But those, who actually do something about it, respect, personally, I won't do as long as satisfying my basic needs doesn't depend on solving these big world problems.
Do you know "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" ? Problem solving is on top. First comes food, safety, simply put getting job, earning money, buying food, renting or buying apartment. As long as you are not millionare, when you don't have to worry of your basic needs, you really wont give a damn thing, what is going on the other side of the world. You will just think, yea it is bad, but won't spend a second to actually do smth about it. Even if u were a millionare, you would just enjoy your life. :D
Gore gets 3-4-5 presentation; The contrary argument - that global man-made warming, is a hoax - gets about zero airtime in this venue. While TED has much going, it is far from balanced - nor does the group really vet its speakers credibility, if they are going to allow the likes of Gore and Co. to be highlighted without equal time to the scientific facts well known at this juncture. To wit: Michael Mann's "...hide the decline", Global Warming (manmade) is the best ence that Politics can buy.
Priorities are anthropocentric. We have no space for species, biodiversity, and wilderness. It all must be naturalised. This man disappoints me, despite a very interesting view... the priorities he lists that many claim are 'environmental' are world problems, but not ecological problems. This has been the issue since Brundtland.
@plingda It is an awful thing to say. and it is your opinion only because you, by chance, are not the person starving to death. If you truly believed that a greater population = harm, you would end your life and save the planet. But your comment shows that you would rather sacrifice the lives of others to save the planet, yet you are not willing to sacrifice yourself to do the same thing. Just suggesting a different perspective on your feelings. (I dont actually want you to hurt yourself)
This is the mentality that's destroying the environment - we'll be able to do more later, necessity breeds ingenuity, the technology will be better later. Breaks my heart.
Where does sexual enhancement come in on Bjorn's scale? What about hair loss? What about depression? Engine noises? Television resolution? Designer coffee? Precious gems? Landscaping? The availability of twitter? Body-building? Diet soft drinks? This is where people spend their money. Very little money and effort is going toward solving malaria, AIDS or global warming. Let's be real, Bjorn. You're too smart for this.
The problem with economist-driven choices is that they are absolutely not ever schooled in a long-term framework. They are schooled and oriented to make the next quarter, the next annual report look profitable. Saving 5 million Africans from malaria today is great - but saving 500 million world citizens from the effects of climate change in fifty years is better - and that's a reality that most economists are neither equipped, nor prepared to engage.
alot of people throwing pies at him and dont want to listen to him, cuz he is telling truth and nobody wants to accept it!! There also other people who knows how to cure diabetes and cancer with no pills or operation, with just natural products, otherwise all the drug stores will be closed and government will loose money, that simple!! They rather live fucked up lives in fucked up world which gets worse and worse everyday but with bags of money, instead of living in a healthy world with no AIDS
@ukrainevladcanada In my mind, AIDS is just human problem, but global warming is problem for all planet. And putting human disease higher than ecological problems(that's mainly made by us) is pretty egoistic... although actually warming affects more people than AIDS.
p.s. economists are reckoning just numbers, not the holy true.
@Koherents every problem is a human problem... The ball of rock that is the earth doesnt care about anything, it is an inanimate object, The flora and fauna wont really care either, theyll live and die like they have for the past 500m years and as they will for the next 500m years at which point the sun will make the planet inhabitable by boiling away the oceans.
On a side note, there is serious scientific debate on the basic fundament of the universe and apparently mathematics is quite "holy"
@RadioactiveBraunMan the rate of technological growth is exponential though. Don't you think we (the human race) will eventually leave the earth, either to another planet or an artificial base?
@enriquesalazar009 With absolute certainty. This entire notion that "omg the world is ending" is so remarkably naive and predictable. The funny thing is that basically every generation has its impending doomsday scenario waiting, and some valiant defenders seem to hear the call and and they take to the streets to fight their respective windmills.
As with everything else, technology and progress improves live in absolute terms, thus, be mindfull but welcome the inevitable future.
All this video does is highlight how retarded our socioeconomic strucure is today. While I appreciate he is trying to make the best of a bad situation, it seems to me that he would really be better off putting forward the case for fundamental change in the world. The fact that we can't afford to do everything that needs doing doesn't mean we should prioritise, it means we should rethink the way things get done. It should not be a question of money but of resources and technological capability.
@H1PBS WTF?!? We can't do it all, so go back to the drawing board?! These are real problems that we can't sweep under the rug just because we don't yet have the technology to solve them all simultaneously.
In House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic, an AIDS film like no other, the HIV/AIDS story is being rewritten. This is the first film to present the uncensored POVs of virtually all the major players; in their own settings, in their own words. It rocks the foundation upon which all conventional wisdom regarding ‘HIV/AIDS’ is based. watch?v=_p-ttLfkZHQ
@Shuroro Money is not a representation of resources and technological capability. It is supposed to be a receipt for goods exchanged or services provided. So hedge fund managers and the like make money off money by making bets in financial cyber space and get richer as others get poorer. Does that mean resources and technological capability is increasing? Or is money just being concentrated in the hands of the rich for their own gain at the expense of the rest of the world?
@H1PBS well, it does mean exactly that. However, since our glorious super spendy politicians have strong influence over the reserve banks they tell them to "print" more money, said money does not represent economic growth, it is inflation.
But, assuming that the reserve banks were indeed independent, more money means more resources indeed (technology, energy, etc etc...)
@RadioactiveBraunMan I disagree with your analysis but the fact remains that the world has more than enough resources and technological capability to bring everyone out of poverty and improve the life of everyone. All you have to do is read any of the UN Human Development Reports which clearly demonstrate that. The reason these problems aren’t addressed effectively is because not enough money can be made out of solving them and therein lies the problem.
@H1PBS well, i might be misreading you, but that has quite a flair of "them ebil corporations with their evil money".
On you point. It is true that there are more than enough technologies / resources are abundant enough to supply all humans with quite a decent living standard.
However, its not that much a matter that there is little direct financial reward in doing so (which there isnt in the short term...), it is more of a lack of political and social will.
@H1PBS And the cold truth is, that I, just as most people, really fancy a new toy way more than I could give a damn about some poor african lack fresh water. Despite popular doctrine everyone is his own best friend.
Always was, always will be.
So, to alleviate the "poor" problem is to stop subsidizing handouts and to actually give people the means to accumulate wealth themselves.
A short reference for yo is asia & africa, fewer handouts in the last 30y = they start to get their shit together
@RadioactiveBraunMan This is really too deep a topic to discuss effectively here but you and many people may well prefer a fancy new toy over providing for your fellow man and that is very much to be expected considering the society we were brought up in where selfishness and greediness is directly rewarded. Capitalism is based on differential advantage and we are heavily conditioned to accept this as just "the way things are" from a young age but it does not have to be so.
@H1PBS You are right, this certainly isnt a forum to discuss this in. However, what you're describing to be a consequence of an upbringing in our "current" society along with capitalism, is actually basic human nature. And it has been the same in all "pre capitalistic" societies and in all communist/theocratic societies as well.
The only constant over the last 20,000 years has been human nature, and that nature is as selfish as any animalistic nature has to be to survive. damn character limit..
@RadioactiveBraunMan Human nature dictates how we behave in a given society not what society we live in. Human beings are selfish in as much as they will do whatever is in their best interest, hence people behave in a greedy and corrupt fashion in our society because it results in more money and thus greater access to resources. But if that behaviour wasn't rewarded it wouldn't be so prevalent. Look at societies like the Buid or the Kibbutz based on equal sharing of wealth
The problem is that all solutions will be paid to western companies, so the helped countries get dependent on the West. He is not for helping people, but for helping the western economy.
All you have to do is take the military spending and put it towards feeding and educating the world. Which it would many times over. Then the rest of the problems will fix themselves. Obviously we dont need to fix global warming because it is a myth.
Free trade? At who's expense and at who's benefit???? The middle class is to take the brunt of the cost to make sure everyone gets fed?? How do rich people get off the hook time after time?
'Saving the world' is not about money. It's about mindset. Poverty, food, sanitation, etc were non-isues in cultures that were left to live in ecological harmony with their environments. Ie: the Chesapeake Bay, the Bayous, etc fed - for free - many thousands of people, until pollution destroyed the natural productivity of those estuaries. Inuit did nothave problems w/ alcohol, diebeties, etc until whites arrived. One could go on...
... cost spent on treating cancer and heart disease - things that represnt real problems - they all add to the gdp -and therefore rpesent real value in our well being? wars - add to the gdp - so we gdp is not a great indicator of our well being.
economics is flawed - theres no "demand" for food in starving countries and a great deal of demand for mansions and luxury cars in beverly hills - so where do the resources go? how much a free resources worth -ie sunlight bioregenerstion of fish in the oceans - rain - climate -all of nature - 0? - obviously not but the are left out of economic models . economic models are disconnected to seroius problems in nature - and they misleadin many things they do include - prison population ..cont
He is dead on the money! "it isn't about making us feel good" this is exactly what climate change is. Just read the non-sense spewed by these people in the comments. They really believer they are the saviors or human kind. You cant save a kid from global warming if he dies next wednesday from malaria. Global Warming = Selfish rich people padding their egos.
@0HippyHunter0 Except that the calculation doesn't add up. All humanity as we know it will be unable to go on if we don't focus on global warming. There is a lot more at stake than kids suffering from malaria.
His only point to counter that is that people will be richer at the time when global warming catches up to is. But wealth is a meaningless, arbitrary measure not enabling us to do anything. Try to tell nature "but I am rich" as it comes to kill you.
