 You might guess I am coming to you from Australia, so it's a bit odd for us to be involved in a winter course, because we are in the middle of summer down here. And it is about half past eight in the evening. So we're on the other side of the planet, but that's quite all right because we're talking about planetary issues and it doesn't matter whether we're sitting in Europe, whether you're sitting in China, or really South America, where you're out in the ocean somewhere, it's all one planet, which is what I want to talk about tonight. So I'm going now to try to share screen because, as usual, being a scientist we have we have PowerPoint slides, we like to show images graphs etc. So please bear with me and I'll see if I can get this going. It looks like it's coming up all right. Let's see if I can get it up. Okay, hopefully you're now seeing my screen with the introductory slide of our planet, our future. And you can see just from the slide there visually how interconnected we are, particularly across the north Atlantic Ocean. What I really want to talk about now is where our future is going. And I do want to start with a concept which you kindly already introduced which is that concept of the Anthropocene. It was introduced in the year 2000 by the atmospheric chemist the late Paul criticism. And he made an interjection in a big international meeting that in fact was held in Mexico in Cuenavaca. He was listening to accounts of how the earth was changing, but the speaker kept referring to the Holocene which is the last 12,000 years, a very stable planetary history. And Paul got really upset he interjected stood up and sort of pounded his fist on the desk and said we aren't in the Holocene anymore we're in the, and you can hear him search you can see him search for a word he didn't have a word right then so he just sort of blurted out and it's really stuck and as you all know it's become one of the most most important concepts of the 21st century. So, when we define the Anthropocene we need a reference point, and this is the reference point we use this graph is global average temperature, and it goes back 100,000 years it comes from my scores. So humans have been on the planet of course 100,000 for 100,000 and more, but notice how erratic and cold this climate is until a fairly steep warming trend from 20,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago. And this fairly even and steady climate is what's been called the Holocene by the geologists. This is the only state of the earth system that's allowed human population to expand for us to develop agriculture complex societies cities, and the world that we inhabit today. So it's considered to be a really good state of the earth system for human well being. But what we wanted to do when we were studying how the earth was changing at the beginning of this century. We looked at how humanity was changing. And we looked at several different facets of humans are population or economy or energy use our resource use our telecommunications transport. And we wanted to discover what what Paul Croots and said is there actually really data to back up this idea of the Anthropocene. We started at 1750 because Paul thought that the Anthropocene must have begun with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England in the late 1700s spreading through Europe, and then around the rest of the world. So we started our graphs at 1750. And we saw enormous increases and human numbers, economy, activities, resources, but it wasn't an even line. We saw that things crept up until the middle of the 20th century. Around 1950, everything exploded, everything took off. And you can really see it in GDP, the economy, very small still, and then this absolute explosion. And eminent historian John McNeil has named this the great acceleration of human activity around the planet. And of course, being natural scientists, we were curious to see whether all this human activity whether we could actually see an imprint on the earth system as a whole, not on the local environment we knew it was having impacts on local environment in fact humans for thousands of years have impacted local environments, but we were really looking at the earth system as a whole. So we did the same thing we took 12 little graphs started them at 1750. And this is what we came up with so the top six are what we call the geosphere, the non living part of the earth system. So if gases in the atmosphere stratospheric ozone climate ocean. The bottom six are the biosphere, the land, the ocean, the coastal zone. So let's look at the shape of these graphs whether it's increasing greenhouse gases, temperature, the acidity of the ocean, or if you look at the biosphere, how much we're changing the ocean biosphere in terms of agriculture, fish capture and so on. So what we can say is that again somewhere around 1950, many of these started to change. In fact, quite dramatically. We looked at that and said, All right, being scientists we had to prove two things one is that all of these are outside of the norms of the Holocene for the last 12,000 years. Well we went back to geological records and we're pretty certain that these are outside of those norms. Second of all, we had to prove that these were human activities driving them and not natural variability. And of course there was an enormous amount of evidence that that was the case so we made the link between the first 12 graphs, and the second 12 graphs of the great acceleration. This was