanks for sharing, we will share/show such video at our workshop and seminar
People are so used to the straight forward the simple Produce-Sell-MakeMoneyEconomy that sustainable economy for the future scares many people.
Would love to know who did the video for this please?
Even better for many devices and appliances would be to make electrical products that are modular and repairable, things used to be that way and we've taken a big step backwards over the decades. There is no need to have a completely new washing machine or TV every five years, a mobile phone every couple of years, and deliberately built in obscellence should be regulated and illegal.
Hey!
Does anyone know who created the video animation? I really liked it!
I have a question
You will own nothing... You will be owned!
The movie wall-e literally predicts the future we’re creating with our plastic waste. The only way to stop it is by implementing the circular economy.
Very good video. Short and clear.
We are living the true "war" between skeptical people and convenient skeptical.
How to earn this "battle" only waiting the supposed CEOs around the world wake up?
I was in Hannover 2000 sustainable business and the subject was the same!
How win it if every day we go back behind?
Can you imagine how many good ideias goes to the garbage every day?
Now we are 20 years affter and many warriors loosed this battle.
I like how Zeitgeist makes one think, but its historically/statistically inaccurate.
didnt we already do this? In some countries at least?
Not really, no. Recycling is limited to a few materials only. Most stuff still ends up in the landfill.
I was watching this video for assignment, but after watching it, I realized that we have never concerned about this planet. Now is the time to wake up to the current environmental impacts and acknowledge that the idea of an infinitely growing capitalist society does not function in the actual world with limited resources.
Capitalsm is the way to solve the problem. It is occuring to manufacturers that we have a finite supply of resources and that people don't like you if you destroy the environment.
I agree with everything in the video exept for the stuff about ownership. Instead of the idea suggested in the video, I believe that there will be companies that look to buy waste to refine resources that cannot biodegrade and sell them back to manufacturers.
Socialism led to the centralization of the monetary system, the central banking system, which funds infinite wars, destroying not only the environment but costing human lives and suffering. Governments are the biggest polluters of the world. Giving them more power by destroying the free market will only make pollution worse.
Very informative.This is the way to go
so the same companies that make their products impossible to service want to offer licensing agreements rather than sell physical product..........
They don't want... yet.
But imagine, if the company actually made good quality products that would last for years, the longer they'd license it, the more money they'd make.
Part of the problem here is to manage to sell it to us, the consumers. Maybe rather than buying a 480$ washing machine in one go, which many people can't do, you could pay 5 or 10$ a month. If the manufacturer did it's job well in 4 years they'd made their money back, and people would "own" good quality products "forever".
Interesting!
How do I present this video and more to groups?
What do you mean exacltly?
complimenti alla fondazione. stimoli come questo sono importantissimi per sviluppare una sensibilità alla fragilità del nostro contesto. moltissimo lavoro deve essere fatto per ridurre l'approccio ancora di prossimità e miope dell'attuale sistema produttivo, gestionale e modificare abitudini di consumo che oggi consumano eccessive risorse. certamente il percorso è difficilissimo e lungo, ma va fatto. il futuro è domani.
Well doen - this is so inspiring.
That is really cool. I'm a Boomer and I vote "YES" - let's do it!
Ok boomer
Ok boomer
The way you have used to explain and inform information is just amazing and you made this topic easy to understand.