@playgrrrr Thats exactly what he's saying. I know the Church of Global Warming doesn't agree, but the jury is still out on what is causing AGW, or if it matters. There isn't a lot more at stake. It is a CRYING SHAME your kids aren't going to die from malaria. You'd have a heard then. "When global warming catches up to us" wtf does this even mean? Try to tell malaria "well, global warming has to be 'stopped' first then I can get cured." You should have worked fo the inquisition!
@0HippyHunter0 I wouldn't place kids into this world, especially not if I was living under even less favourable circumstances than I am now. It's irresponsible & egoistical.
As harsh as it sounds we have more pressing issues than to save every human that we can. Increasing world pop. should be the last of our priorities, at least with our current economic system & widely tolerated neglect of education.
I would gladly die on the spot if it stops global warming or makes humanity embrace education.
@playgrrrr So, we should let some people die so other can live? If you truly believe this then you should be the first to commit suicide. Inevitably you believe that OTHERS should die, especially poor brown people that "don't matter anyway." Should people continue to have babies? NO! Gladly die on the spot? You're saying others should, so help yourself. Do it. Save the Earth, kill yourself. Oh, wait, you should die when its 'important' others just get to die because you're selfish.
@playgrrrr aaaahahahah, I'M THE RACIST? I'm the one saying that poor people the world over deserve a chance to live on par with what you were granted at birth. You're saying they need to die because you need another skinny chia latte and don't want to walk to the grocery store. To be called a racist by you indicates that you have no clue of what is happening around you, in you, or by you. That is ok, because people like me are dead set against everything you believe.
@playgrrrr "Inevitably you believe that OTHERS should die, especially poor brown people that "don't matter anyway."" Read that over and over again until you realize how it says "you believe." Which you do.
@playgrrrr He doesn't forget shit, just because he doesn't talk about it. But, I'm going to prove you wrong anyways. Population growth is entirely dependent on economic standing, not food availability. Case study: Japan. Japan has as access to as much food as they want (because they can afford it) but their death rate is higher than their birth rate. According to "what he forgot" this should never happen. But it's currently happening in almost all western(ized) countries.
@0HippyHunter0 "Population growth is entirely dependent on economic standing, not food availability." Wrong. Everybody knows that well educated people with safe income have less children. But you forget what I said earlier. Every time a new breakthrough was made in agricultural technology, population was enabled to increase drastically, and it did every single time. Poverty and starvation suck, but they are natural control mechanisms, and most humans still act like animals. (cont.)
@playgrrrr Wrong? 1) Its 'fewer' not 'less.' 2) Every breakthrough? We have had dozens in the past 5 years and population is not increasing exponentially. I gave you examples that counter your "law," it is therefore, not a law. Its your personal belief. Starvation is natural? Not when there is more than enough food, and money but people like you choose to throw it away on some magical phenominom that is getting less credible by the day! How in the FUCK do you sleep at night? You are a monster!
@playgrrrr Strawman? Pathetic. Your position boils down to: other starve, you live and you call it natural. Am I wrong? Is this not your plan to make the world a more perfect form of your vision? Show me where I'm wrong on your position, then I'll agree its a strawman.
@0HippyHunter0 Yeah, you are completely wrong. That is what resorting to a strawman means! You'll have to learn reading yourself. Not worth my time. :) Bye.
@playgrrrr yeah, I'm wrong. You flat out said that some people (not you) deserve to starve to death so you can feel better about the future. A straw man would involve disproving a proposition that you didn't assert. I, in no way, misrepresented you. You are a horrible, inmoral, uncaring, unethical, egotistical, self centered human being. There is a special place in hell for people like you, its very close to the fire.
@0HippyHunter0 =You flat out said that some people (not you) deserve to starve to death= No, I didn't. You are unable to differentiate between reading what I said and twisting it into what you want it to be. You make a straw man and at least 50% of your rebuttal then consists of insults. You're pathetic, man. Can't read. Can't argue. Yet continue to elevate yourself above others to feel good about yourself. That's probably why you watch TED talks, too. What a waste of the human resource.
@playgrrrr@playgrrrr "Poverty and starvation suck, but they are natural control mechanisms" means what? After saying that we shouldn't stop malaria. What, exactly, does your statement mean? "50% of your rebuttal then consists of insults. You're pathetic" Wow. Good one. Do you, or do you not, support letting people starve to control population (as you flat out said)? Yes/No? Lets see how strawman that was.
@0HippyHunter0 (cont) If you increase food supply before changing the mindset of people, pop. will simply grow again until the fringe of the then current pop. will be poor or starve. People are animals. They evolved to do and enjoy one thing above all, and that is reproduction.
It's ironic that you quote Japan of all societies, bc it is the most progressive, thoughtful and civilized one on the entire planet. Compare public Fukushima reaction to US@Katrina for an example.
@playgrrrr Compare what? Explain why their entire society is more "progressive" (whatever that means) "thoughtful" and "civilized" because of their response to ONE natural disaster. And how ONE natural disaster response in the US proves the exact opposite is true. I'm dying to hear this. You should check the Japan response to Katrina vs the US response to Fukushima.
and also, if we bite the bullet now & take REAL ACTION on climate change we can reduce its impact on us MUCH more than just delaying it by 6 years from 2100 to 2106. that is so stupid to assume we can't make major changes now to save our environment, not to mention 1000s of species which will otherwise become extinct.
fuck economics! money is the problem.
there is more than enough on this planet for everyone. if we started sharing equally&looked after each other then everything could be done!
@Las3rGirl Yeah! Who needs actual scientific models and reasonable discussion when you've got a pair of rainbow-tinted glasses!
The figures and dates aren't just made up claims (like yours), they are real estimates from detailed models by people who know what they are doing.
Also, by the way, 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. The planet will be fine, life is persistent, it will adapt. People who want to 'save the planet' actually just want to save themselves...
I noramally love the TED talks but this guy is totally wrong about climate change. I love how he says, "Don't worry, in a hundred years Bangladeshis will be richer so they can deal with climate change better then. Of course, we'll be even richer"
1. That's the problem. The inequality in wealth distribution around the world. I don't want "us" to always be richer than everyone "else"
2. Not to mention of the impact of climate change on wildlife - I don't think they will be richer in 100 yrs!
this fool has been trying to fight against climate change for years. This is just another tool in his tool box. He is so transparent its mind blowing that anyone would listen to him.
@animalmother4 What a rather retarded list you have, it shows your ignorance. overpopulation is not actually a problem. The world is population will be in decline in the near future. The rate of growth is decreasing. Radical islam is on the very bottom and its insane to think it is more then a minor threat. China isnt a problem at all, its in some ways better for china to become wealthy and more powerful. America is more of a threat.
@thesparitan you should enlighten yourself on population trends. Population 2000c.e - 6billion, population 2010 - 7.1 billion, population 2020 - 12 billion. If you ever took an economics class you would see the problems this creates. China isn't a problem? Are you aware of how much money we owe China?That $1tillion will become $4 trillion in less than 10 years with interest. What happened today? Some muslim blew up 150 people in russia, same shit everyday, and its only getting worse.
@animalmother4@animalmother4 Population trends are going higher, but they are going higher more slowly. In many first world counties, like japan and countries in europe population is going down. The money the US owes china is the US and chinas problem, not the world and its not really much of a problem. Islam is dying as a religion, and china russia and every other nation is with us in that fight to kill it off. The us is doing more to help radical islam then any other force.
it's about saving lifes and economist doesn't value one life over another so we should spend our money so that most lifes are saved and most people can live good lifes.
@chapulinaaa I dont think you understand that money is directly linked to commodities (resources), if you have resources you have money because it has a direct value in the market system. Money is the worlds trade system because its putting value to material things. money is power
I don't think you understand that the link between money and resources is man made and remotes to a time when we thought the world's resources were unlimited. As you said, money is power - and nothing more than that.
@chapulinaaa I still don't understand what your trying to say, money is limited, even if we print more of it there is still a finite number of it. Its value overtime goes up and down, because it is linked with everything that goes on in an economy. I hope your not making the point that we shouldn't be using money anymore.
Let's say it's cheaper to distribute all the water in a lake to all the thirsty people in the world than to look for alternatives. What do you do after the lake goes dry?
All problems on Earth are interconnected and can't be solved in isolation. Money is not a measure which takes the real limitations of nature into account and therefore shouldn't be used in prioritizing. Money is too connected to politics and individual interests and too little to saving the world. - I think.
@D3ltra As most concepts derived from human greed, money is little related to the fundamental workings of nature (resources) and people (who develop technology). Due to the very nature of money, monetary costs do not make a well thought basis for developing long term solutions...
And who gets to measure "the real value of things", and more importantly, how? Does a psychic contacts Karl Marx in the afterlife and asks him how much "real value" of a thing is? Value is inherently subjective, so to claim that there is such a thing as a "real value of things" is quite meaningless.
Don't take the money spent on climate change to solve Lomborg's big problems. Instead, take some of the money spent on the military in the world's largest economies. What would 10% from the US and 3% from the next 14 largest economies' military budgets accomplish?
@bannor99 But that's a lot harder sell, isn't it. Are you really going to convince governments like the US and China to downsize their military? Not bloody likely
@D3ltra The US may finally realize they have to - as has been recommended for decades - which they should have started sometime soon after the collapse of the USSR. If the gov't is serious about cutting spending, there is no ethical, Christian way to do what without touching the defence budget. China is another matter but most of the other countries may fall in line if the US leads.