really the basis for the Anthropocene this was the solid evidence both from the social sciences and the natural sciences that we were indeed enormously changing the planet at the scale of the planet at rates that were extraordinarily rapid. In other words, this planetary sweet spot of the Holocene was back now in the rear view mirror we had left the state of the Earth system in which we humans have thrived. Now we are facing, in my view, a very uncertain future. So let's now look at climate change and look at the biosphere. Here are actual observations of global average temperature we could start in the 1850s. And as we got more instruments certainly from 1900 onwards. You can see how radically temperature has changed again since about the mid 20th century. We are now about 1.2 degrees above the late Holocene norm to put that in context, and I say just about four degrees colder than a warm period. We're already over a quarter of a way away from the stability of the Holocene. So it's moving and obviously in the opposite direction of an ice age to put this in a longer context. Here's a 2000 year baseline this jagged blue line is one of the so called reconstructions from paleo data from pollen data ice cores and so on. And there are four ways that this has been average they're all basically the same, but notice that over the last 2000 years this is the era of the Roman Empire for in a European context. The temperature only varied by one or two tenths of a degree right around the planet. This is the 1.2 now that's occurred in only a century. So this is the human influence on the Earth system this is the Anthropocene. This temperature rises unprecedented over 2000 years and in fact it's unprecedented over a much longer time frame. So geologists have now gone back and looked at what this recent increase in temperature in climate actually looks like. We looked at the rate of atmospheric co2 increase co2 is the most important of the greenhouse gases that are driving this change in temperature these gases are increasing in concentration in the lower atmosphere. They are absorbing outgoing heat from the Earth's surface and trapping more of it at the Earth's surface raising the temperature. This is basic physics that's not been known for about two centuries. This is occurring is phenomenal over the last couple of decades co2 is increasing about 100 times the maximum rate the last time it increased rapidly, which is when we came out of the last ice age 20,000 years ago. And then co2 went from about 180 parts per million during the ice age to 280 parts per million, which was the average over the Holocene. Now it's 415 parts per million, even greater than the difference between an ice age and a war period, but in the opposite direction. Last half century global average temperature has risen at a rate about 170 times the background rate over the last 7000 years of the Holocene and in the opposite direction. This last year came up with an astounding finding these two rates the current rate of co2 and temperature change is almost unprecedented in the entire history of our planet 4.5 billion years. The only time geologists can find an instance when co2 and temperature are changing as rapidly with 66 million years ago, when the meteorite struck and wiped out the dinosaurs. And by the way that temperature change was in the opposite direction. It was cooling. So as far as we can see, this is as fast as the temperature has ever risen in the history of our planet. This is an astounding finding it has enormous implications for the biosphere, and of course for human well being as well. So that's the climate system it gets a lot of attention, but we need to talk also about the human transformation of the biosphere. That's equally important. It's a very important part of the year system. It's a regulator of climate that provides many of the resources that we humans need to survive and to thrive. So what's happening to the biosphere. Well there was a big study done equivalent to the IPCC for the biosphere in 2019. As a very long name you can read it on the bottom there but it's just called IP best for short. And they had a number of what I call headline findings from their report. Nature is declining at rates unprecedented in human history, such a general term we are simplifying and and leading to the decline of nature. In our capacity, it's functioning and increasing at an increasing rate, about one million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades. That's out of eight or nine million plant and animal species that we know of. I think this last one is a just sums it up really well. The web of life on earth is getting smaller, and it's getting increasingly frayed in other words getting more fragmented. So these I think are at least as important in terms of changes that are happening to the earth system, as are the climate changes. Now interestingly climate is leading to some of these changes, but even as we speak today, the more dominant factor is direct human degradation of the biosphere climate change comes in as number two. Of course we've seen mass extinction events in the past have been five of them in the last 500 million years, but now we are entering the sixth mass extinction event. But this is the first time that a mass extinction event has been caused by a biological species that is humans. All the others have been caused by geological events, which caused big big big disruptions to the functioning of the earth system. But this is