@R4t10n4L I'd love to see it happen, but I can't while they've still got people committed in the middle east =/ Will be interesting to see how it goes
@D3ltra Even if they don't touch troop strength in the M.E., they're still lots they can do - 50000 in Germany, 10000 each in England and Italy, 30000 each in South Korea and Japan. Why is Uncle Sam still fighting WW2?
@bannor99 Yes, US mil budget for 2009 was $680 Billion - an insane figure, a good chunk of that should be taxed from them to pay for the environmental destruction they have caused :)
This is as stupid as saying 'I have cancer, and I have a toothache - the cancer will cost so much to cure, might not work and anyway I won't be adversely affected for three years, however the tooth ache I can fix today and considerably lower cost and I will feel better in the morning'
Economists always make awful self profiting decisions.
@shazizz you are a fool and have probably not even finished school yet alone study climate.
@sjnelson82 you cant yu was that argument at all...yes they have the same concept but the severty of both issues are radically different....what hes arguing is getting something done now while you can with the money you have instead of spreading out all your money and making little impact on anything
I used to be in charge of a carbon offsetting programme for a major UK distribution company in the mid-2000s. After a couple of years, the board found out the whole scheme we were part of (supposedly planting trees in Bolivia) was non-existent & fired me for ‘incompetence’.
However, they had to pay for my silence with 2 years’ salary and a fantastic reference as they didn’t want the bad PR to get out. From what I hear on the grapevine, I think most offsetting schemes are like this...
Man made Global warming/Climate change is a fraud period! The science is flawed and is a flat out crock! No matter how anyone tries to butter it up such as changing the name from global warming to climate change, it dosn't change the truth! You can't polish a turd! First Al Gore said the ice would be gone within 7 years, but wait now that things are not going thier way, we have more time? This is laughable! Save the whale's thats a good cause! Heal the sick and feed the poor also a good cause!
I do agree with his jist but it should be noted he does give Al Gore credit for pushing this very serious issue to the forefront, and considering that before his documentary when he was just talking about this in a less intrusive manner he was the butt of many jokes that labeled him "eco man" and was ignored by the public at large, perhaps we did need the jolt of his "inconveniant truth".
Top three is about saving people. The real issue is to save mother earth. If there's no planet for mankind to live on, even economists like Bjorn Lomborg will be very, very, silent. Call that a relief!
Bjorn found a recipe for success with conventional, convenient thinking he maintains in the favor of big interests. Until acting in the capacity of participant and at the human scale therll be less ROIs right on into the sunset. My people are confined to the planet. To the extent its true, coming at global problems from the anthropocentric view attaches assumption on the question of how to spend our resources from the getgo; in isolation from the greater 'constituency' as if going up up and away
I just watched this guys doco, he is talking about Geo-engineering, this is the worst idea ever. Carbon increases lag behind temp increases, there is NO carbon problem, it is UNRELATED to temperature, and so geo-engineering is a bad idea. Any geo-engineering is a bad idea, they don't understand the infinite mechanisms of nature well enough to do any good. If this man respected nature he would abandon his geo-engineering ideology, I had to comment here because he censors comments at his trailer.
"Save the world", if you have no intelligence or awareness about how the world was created (I am not evoking God, simply philosophical conjecture), then how can you hope to understand it and therefore save it. This guy is full-of-shit, and AGW is the science of environment cultist, ie. it is exaggerated and has all the doomsday fear. Including intolerance of opposing voices, which are seen as "great evils" and a threat to life and God itself, ofcourse, the God of the environmentalist is nature.
whatever else this guy may preach about is irrelevant to his speech here. he doesn't appear to be pushing his own viewpoints here, just a better way to address solving the worlds biggest (solvable) problems
In my opinion, it is always good to ask questions to try to figure out, in an intellectually honest way, what have been the consequences of past decisions and learn to improve our current decision making. For that I can relate to what Bjorn is doing but I think is reasoning is based in lack of understanding of the real big picture...
For instance, he suggest that an economist is the most competent and independent person to evaluate whom, between climate expert and a malaria expert concerns should be prioritized...It is a mistake. We live within a complex sequence of systems: Earth > Society > Economy. They appeared in that order and the most recent one depends entirely on the health of the precedent one...
(3) But how can an economist honestly claim one punctual project has a better ROI than another when we don't really have an accurate economics model that account for all the costs that ecosystem and societal cycles would represent if they were completely absent. Doesn't it seem more instinctive to fix problems at the source so that they don't generate eternal negative effects on the ''small scale'' problematic we elected as affordable therefore fixable?
(4) Climate climate change will have effects on all 3 systems. Climate change will influence weather patterns, access to resources, economic opportunity, biological patterns, etc. In other words, If we choose to pick a smaller fight, we are setting ourselves up to fight all the existing small fights...We will be facing central planning for everything because we will not be accustomed any of the patterns of the world anymore...instead of just a few. So no Bjorn, I'd rather address source problems
Has nobody on this thing heard the phrase "Divide and Conquer"? It does not mean if you divide yourselves you will succeed. If everyone tries to push their own car up a mountain, you end up with a lot of tired people. If everyone tries to push one car up a mountain you get some easy work and everyone can focus on the next task.
This guy is insane! Fund Aids Research? We have, and what has happened? it is still a problem! We fund cancer research and it get us nowhere! There are documented natural cures for both of these deceases but the medical community shuts them down because there is no profit in natural cures! look at the Gerson Institute! I know, i have cured myself!
This guy is insane! Fund Aids Research? We have, and what has happened? it is still a problem! We fund cancer research and it get us nowhere! There are documented natural cures for both of these deceases but the medical community shuts them down because there is no profit in natural cures! look at the Gerson Institute! I know, i have cured myself!
I disagree with the premise that we are all acting uniformly or that by doing so it would be best. There is really no reason that people in their own disciplines can't help in their areas simultaneously. I would argue that economists, with their way of thinking, are some of the least qualified to determine the world's priorities.
Bjorn Lomborg is a master of rhetorical and statistical trickery. Those of you that are interested in a critique of his analysis might want to look at the rebuttal I delivered when I opposed him at a major construction industry conference in the UK. You can see my talk on Youtube in three parts (24 mins in total) by writing 'pawlyn' into the search field.
conclusion? save lifes of people who can't take care of themselves (aids,malaria starvation etc...) So what he suggests is to give them a fish, and feed them for a day... Lost cause... Education is the key!
But let's say the climate goes to hell.. Then what was the point of curing malaria or whatever first? The malaria problem doesn't really become any worse by doing it later but the climate thing keeps getting worse the longer we wait.
IF the climate goes to hell, there won't be any poverty either.. The poor will all die like the rest of us. To me it seems like we have to deal with urgent (globally speaking) problems first. If those aren't solves, the rest have been a complete waste anyway...
If your doctor says that you have a deadly disease which must be treated right now, or it will be too late, though the symptoms will not kill you or even be obvious for a decade, - are you going to wait or get treated?" Some people would rather consult an herbalist instead and die untreated and in denial. I want to live. A switch to wind, solar, geothermal, more efficient technology and forest preservation would stop global warming and cost 2% of income in US; a tiny price for human survival.
He doesn't argue anything. He just appeals to his "Top Economists." Of course dealing with AIDs is more cost effective than fighting climate change. You cure people and make them more productive while lowering the odds of infecting others. Meanwhile stopping climate change basically involves spending billions of dollars to make ourselves less productive. The difference is that AIDs isn't going to irreversibly harm the Earth and without a fertile Earth those people you just cured are gonna starve
@NiXenith First you need to establish without a doubt with empirical evidence that the cause for global warming is a product of humanity. If you can't do this then to launch a huge crusade against the climate is arrogant at best. Focus on what is tangible and what is real not some hype scare scenario from the minds of corrupt politicians. The argument in this movie is solid, we have to prioritize and fix what we can fix. As of now we are unable to decide the temperature of the earth.
Stopping climate instability will make water and food security possible. Allowing fossil fuel companies to continue to profit while we suffer the damages of their pollution will leave a billion people homeless by mid century and worse events later.
@sunshinesone Hi, you have any empirical evidence that what you say is true? Did you know that one volcano (Iceland) have released more CO2 into the atmosphere than humankind have done since it's conception? Focus on the problems we have now not on the problems that MIGHT come in the future. I don't say that we should pollute like crazy not at all, but to focus everything on CO2 Emissions is not a wise decision.
@Mekelsior : Yeah Noah, don't build your arch... the hell with the foreseen flood, let's focus on present problems.... and anyway by the time you build your arch technology will have found a way for us to breathe under water! Let's only focus on present problems... let's never turn our steering wheel, it will always be time to repair the car once we crashed into the wall ahead of us... I am even sure compared to prevention it's the least-cost option!
@nigelelsass It is true that we should take care of the environment by reducing toxic spill and so on. Science on the other hand reveals that Co2 is not the main culprit it is actually lagging some 800 years after the change in temperature. Then there is the prognosis of how much the sea levels will rise in the next 100 years.. and it is really not as much as Al Gore and company wants it to be. You can take main stream propaganda divide it by 100 and then see the reality for what it is.
@Mekelsior : It is not because A once caused B that B cannot caus A (chicken/egg or fire/heat). To say that A causes B excludes B causing A is simply a wrong demonstration.
Actually it is more complicated with temperatures and CO2 levels influencing each others. This has been formally demonstrated by Hansen (I can find you the exact source): so both Skeptics AND AlGore get this point wrong. Science (only) is reality, not MSM, not AlGore.
You can say that Mr. Lomborg skips over important points, glosses over others, and fails to understand certain elements of the global warming problem.
But he's argument is an important one, and is very well made. I can't believe that this has so many negative votes. It seems petty and childish on the part of YouTube viewers.
@promisedeyes He doesn't have an argument at all. He just states that his team of economists and some college students he surveyed think it's a bad idea to spend money on fighting climate change.
@promisedeyes The reason why the YouTube viewers don't like this presentation is simply because they don't really care to know the truth of the reality that we live in. Most people won't make it to be affected by global warming, still they are concerned with some people in the future?
what we need to do is focus on education teaching them self sustainability while focus on healthcare to make sure they are fit enough to get educatedOther problems would deal themselves when education first priority and healthcare and malnutrition second priority.Also governments would not be enough, we as a humanity to have work and provide with some of what we have to solve the worlds problems,by working our asses off to provide for us and others.
GREAT BARRIER REEF OIL SPILL HITS RENOWNED NATURE SANCTUARY
Oil from a huge Chinese ship which grounded in the Great Barrier Reef has hit a world-renowned nature sanctuary, officials said Wednesday, raising fears for seabirds and baby turtles now hatching there.
considering Global Warming may have very well been discovered as a hoax I would say AIDS is more of an issue to fix. It really bothers me that the government can make money off of people by scamming them which I bet is what they're doing.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Bjorn Lomborg is a master of rhetorical and statistical trickery. Those of you that are interested in a critique of his analysis might want to look at the rebuttal I delivered when I opposed him at a major construction industry conference in the UK. You can see my talk on Youtube in three parts (24 mins in total) by writing 'pawlyn' into the search field.
@ReduceGHGs Naturally the science that supports the idea that the world is going to end any moment is "honest".
We've heard it all before...many many times. The same doomsday predictions in a different wrapper. And as usual it is "man's sin" that will doom the world. We are so incredibly arrogant. So hard for us to admit we are insignificant. We have to invent reasons for why we are the most important species on this planet.
What science are you talking about? A doomsday scenario is rarely discussed. The foremost concern is the degradation of habitability for us and the extinction of many, many more species. Have you read about the Anthropocene Epoch? We're living in it. How about ocean acidification?
Yes, it is human caused. YOU might call it a "sin" but its only because we are opportunists. What would be a "sin" would be to knowingly continue with business as usual.
@ReduceGHGs Well you've totally convinced me that the world is coming to an end...again. After 150+ of warming and spectacular positives...it is going to turn completely around now and punish those evil sinners. That's a totally original idea too...who could doubt it this time?
Money is meerly a way of tracking one's Integrity concerning trade. Many put out much effort towards helping others that cannot be tracked with money. These energies are often not rewarded, often placing the good samaritan in severe monetary hardship also.
If our economy wasn't being constantly taxed by major financial gatekeepers, then a man's labor would keep it's value, and the benefits would have high mileage.
Let people be Free, so we can fix our problems, for thats what we do.
Severely reduce global transporting of slave labor goods, for subverting free economies.
Encourage LOCAL PermaCulture farming, micro-factories, CNC production, using mostly local resources, saving energy waste, leaving much more energy for each person to use locally.
Decentralise governments with emphasis on LOCAL representative councils, control, input, and funding.
I agree with this TED talk in human terms. I don't care about humans in relation to climate change because us humanoids are amazingly flexible and can deal with whatever happens (considering history, perhaps dealt with badly, haha). I do care about our already strained ecosystems and threatened species that aren't so flexible with relatively-rapid climate change. Flora and fauna can't
easily migrate, especially with roads, buildings, agriculture and other human destruction of natural habitat.
Interesting argument...I'm not saying I agree either way, however, this does not address the concept of "tipping points" argued by Hansen, that climate change may reach a point where it spirals exponentially greater, and perhaps pragmatically irreversible.
Talking on an international basis it is a reather silly thing to say "If we had all the money in the world", because we do, if we don't, then who does? The whole of humanity do have all the money. I personally think alot of the problem is like Aubrey de Grey said about aging, the problem isn't how difficult it is, but are we doing anything? I bet if you ask anyone from a poor country to work for bringing food/water/etc to the world, he would help, if he was fed. We are bound by fantasy of money
money is a rather retarded consept anyway, think of the great depression, alot of workers with nothing to do, alot of factories etc, alot of food, but nobody use it beacause someone says your money is worthless. which it is anyway. money shouldn't be interest based(which is why "it is not that simple"), it should be resource based. my point is that we coperate for a common goal instead of getting our selves stuck because a screen/system tells you your money is worth this and that.
Are you saying we should return to a recourse based monetary standard? such as gold, silver, uranium, or some other such thing? I would gladly accept such a change, but many seem to disagree with the idea.
Ah, but even if we eliminate money, we must still allocate labor. Who is going to feed you? and how will they do it? it's all well and good to say that everyone will work for food, but much of the planet is unsuitable for agriculture, how will the third world worker be fed? and how can we use all our efforts to combat climate change if we must still expend effort to bring water, food, and health care to those incapable of providing it?
But those, who actually do something about it, respect, personally, I won't do as long as satisfying my basic needs doesn't depend on solving these big world problems.
EnjoyGreatMusic 1 day ago
Do you know "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" ? Problem solving is on top. First comes food, safety, simply put getting job, earning money, buying food, renting or buying apartment. As long as you are not millionare, when you don't have to worry of your basic needs, you really wont give a damn thing, what is going on the other side of the world. You will just think, yea it is bad, but won't spend a second to actually do smth about it. Even if u were a millionare, you would just enjoy your life. :D
EnjoyGreatMusic 1 day ago
Gore gets 3-4-5 presentation; The contrary argument - that global man-made warming, is a hoax - gets about zero airtime in this venue. While TED has much going, it is far from balanced - nor does the group really vet its speakers credibility, if they are going to allow the likes of Gore and Co. to be highlighted without equal time to the scientific facts well known at this juncture. To wit: Michael Mann's "...hide the decline", Global Warming (manmade) is the best ence that Politics can buy.
wmweirich 6 days ago
Thanks for upload this video. Its really help.
MrPEDOCTOR 2 months ago
Priorities are anthropocentric. We have no space for species, biodiversity, and wilderness. It all must be naturalised. This man disappoints me, despite a very interesting view... the priorities he lists that many claim are 'environmental' are world problems, but not ecological problems. This has been the issue since Brundtland.
callmeMsT 2 months ago
Comment removed
plingda 2 months ago
@plingda It is an awful thing to say. and it is your opinion only because you, by chance, are not the person starving to death. If you truly believed that a greater population = harm, you would end your life and save the planet. But your comment shows that you would rather sacrifice the lives of others to save the planet, yet you are not willing to sacrifice yourself to do the same thing. Just suggesting a different perspective on your feelings. (I dont actually want you to hurt yourself)
lives2live 2 months ago
Not much depth to this guy
crudhousefull 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Awesome!
KunedoJeet 5 months ago
one word: meh!
jak1428 5 months ago
This is the mentality that's destroying the environment - we'll be able to do more later, necessity breeds ingenuity, the technology will be better later. Breaks my heart.
ZeroKelvin 5 months ago
Where does sexual enhancement come in on Bjorn's scale? What about hair loss? What about depression? Engine noises? Television resolution? Designer coffee? Precious gems? Landscaping? The availability of twitter? Body-building? Diet soft drinks? This is where people spend their money. Very little money and effort is going toward solving malaria, AIDS or global warming. Let's be real, Bjorn. You're too smart for this.
thedirtman00 6 months ago
The problem with economist-driven choices is that they are absolutely not ever schooled in a long-term framework. They are schooled and oriented to make the next quarter, the next annual report look profitable. Saving 5 million Africans from malaria today is great - but saving 500 million world citizens from the effects of climate change in fifty years is better - and that's a reality that most economists are neither equipped, nor prepared to engage.
47f0 6 months ago
alot of people throwing pies at him and dont want to listen to him, cuz he is telling truth and nobody wants to accept it!! There also other people who knows how to cure diabetes and cancer with no pills or operation, with just natural products, otherwise all the drug stores will be closed and government will loose money, that simple!! They rather live fucked up lives in fucked up world which gets worse and worse everyday but with bags of money, instead of living in a healthy world with no AIDS
ukrainevladcanada 7 months ago
@ukrainevladcanada In my mind, AIDS is just human problem, but global warming is problem for all planet. And putting human disease higher than ecological problems(that's mainly made by us) is pretty egoistic... although actually warming affects more people than AIDS.
p.s. economists are reckoning just numbers, not the holy true.
Koherents 6 months ago
@Koherents every problem is a human problem... The ball of rock that is the earth doesnt care about anything, it is an inanimate object, The flora and fauna wont really care either, theyll live and die like they have for the past 500m years and as they will for the next 500m years at which point the sun will make the planet inhabitable by boiling away the oceans.
On a side note, there is serious scientific debate on the basic fundament of the universe and apparently mathematics is quite "holy"
RadioactiveBraunMan 6 months ago
@RadioactiveBraunMan the rate of technological growth is exponential though. Don't you think we (the human race) will eventually leave the earth, either to another planet or an artificial base?
enriquesalazar009 2 months ago
@enriquesalazar009 With absolute certainty. This entire notion that "omg the world is ending" is so remarkably naive and predictable. The funny thing is that basically every generation has its impending doomsday scenario waiting, and some valiant defenders seem to hear the call and and they take to the streets to fight their respective windmills.
As with everything else, technology and progress improves live in absolute terms, thus, be mindfull but welcome the inevitable future.