the first time a biological species has actually caused this. This is a scientist named Valkov Splil who does some very interesting work on trying to analyze and quantify how much humans are changing ourselves in the planet. This to me is staggering when you look at all the animals who live on the land that's terrestrial and all of them that have a backbone. It's animals, it's birds, it's amphibians and it's reptiles, and you add up their their mass their weight of all of them. And then you look at the proportion two thirds of it two thirds of the weight of all vertebrate creatures on land are our domesticated animals cattle pigs chickens and so on. We humans just our body weight account for nearly a third of all the mass of all the living creatures on land. All the wildlife that we know the elements the kangaroos the deer all these they comprise in total 3% of the biomass on land. That is how thoroughly humans now dominate the terrestrial biosphere. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of Earth before a colleague of mine Mark Williams, who works with geologist, another paleo scientist, and he specializes in the biosphere has written a wonderful paper he and his colleagues called the Anthropocene biosphere. So what he tries to do is gather all sorts of information about how the biosphere is changing because of human activity, and then compare it to longer term changes in the biosphere. So here is big findings. We are homogenizing flora and fauna at an extraordinary rate. In other words, not only our species going extinct, we're mixing them. In my continent of Australia, come down here what do you see increasingly rabbits horses plants that have been brought in by Europeans and are now competing and pushing out much of the native form. We are commandeering somewhere between 20 and 40% of the net primary productivity of the whole biosphere. That is, the energy that the biosphere produces every year through photosynthesis. It's the entire biosphere healthy plants animals and everything, but we are now taking up to 40% of that away from what the rest of nature needs, and using it for our own needs. We're directing the evolution of other species now through genetic engineering. And we're increasingly changing the biosphere with the technosphere with with pollutants with all sorts of chemicals that we're pouring into the biosphere. And Mark and his colleagues reckon that this is a new third stage of the evolution of the biosphere in Earth history. The first stage was when life appeared 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. The second stage was when we went from simple single celled organisms to complex organisms like ourselves. But what we are doing is so profound that Mark argues that this is now possibly the new third stage of evolution in the history of the biosphere on Earth. A good way of looking at what this Holocene Anthropocene biosphere really looks like is some work put together by Gia Savitsky. It's really quite simple but extraordinarily profound. Again, he looks at us humans. We're driving the climate, we're driving the biosphere changes, looks at three things, our population, our cumulative energy use, and our GDP, our economy. This is the Holocene, 12,000 years to the present. So for most of that, we were just at zero. This shaded area is from 1670 just before the Industrial Revolution. Look at these enormous spikes. That's how much humanity has changed in a few centuries. And then if you just expand from 1670 to the present, you can see the right hand panel where again changes were occurring, but very slowly till the mid 20th century, and then the explosion of human activity. So this is something extraordinary in the history of the planet. Now, let me now move a little bit to the geologists because they have a strong role to play in the Anthropocene. When Paul Crutzen uttered the word Anthropocene at Cuernavaca, Mexico in February 2000, in his mind, he already had a dual meeting for the Anthropocene. He was an atmospheric chemist. He already had won a Nobel Prize for his work on the ozone hole. So he was already thinking about the state of the Earth system and Earth system science view of the Anthropocene referenced against the Holocene. But he also proposed from the very beginning that this should be a geological epoch that would terminate the Holocene. So we had a dual meaning for the Anthropocene. Well, we in the Earth system science community took off with this very early on through the 2000s and so on developing the concept, but it actually took the geologist a few, a few years to sort of get their act together and join us. In 2009, the Geological Society of London formed a working group on the Anthropocene. It was formally part of the subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. So Stratigraphy is looking at all the layers, the geological layers, and teasing out when there were big changes in the Earth in the deep past. So the process that's required then to formalize the Anthropocene in the geological timescale. It has to go up through a number of various working groups on Stratigraphy and geology before it is formally approved. We've passed one hurdle. We've actually made the recommendation from this Anthropocene working group. It's now up to that next group to look for a single core supported by 10 or 12 cores. It will be the marker used for the Anthropocene. So the question we asked ourselves in terms of the formalization as a working group was, should the Anthropocene