RadioactiveBraunMan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ukrainevladcanada Lomberg blocked my comments on his FB page. No corporate errand boy wants you to watch this video:
ricci1007 4 months ago
He dares to face the elephant in the room. It's really danish, he doesn't care about whether his arguments will hurt or offend other people
Lippreader 8 months ago
How can you fix government corruption with money though? Government corruption exists because it makes a lot of money already...
blackrobe2007 8 months ago
All this video does is highlight how retarded our socioeconomic strucure is today. While I appreciate he is trying to make the best of a bad situation, it seems to me that he would really be better off putting forward the case for fundamental change in the world. The fact that we can't afford to do everything that needs doing doesn't mean we should prioritise, it means we should rethink the way things get done. It should not be a question of money but of resources and technological capability.
H1PBS 8 months ago 11
@H1PBS WTF?!? We can't do it all, so go back to the drawing board?! These are real problems that we can't sweep under the rug just because we don't yet have the technology to solve them all simultaneously.
benbubnick 7 months ago
Lomberg blocked my comments on his FB page. No corporate errand boy wants you to watch this video:
ricci1007 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@H1PBS
In House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic, an AIDS film like no other, the HIV/AIDS story is being rewritten. This is the first film to present the uncensored POVs of virtually all the major players; in their own settings, in their own words. It rocks the foundation upon which all conventional wisdom regarding ‘HIV/AIDS’ is based. watch?v=_p-ttLfkZHQ
ricci1007 4 months ago
@H1PBS Money is a representation of resources and technological capability.
Shuroro 2 months ago
@Shuroro Money is not a representation of resources and technological capability. It is supposed to be a receipt for goods exchanged or services provided. So hedge fund managers and the like make money off money by making bets in financial cyber space and get richer as others get poorer. Does that mean resources and technological capability is increasing? Or is money just being concentrated in the hands of the rich for their own gain at the expense of the rest of the world?
H1PBS 2 months ago
@H1PBS well, it does mean exactly that. However, since our glorious super spendy politicians have strong influence over the reserve banks they tell them to "print" more money, said money does not represent economic growth, it is inflation.
But, assuming that the reserve banks were indeed independent, more money means more resources indeed (technology, energy, etc etc...)
RadioactiveBraunMan 2 months ago
@RadioactiveBraunMan I disagree with your analysis but the fact remains that the world has more than enough resources and technological capability to bring everyone out of poverty and improve the life of everyone. All you have to do is read any of the UN Human Development Reports which clearly demonstrate that. The reason these problems aren’t addressed effectively is because not enough money can be made out of solving them and therein lies the problem.
H1PBS 2 months ago
@H1PBS well, i might be misreading you, but that has quite a flair of "them ebil corporations with their evil money".
On you point. It is true that there are more than enough technologies / resources are abundant enough to supply all humans with quite a decent living standard.
However, its not that much a matter that there is little direct financial reward in doing so (which there isnt in the short term...), it is more of a lack of political and social will.
...YT comments are too short...
RadioactiveBraunMan 2 months ago
@H1PBS And the cold truth is, that I, just as most people, really fancy a new toy way more than I could give a damn about some poor african lack fresh water. Despite popular doctrine everyone is his own best friend.
Always was, always will be.
So, to alleviate the "poor" problem is to stop subsidizing handouts and to actually give people the means to accumulate wealth themselves.
A short reference for yo is asia & africa, fewer handouts in the last 30y = they start to get their shit together
RadioactiveBraunMan 2 months ago
@RadioactiveBraunMan This is really too deep a topic to discuss effectively here but you and many people may well prefer a fancy new toy over providing for your fellow man and that is very much to be expected considering the society we were brought up in where selfishness and greediness is directly rewarded. Capitalism is based on differential advantage and we are heavily conditioned to accept this as just "the way things are" from a young age but it does not have to be so.
H1PBS 1 month ago
@H1PBS You are right, this certainly isnt a forum to discuss this in. However, what you're describing to be a consequence of an upbringing in our "current" society along with capitalism, is actually basic human nature. And it has been the same in all "pre capitalistic" societies and in all communist/theocratic societies as well.
The only constant over the last 20,000 years has been human nature, and that nature is as selfish as any animalistic nature has to be to survive. damn character limit..
RadioactiveBraunMan 1 month ago
@RadioactiveBraunMan Human nature dictates how we behave in a given society not what society we live in. Human beings are selfish in as much as they will do whatever is in their best interest, hence people behave in a greedy and corrupt fashion in our society because it results in more money and thus greater access to resources. But if that behaviour wasn't rewarded it wouldn't be so prevalent. Look at societies like the Buid or the Kibbutz based on equal sharing of wealth
H1PBS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@H1PBS >"It should not be a question of money but of resources and technological capability."
Are you saying that resources and technological capability aren't limited? That's really naive.
There isn't any socioeconomic structure where resources aren't limited and solutions shouldn't be prioritized.
rayonic 3 hours ago
The problem is that all solutions will be paid to western companies, so the helped countries get dependent on the West. He is not for helping people, but for helping the western economy.
vinx77 9 months ago
@vinx77 He's from Denmark
JARMarkers 8 months ago
All you have to do is take the military spending and put it towards feeding and educating the world. Which it would many times over. Then the rest of the problems will fix themselves. Obviously we dont need to fix global warming because it is a myth.
ace1122tw 9 months ago
Free trade? At who's expense and at who's benefit???? The middle class is to take the brunt of the cost to make sure everyone gets fed?? How do rich people get off the hook time after time?
Dean0000007 10 months ago
I like this guy... most TED speakers are hippies that don't consider economics.
GUNITT89 10 months ago 3
'Saving the world' is not about money. It's about mindset. Poverty, food, sanitation, etc were non-isues in cultures that were left to live in ecological harmony with their environments. Ie: the Chesapeake Bay, the Bayous, etc fed - for free - many thousands of people, until pollution destroyed the natural productivity of those estuaries. Inuit did nothave problems w/ alcohol, diebeties, etc until whites arrived. One could go on...
Jefferdaughter 10 months ago
... cost spent on treating cancer and heart disease - things that represnt real problems - they all add to the gdp -and therefore rpesent real value in our well being? wars - add to the gdp - so we gdp is not a great indicator of our well being.
MrIzzyDizzy 11 months ago
economics is flawed - theres no "demand" for food in starving countries and a great deal of demand for mansions and luxury cars in beverly hills - so where do the resources go? how much a free resources worth -ie sunlight bioregenerstion of fish in the oceans - rain - climate -all of nature - 0? - obviously not but the are left out of economic models . economic models are disconnected to seroius problems in nature - and they misleadin many things they do include - prison population ..cont
MrIzzyDizzy 11 months ago
He is dead on the money! "it isn't about making us feel good" this is exactly what climate change is. Just read the non-sense spewed by these people in the comments. They really believer they are the saviors or human kind. You cant save a kid from global warming if he dies next wednesday from malaria. Global Warming = Selfish rich people padding their egos.
0HippyHunter0 11 months ago
@0HippyHunter0 Except that the calculation doesn't add up. All humanity as we know it will be unable to go on if we don't focus on global warming. There is a lot more at stake than kids suffering from malaria.
His only point to counter that is that people will be richer at the time when global warming catches up to is. But wealth is a meaningless, arbitrary measure not enabling us to do anything. Try to tell nature "but I am rich" as it comes to kill you.
playgrrrr 7 months ago
@playgrrrr Thats exactly what he's saying. I know the Church of Global Warming doesn't agree, but the jury is still out on what is causing AGW, or if it matters. There isn't a lot more at stake. It is a CRYING SHAME your kids aren't going to die from malaria. You'd have a heard then. "When global warming catches up to us" wtf does this even mean? Try to tell malaria "well, global warming has to be 'stopped' first then I can get cured." You should have worked fo the inquisition!
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@0HippyHunter0 I wouldn't place kids into this world, especially not if I was living under even less favourable circumstances than I am now. It's irresponsible & egoistical.
As harsh as it sounds we have more pressing issues than to save every human that we can. Increasing world pop. should be the last of our priorities, at least with our current economic system & widely tolerated neglect of education.
I would gladly die on the spot if it stops global warming or makes humanity embrace education.
playgrrrr 7 months ago
@playgrrrr So, we should let some people die so other can live? If you truly believe this then you should be the first to commit suicide. Inevitably you believe that OTHERS should die, especially poor brown people that "don't matter anyway." Should people continue to have babies? NO! Gladly die on the spot? You're saying others should, so help yourself. Do it. Save the Earth, kill yourself. Oh, wait, you should die when its 'important' others just get to die because you're selfish.
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@0HippyHunter0 Go die in a fire, fucking racist.
playgrrrr 7 months ago
@playgrrrr aaaahahahah, I'M THE RACIST? I'm the one saying that poor people the world over deserve a chance to live on par with what you were granted at birth. You're saying they need to die because you need another skinny chia latte and don't want to walk to the grocery store. To be called a racist by you indicates that you have no clue of what is happening around you, in you, or by you. That is ok, because people like me are dead set against everything you believe.
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@playgrrrr "Inevitably you believe that OTHERS should die, especially poor brown people that "don't matter anyway."" Read that over and over again until you realize how it says "you believe." Which you do.
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@0HippyHunter0 He also forgets that as supply of food increases population does as well, as evidenced by [agricultural] history.
playgrrrr 7 months ago
@playgrrrr He doesn't forget shit, just because he doesn't talk about it. But, I'm going to prove you wrong anyways. Population growth is entirely dependent on economic standing, not food availability. Case study: Japan. Japan has as access to as much food as they want (because they can afford it) but their death rate is higher than their birth rate. According to "what he forgot" this should never happen. But it's currently happening in almost all western(ized) countries.
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@0HippyHunter0 "Population growth is entirely dependent on economic standing, not food availability." Wrong. Everybody knows that well educated people with safe income have less children. But you forget what I said earlier. Every time a new breakthrough was made in agricultural technology, population was enabled to increase drastically, and it did every single time. Poverty and starvation suck, but they are natural control mechanisms, and most humans still act like animals. (cont.)
playgrrrr 7 months ago
@playgrrrr Wrong? 1) Its 'fewer' not 'less.' 2) Every breakthrough? We have had dozens in the past 5 years and population is not increasing exponentially. I gave you examples that counter your "law," it is therefore, not a law. Its your personal belief. Starvation is natural? Not when there is more than enough food, and money but people like you choose to throw it away on some magical phenominom that is getting less credible by the day! How in the FUCK do you sleep at night? You are a monster!
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@0HippyHunter0 en wikipedia org/wiki/Straw_man
playgrrrr 7 months ago
@playgrrrr Strawman? Pathetic. Your position boils down to: other starve, you live and you call it natural. Am I wrong? Is this not your plan to make the world a more perfect form of your vision? Show me where I'm wrong on your position, then I'll agree its a strawman.
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@0HippyHunter0 Yeah, you are completely wrong. That is what resorting to a strawman means! You'll have to learn reading yourself. Not worth my time. :) Bye.
playgrrrr 7 months ago
@playgrrrr yeah, I'm wrong. You flat out said that some people (not you) deserve to starve to death so you can feel better about the future. A straw man would involve disproving a proposition that you didn't assert. I, in no way, misrepresented you. You are a horrible, inmoral, uncaring, unethical, egotistical, self centered human being. There is a special place in hell for people like you, its very close to the fire.
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@0HippyHunter0 =You flat out said that some people (not you) deserve to starve to death= No, I didn't. You are unable to differentiate between reading what I said and twisting it into what you want it to be. You make a straw man and at least 50% of your rebuttal then consists of insults. You're pathetic, man. Can't read. Can't argue. Yet continue to elevate yourself above others to feel good about yourself. That's probably why you watch TED talks, too. What a waste of the human resource.
playgrrrr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@playgrrrr @playgrrrr "Poverty and starvation suck, but they are natural control mechanisms" means what? After saying that we shouldn't stop malaria. What, exactly, does your statement mean? "50% of your rebuttal then consists of insults. You're pathetic" Wow. Good one. Do you, or do you not, support letting people starve to control population (as you flat out said)? Yes/No? Lets see how strawman that was.
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@playgrrrr lets add to that "we have more pressing issues than to save every human that we can."
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@0HippyHunter0 (cont) If you increase food supply before changing the mindset of people, pop. will simply grow again until the fringe of the then current pop. will be poor or starve. People are animals. They evolved to do and enjoy one thing above all, and that is reproduction.
It's ironic that you quote Japan of all societies, bc it is the most progressive, thoughtful and civilized one on the entire planet. Compare public Fukushima reaction to US@Katrina for an example.
Don't be so naive.
playgrrrr 7 months ago
@playgrrrr Compare what? Explain why their entire society is more "progressive" (whatever that means) "thoughtful" and "civilized" because of their response to ONE natural disaster. And how ONE natural disaster response in the US proves the exact opposite is true. I'm dying to hear this. You should check the Japan response to Katrina vs the US response to Fukushima.
0HippyHunter0 7 months ago
@playgrrrr
0HippyHunter0 6 months ago
and also, if we bite the bullet now & take REAL ACTION on climate change we can reduce its impact on us MUCH more than just delaying it by 6 years from 2100 to 2106. that is so stupid to assume we can't make major changes now to save our environment, not to mention 1000s of species which will otherwise become extinct.
fuck economics! money is the problem.
there is more than enough on this planet for everyone. if we started sharing equally&looked after each other then everything could be done!
Las3rGirl 11 months ago
@Las3rGirl Yeah! Who needs actual scientific models and reasonable discussion when you've got a pair of rainbow-tinted glasses!
The figures and dates aren't just made up claims (like yours), they are real estimates from detailed models by people who know what they are doing.
Also, by the way, 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. The planet will be fine, life is persistent, it will adapt. People who want to 'save the planet' actually just want to save themselves...
D3ltra 9 months ago
I noramally love the TED talks but this guy is totally wrong about climate change. I love how he says, "Don't worry, in a hundred years Bangladeshis will be richer so they can deal with climate change better then. Of course, we'll be even richer"
1. That's the problem. The inequality in wealth distribution around the world. I don't want "us" to always be richer than everyone "else"
2. Not to mention of the impact of climate change on wildlife - I don't think they will be richer in 100 yrs!
Las3rGirl 11 months ago
I love TED speaches/debates, i'm surprised i haven't heared about it earlier, it doesn't get the media (main stream) attention it should.
kalimul 1 year ago
this fool has been trying to fight against climate change for years. This is just another tool in his tool box. He is so transparent its mind blowing that anyone would listen to him.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan It's a shame you didn't listen to him, otherwise you would have heard him say that climate change is a problem.
D3ltra 9 months ago
Problem #1 - overpopulation
Problem #2 - energy
Problem #3 - china
Problem #4 - radical islam
Problem #5 - environment degradation
animalmother4 1 year ago
@animalmother4 What a rather retarded list you have, it shows your ignorance. overpopulation is not actually a problem. The world is population will be in decline in the near future. The rate of growth is decreasing. Radical islam is on the very bottom and its insane to think it is more then a minor threat. China isnt a problem at all, its in some ways better for china to become wealthy and more powerful. America is more of a threat.
Energy does belong of the list
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan you should enlighten yourself on population trends. Population 2000c.e - 6billion, population 2010 - 7.1 billion, population 2020 - 12 billion. If you ever took an economics class you would see the problems this creates. China isn't a problem? Are you aware of how much money we owe China?That $1tillion will become $4 trillion in less than 10 years with interest. What happened today? Some muslim blew up 150 people in russia, same shit everyday, and its only getting worse.
animalmother4 1 year ago
@animalmother4 @animalmother4 Population trends are going higher, but they are going higher more slowly. In many first world counties, like japan and countries in europe population is going down. The money the US owes china is the US and chinas problem, not the world and its not really much of a problem. Islam is dying as a religion, and china russia and every other nation is with us in that fight to kill it off. The us is doing more to help radical islam then any other force.
thesparitan 1 year ago
If you ask economists, of course they answer in terms of money and ignore the real value of things.
chapulinaaa 1 year ago
@chapulinaaa
it's about saving lifes and economist doesn't value one life over another so we should spend our money so that most lifes are saved and most people can live good lifes.
Salladsdressing 1 year ago
@Salladsdressing My point was, the measure here shouldn't be money. Money doesn't save lives; resources and technology do.
chapulinaaa 1 year ago
@chapulinaaa I dont think you understand that money is directly linked to commodities (resources), if you have resources you have money because it has a direct value in the market system. Money is the worlds trade system because its putting value to material things. money is power
animalmother4 1 year ago
@animalmother4
I don't think you understand that the link between money and resources is man made and remotes to a time when we thought the world's resources were unlimited. As you said, money is power - and nothing more than that.
chapulinaaa 1 year ago
@chapulinaaa I still don't understand what your trying to say, money is limited, even if we print more of it there is still a finite number of it. Its value overtime goes up and down, because it is linked with everything that goes on in an economy. I hope your not making the point that we shouldn't be using money anymore.
animalmother4 1 year ago
@animalmother4
Let's say it's cheaper to distribute all the water in a lake to all the thirsty people in the world than to look for alternatives. What do you do after the lake goes dry?
All problems on Earth are interconnected and can't be solved in isolation. Money is not a measure which takes the real limitations of nature into account and therefore shouldn't be used in prioritizing. Money is too connected to politics and individual interests and too little to saving the world. - I think.
chapulinaaa 1 year ago
@chapulinaaa i'll agree with that
animalmother4 1 year ago
@chapulinaaa ...and resources and technology are free, are they?
D3ltra 9 months ago
@D3ltra As most concepts derived from human greed, money is little related to the fundamental workings of nature (resources) and people (who develop technology). Due to the very nature of money, monetary costs do not make a well thought basis for developing long term solutions...
chapulinaaa 9 months ago
@chapulinaaa:
And who gets to measure "the real value of things", and more importantly, how? Does a psychic contacts Karl Marx in the afterlife and asks him how much "real value" of a thing is? Value is inherently subjective, so to claim that there is such a thing as a "real value of things" is quite meaningless.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@chapulinaaa real economists are always about the real value of things.
gigar9000 1 year ago
Don't take the money spent on climate change to solve Lomborg's big problems. Instead, take some of the money spent on the military in the world's largest economies. What would 10% from the US and 3% from the next 14 largest economies' military budgets accomplish?
bannor99 1 year ago
@bannor99
I'd say we do both.
madass888 1 year ago
@bannor99 But that's a lot harder sell, isn't it. Are you really going to convince governments like the US and China to downsize their military? Not bloody likely
D3ltra 9 months ago
@D3ltra The US may finally realize they have to - as has been recommended for decades - which they should have started sometime soon after the collapse of the USSR. If the gov't is serious about cutting spending, there is no ethical, Christian way to do what without touching the defence budget. China is another matter but most of the other countries may fall in line if the US leads.
R4t10n4L 9 months ago
@R4t10n4L I'd love to see it happen, but I can't while they've still got people committed in the middle east =/ Will be interesting to see how it goes
D3ltra 9 months ago
@D3ltra Even if they don't touch troop strength in the M.E., they're still lots they can do - 50000 in Germany, 10000 each in England and Italy, 30000 each in South Korea and Japan. Why is Uncle Sam still fighting WW2?
R4t10n4L 9 months ago
@bannor99 Yes, US mil budget for 2009 was $680 Billion - an insane figure, a good chunk of that should be taxed from them to pay for the environmental destruction they have caused :)
samrah2afar 8 months ago
This guys argument is flawed in so many ways.
This is as stupid as saying 'I have cancer, and I have a toothache - the cancer will cost so much to cure, might not work and anyway I won't be adversely affected for three years, however the tooth ache I can fix today and considerably lower cost and I will feel better in the morning'
Economists always make awful self profiting decisions.
@shazizz you are a fool and have probably not even finished school yet alone study climate.
sjnelson82 1 year ago 2
@sjnelson82 you cant yu was that argument at all...yes they have the same concept but the severty of both issues are radically different....what hes arguing is getting something done now while you can with the money you have instead of spreading out all your money and making little impact on anything
patsperfection 1 year ago 7
@sjnelson82 If this is what you understood his argument to be then you completely misunderstand what he's saying.
0HippyHunter0 11 months ago 2
Comment removed
sjnelson82 1 year ago
Comment removed
sjnelson82 1 year ago
I used to be in charge of a carbon offsetting programme for a major UK distribution company in the mid-2000s. After a couple of years, the board found out the whole scheme we were part of (supposedly planting trees in Bolivia) was non-existent & fired me for ‘incompetence’.
However, they had to pay for my silence with 2 years’ salary and a fantastic reference as they didn’t want the bad PR to get out. From what I hear on the grapevine, I think most offsetting schemes are like this...
SuperTruth77 1 year ago
Man made Global warming/Climate change is a fraud period! The science is flawed and is a flat out crock! No matter how anyone tries to butter it up such as changing the name from global warming to climate change, it dosn't change the truth! You can't polish a turd! First Al Gore said the ice would be gone within 7 years, but wait now that things are not going thier way, we have more time? This is laughable! Save the whale's thats a good cause! Heal the sick and feed the poor also a good cause!
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz I totally agree with you!
Jonasdude123 1 year ago
I do agree with his jist but it should be noted he does give Al Gore credit for pushing this very serious issue to the forefront, and considering that before his documentary when he was just talking about this in a less intrusive manner he was the butt of many jokes that labeled him "eco man" and was ignored by the public at large, perhaps we did need the jolt of his "inconveniant truth".
idicula1979 1 year ago 2
Top three is about saving people. The real issue is to save mother earth. If there's no planet for mankind to live on, even economists like Bjorn Lomborg will be very, very, silent. Call that a relief!
HetWeitje 1 year ago
Solving climate change is sponsored by BMW.. how ironic.
yanninbj 1 year ago
There are those who would use fear to concentrate money and power.
There are those who would use common sense to put a problem in it's proper context and then solve the problem.
Which are you, a collectivist-socialist using fear or a free thinker and free human using common sense?
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
Bjorn found a recipe for success with conventional, convenient thinking he maintains in the favor of big interests. Until acting in the capacity of participant and at the human scale therll be less ROIs right on into the sunset. My people are confined to the planet. To the extent its true, coming at global problems from the anthropocentric view attaches assumption on the question of how to spend our resources from the getgo; in isolation from the greater 'constituency' as if going up up and away
tinkeramblin 1 year ago
I think the real point here is that modern economists are terrible at their jobs.
tripwilliams2 1 year ago
His doco is a thinly veiled attempt to return some credibility to the now failing AGW religion.
8n4n08 1 year ago
I just watched this guys doco, he is talking about Geo-engineering, this is the worst idea ever. Carbon increases lag behind temp increases, there is NO carbon problem, it is UNRELATED to temperature, and so geo-engineering is a bad idea. Any geo-engineering is a bad idea, they don't understand the infinite mechanisms of nature well enough to do any good. If this man respected nature he would abandon his geo-engineering ideology, I had to comment here because he censors comments at his trailer.
8n4n08 1 year ago
"Save the world", if you have no intelligence or awareness about how the world was created (I am not evoking God, simply philosophical conjecture), then how can you hope to understand it and therefore save it. This guy is full-of-shit, and AGW is the science of environment cultist, ie. it is exaggerated and has all the doomsday fear. Including intolerance of opposing voices, which are seen as "great evils" and a threat to life and God itself, ofcourse, the God of the environmentalist is nature.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08
whatever else this guy may preach about is irrelevant to his speech here. he doesn't appear to be pushing his own viewpoints here, just a better way to address solving the worlds biggest (solvable) problems
mellamosean 1 year ago
In my opinion, it is always good to ask questions to try to figure out, in an intellectually honest way, what have been the consequences of past decisions and learn to improve our current decision making. For that I can relate to what Bjorn is doing but I think is reasoning is based in lack of understanding of the real big picture...
Jules1414 1 year ago 2
For instance, he suggest that an economist is the most competent and independent person to evaluate whom, between climate expert and a malaria expert concerns should be prioritized...It is a mistake. We live within a complex sequence of systems: Earth > Society > Economy. They appeared in that order and the most recent one depends entirely on the health of the precedent one...
Jules1414 1 year ago
(3) But how can an economist honestly claim one punctual project has a better ROI than another when we don't really have an accurate economics model that account for all the costs that ecosystem and societal cycles would represent if they were completely absent. Doesn't it seem more instinctive to fix problems at the source so that they don't generate eternal negative effects on the ''small scale'' problematic we elected as affordable therefore fixable?
Jules1414 1 year ago
(4) Climate climate change will have effects on all 3 systems. Climate change will influence weather patterns, access to resources, economic opportunity, biological patterns, etc. In other words, If we choose to pick a smaller fight, we are setting ourselves up to fight all the existing small fights...We will be facing central planning for everything because we will not be accustomed any of the patterns of the world anymore...instead of just a few. So no Bjorn, I'd rather address source problems
Jules1414 1 year ago
Wait. I want to live as long as I can. And I want my family line to live forever... how much is that gonna cost me?
rapauli 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to see something interesting about Global Warming and James Cameron, watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ4RolQxec
noteviljustwrong 1 year ago
Has nobody on this thing heard the phrase "Divide and Conquer"? It does not mean if you divide yourselves you will succeed. If everyone tries to push their own car up a mountain, you end up with a lot of tired people. If everyone tries to push one car up a mountain you get some easy work and everyone can focus on the next task.
ianajlaurie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is insane! Fund Aids Research? We have, and what has happened? it is still a problem! We fund cancer research and it get us nowhere! There are documented natural cures for both of these deceases but the medical community shuts them down because there is no profit in natural cures! look at the Gerson Institute! I know, i have cured myself!
WannaLaf1 1 year ago
This guy is insane! Fund Aids Research? We have, and what has happened? it is still a problem! We fund cancer research and it get us nowhere! There are documented natural cures for both of these deceases but the medical community shuts them down because there is no profit in natural cures! look at the Gerson Institute! I know, i have cured myself!
WannaLaf1 1 year ago
@WannaLaf1 Oh, have we really?
channelPrion 1 year ago
@WannaLaf1 He was talking about aids PREVENTION not research as number one.
j3holaday 1 year ago
I disagree with the premise that we are all acting uniformly or that by doing so it would be best. There is really no reason that people in their own disciplines can't help in their areas simultaneously. I would argue that economists, with their way of thinking, are some of the least qualified to determine the world's priorities.
098anne 1 year ago
All these problems come from over population, so yeah war, aids and all the bad stuff is actually for the greater good.
Typho0n86 1 year ago
Bjorn Lomborg is a master of rhetorical and statistical trickery. Those of you that are interested in a critique of his analysis might want to look at the rebuttal I delivered when I opposed him at a major construction industry conference in the UK. You can see my talk on Youtube in three parts (24 mins in total) by writing 'pawlyn' into the search field.
BiomimicryArch 1 year ago
conclusion? save lifes of people who can't take care of themselves (aids,malaria starvation etc...) So what he suggests is to give them a fish, and feed them for a day... Lost cause... Education is the key!
GrendelPL 1 year ago
But let's say the climate goes to hell.. Then what was the point of curing malaria or whatever first? The malaria problem doesn't really become any worse by doing it later but the climate thing keeps getting worse the longer we wait.
IF the climate goes to hell, there won't be any poverty either.. The poor will all die like the rest of us. To me it seems like we have to deal with urgent (globally speaking) problems first. If those aren't solves, the rest have been a complete waste anyway...
gnawershreth 1 year ago
Great man!
ashken79 1 year ago
If your doctor says that you have a deadly disease which must be treated right now, or it will be too late, though the symptoms will not kill you or even be obvious for a decade, - are you going to wait or get treated?" Some people would rather consult an herbalist instead and die untreated and in denial. I want to live. A switch to wind, solar, geothermal, more efficient technology and forest preservation would stop global warming and cost 2% of income in US; a tiny price for human survival.
sunshinesone 1 year ago
He doesn't argue anything. He just appeals to his "Top Economists." Of course dealing with AIDs is more cost effective than fighting climate change. You cure people and make them more productive while lowering the odds of infecting others. Meanwhile stopping climate change basically involves spending billions of dollars to make ourselves less productive. The difference is that AIDs isn't going to irreversibly harm the Earth and without a fertile Earth those people you just cured are gonna starve
NiXenith 1 year ago
@NiXenith First you need to establish without a doubt with empirical evidence that the cause for global warming is a product of humanity. If you can't do this then to launch a huge crusade against the climate is arrogant at best. Focus on what is tangible and what is real not some hype scare scenario from the minds of corrupt politicians. The argument in this movie is solid, we have to prioritize and fix what we can fix. As of now we are unable to decide the temperature of the earth.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
Stopping climate instability will make water and food security possible. Allowing fossil fuel companies to continue to profit while we suffer the damages of their pollution will leave a billion people homeless by mid century and worse events later.
sunshinesone 1 year ago
@sunshinesone Hi, you have any empirical evidence that what you say is true? Did you know that one volcano (Iceland) have released more CO2 into the atmosphere than humankind have done since it's conception? Focus on the problems we have now not on the problems that MIGHT come in the future. I don't say that we should pollute like crazy not at all, but to focus everything on CO2 Emissions is not a wise decision.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior : Yeah Noah, don't build your arch... the hell with the foreseen flood, let's focus on present problems.... and anyway by the time you build your arch technology will have found a way for us to breathe under water! Let's only focus on present problems... let's never turn our steering wheel, it will always be time to repair the car once we crashed into the wall ahead of us... I am even sure compared to prevention it's the least-cost option!
nigelelsass 1 year ago
@nigelelsass It is true that we should take care of the environment by reducing toxic spill and so on. Science on the other hand reveals that Co2 is not the main culprit it is actually lagging some 800 years after the change in temperature. Then there is the prognosis of how much the sea levels will rise in the next 100 years.. and it is really not as much as Al Gore and company wants it to be. You can take main stream propaganda divide it by 100 and then see the reality for what it is.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior : It is not because A once caused B that B cannot caus A (chicken/egg or fire/heat). To say that A causes B excludes B causing A is simply a wrong demonstration.
Actually it is more complicated with temperatures and CO2 levels influencing each others. This has been formally demonstrated by Hansen (I can find you the exact source): so both Skeptics AND AlGore get this point wrong. Science (only) is reality, not MSM, not AlGore.
nigelelsass 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mekelsior : This is what the latest science forecasts on sea level rise:
2007 (Rahmstorf) 0.5 to 1.4 m by 2100
2008 (Rohling et al.) "1.6m sea-level rise per century"
2009 (Aslak Grinsted): 0.9 to 1.3 m in 2090-2099
2008 (Pfeffer et al.) 0.8m to 2.0m
2010 (Vermeer & Rahmstorf): 0.75 m to 1.90 m by 2100
USGS "substantially exceeed IPCC projections
So the most likely scenario is between 0.8 and 1.3m with an average of 1.1m by 2100 and at least +1m each century
nigelelsass 1 year ago
You can say that Mr. Lomborg skips over important points, glosses over others, and fails to understand certain elements of the global warming problem.
But he's argument is an important one, and is very well made. I can't believe that this has so many negative votes. It seems petty and childish on the part of YouTube viewers.
promisedeyes 1 year ago
@promisedeyes He doesn't have an argument at all. He just states that his team of economists and some college students he surveyed think it's a bad idea to spend money on fighting climate change.
NiXenith 1 year ago
@promisedeyes The reason why the YouTube viewers don't like this presentation is simply because they don't really care to know the truth of the reality that we live in. Most people won't make it to be affected by global warming, still they are concerned with some people in the future?
Mekelsior 1 year ago
its a fraud its a scam its about money and control
twisted45 1 year ago
what a dork, only dumbasses believe this asshole!
hows the OIL SPILL? still think we dont need to care about gw?
stopglobalwarming08 1 year ago
Also the most important thing to do would be to demolish interest banking system,to demolish economic slavery, to end slavery throughout the world.
nabeelmerchant 1 year ago
what we need to do is focus on education teaching them self sustainability while focus on healthcare to make sure they are fit enough to get educatedOther problems would deal themselves when education first priority and healthcare and malnutrition second priority.Also governments would not be enough, we as a humanity to have work and provide with some of what we have to solve the worlds problems,by working our asses off to provide for us and others.
nabeelmerchant 1 year ago
Climate news
GREAT BARRIER REEF OIL SPILL HITS RENOWNED NATURE SANCTUARY
Oil from a huge Chinese ship which grounded in the Great Barrier Reef has hit a world-renowned nature sanctuary, officials said Wednesday, raising fears for seabirds and baby turtles now hatching there.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
April 14, 2010
Nightversionn 1 year ago
I love this guy and I totally agree with him!
CuteChadz 1 year ago
considering Global Warming may have very well been discovered as a hoax I would say AIDS is more of an issue to fix. It really bothers me that the government can make money off of people by scamming them which I bet is what they're doing.
sillychad18 1 year ago
@sillychad18 Hey I suggest you watch this vid. "The american denial of global warming" by Naomi Oreskes
h0choa 1 year ago
@h0choa lol, well I'm Canadian and I still think it's bs :P but I will watch it...
sillychad18 1 year ago
GROW YOUR OWN FOOD
th3inquisitiv31 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
Bjorn Lomborg is a master of rhetorical and statistical trickery. Those of you that are interested in a critique of his analysis might want to look at the rebuttal I delivered when I opposed him at a major construction industry conference in the UK. You can see my talk on Youtube in three parts (24 mins in total) by writing 'pawlyn' into the search field.
BiomimicryArch 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lomborg is dead wrong and he lies in his book. Read the debunking.
Google... Book Review: The Lomborg Deception Debunking the claims of the climate-change skeptic
Then for some HONEST science try this one.
Google... NAS Global Warming 2008 Edition
FMI go to UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Naturally the science that supports the idea that the world is going to end any moment is "honest".
We've heard it all before...many many times. The same doomsday predictions in a different wrapper. And as usual it is "man's sin" that will doom the world. We are so incredibly arrogant. So hard for us to admit we are insignificant. We have to invent reasons for why we are the most important species on this planet.
HarpoSpoke 1 year ago
@HarpoSpoke
What science are you talking about? A doomsday scenario is rarely discussed. The foremost concern is the degradation of habitability for us and the extinction of many, many more species. Have you read about the Anthropocene Epoch? We're living in it. How about ocean acidification?
Yes, it is human caused. YOU might call it a "sin" but its only because we are opportunists. What would be a "sin" would be to knowingly continue with business as usual.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Doomsday scenario is rarely discussed? (Saves this comment for times when a laugh is needed)
HarpoSpoke 1 year ago
@HarpoSpoke
Yea, it's easy for clueless deniers to laugh off all that you don't understand. Sorry, but that won't change the facts.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Well you've totally convinced me that the world is coming to an end...again. After 150+ of warming and spectacular positives...it is going to turn completely around now and punish those evil sinners. That's a totally original idea too...who could doubt it this time?
HarpoSpoke 1 year ago
Money is meerly a way of tracking one's Integrity concerning trade. Many put out much effort towards helping others that cannot be tracked with money. These energies are often not rewarded, often placing the good samaritan in severe monetary hardship also.
If our economy wasn't being constantly taxed by major financial gatekeepers, then a man's labor would keep it's value, and the benefits would have high mileage.
Let people be Free, so we can fix our problems, for thats what we do.
rebelforgod 1 year ago
Severely reduce global transporting of slave labor goods, for subverting free economies.
Encourage LOCAL PermaCulture farming, micro-factories, CNC production, using mostly local resources, saving energy waste, leaving much more energy for each person to use locally.
Decentralise governments with emphasis on LOCAL representative councils, control, input, and funding.
rebelforgod 1 year ago
I agree with this TED talk in human terms. I don't care about humans in relation to climate change because us humanoids are amazingly flexible and can deal with whatever happens (considering history, perhaps dealt with badly, haha). I do care about our already strained ecosystems and threatened species that aren't so flexible with relatively-rapid climate change. Flora and fauna can't
easily migrate, especially with roads, buildings, agriculture and other human destruction of natural habitat.
ThorGoLucky 2 years ago
Interesting argument...I'm not saying I agree either way, however, this does not address the concept of "tipping points" argued by Hansen, that climate change may reach a point where it spirals exponentially greater, and perhaps pragmatically irreversible.
sdshipe 2 years ago 4
Talking on an international basis it is a reather silly thing to say "If we had all the money in the world", because we do, if we don't, then who does? The whole of humanity do have all the money. I personally think alot of the problem is like Aubrey de Grey said about aging, the problem isn't how difficult it is, but are we doing anything? I bet if you ask anyone from a poor country to work for bringing food/water/etc to the world, he would help, if he was fed. We are bound by fantasy of money
Devoti 2 years ago
It's not that simple, just because powerful countries and people have lots of money doesnt mean that they are able to use it all.
HamsterPants522 2 years ago
money is a rather retarded consept anyway, think of the great depression, alot of workers with nothing to do, alot of factories etc, alot of food, but nobody use it beacause someone says your money is worthless. which it is anyway. money shouldn't be interest based(which is why "it is not that simple"), it should be resource based. my point is that we coperate for a common goal instead of getting our selves stuck because a screen/system tells you your money is worth this and that.
Devoti 2 years ago
Are you saying we should return to a recourse based monetary standard? such as gold, silver, uranium, or some other such thing? I would gladly accept such a change, but many seem to disagree with the idea.
Semmarv 1 year ago
Ah, but even if we eliminate money, we must still allocate labor. Who is going to feed you? and how will they do it? it's all well and good to say that everyone will work for food, but much of the planet is unsuitable for agriculture, how will the third world worker be fed? and how can we use all our efforts to combat climate change if we must still expend effort to bring water, food, and health care to those incapable of providing it?
Semmarv 1 year ago