be formalized in the geological timescale. Is there enough geological evidence, even though it would only be 70 years old, that you know it's an enormously challenging thing to do. And if there is, should the base of the Anthropocene, that is the starting date, be placed around the mid-20th century, around the 1950. And the answer to that when we did our survey was yes, by an overwhelming vote, 29 to 4. That's about as close as you get to your unanimous decision in anything in science. So it was, we think the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. It's astoundingly so. When you started looking, the geologists were amazed when they started looking around. They could see evidence of the Anthropocene everywhere in cores in the bottom of the ocean. They could see it already starting to form an ice cores. They could see it in soils all around the planet. So the evidence is exceptionally strong that we are no longer in the Holocene, both from an Earth system science point of view, but also from a geological point of view. So let me go a little bit more into the Earth system perspective, because that fits in very well with the global theme that it's our global system we're worried about and it's our global future we're worried about. So what I want to do now is put in perspective what this increase, first of all, in global temperature looks like that's similar to the 2000 year graph I showed earlier it's a different reconstruction again, very steady temperature over 2000 years. There's the human spike at the end of this but what I want to do now is look forward in time, rather than back in time, and look at what the IPCC are projecting and what that actually means. Many of you may have seen the sixth assessment report working group one which came out last year, and they have several scenarios for possible temperature change at to 2100. And it depends on two things. It depends on how much more we humans emit, and it depends on the response of the Earth system to the amount of additional greenhouse gas we emit. So this is a huge range all the way from one degree to 5.7 degrees. Now you look at this and you look at a graph that's only one century from 2000 to 2100. It doesn't look very impressive to be honest when you look at these numbers they're pretty small. But when you put it on a geological timeframe, a Holocene Anthropocene timeframe. It's quite dramatic. So there's the graph we have there's 2000 years of Holocene stability. Here's that spike it's going up to about here now. This is the year 2000. There's 1800. So 2100 is about here. So when we put those IPCC projections on, it looks like this. This is where we're headed. And this is why a lot of our system scientists, we are really frightened about what's coming our way. We haven't seen anything like this in Earth history. So here's the one degree, and the 5.7 is up there. So that's the range that we're headed for. Well, do we have any good idea of where we actually might be going along that range? Well, if we can meet the Paris targets, that's between 1.5 which is here and well below two. So it's in here. That's a huge challenge. Most of us who work in this space don't think we're going to get there. We don't, we didn't have good enough pledges coming out of Glasgow, and countries are not living up to their pledges. What's the most likely temperature rise we think given the conditions now? Probably around three degrees. If you took all the current policy settings of countries around the world and averaged out what the emissions would be, it'll be somewhere around 2.7 to 3.1 degrees. So if you hit four or five, this is an existential challenge. We think it's probably not only possible, but probable that the human civilizations that we enjoy today would collapse under that rate and magnitude of change in the climate system. So what I want to talk about now is delving further into Earth system science is that there is a risk that our emissions are not the only thing that are going to drive temperature rise. In our aspects of the Earth system, they're often called tipping points, which could accelerate what the human pressure is already doing, and in the worst case scenario, take the system out of our control. We think at the lower Paris target of 1.5 we're pretty safe from tipping points, but the risk increases as we go forward. And if we hit three, which we're on track to now, we think there's a very high probability that we will lose control of where the Earth system is going. And that would take us to higher temperatures of maybe four degrees, or maybe even a little bit higher. So what are these tipping points look like they come in three different types. They are the big ice sheets at both poles the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets, Greenland, and the floating ice on the Arctic Ocean, and there is some ice also frozen in the soil in northern Siberia, which has a tipping point. And also our big biomes like the Amazon forest or coral reefs, or the great boreal forests of North America and Eurasia. And also they are circulation systems, like the North Atlantic thermal pay line circulation, which is so important for northern Europe. As shown here, we can estimate where the risks of these are in terms of tipping them. But most importantly, these are linked like a row of dominoes. When we start tipping one or two or three, we may get the whole row going. We think there's a moderate risk of large scale singular events or tipping points. This comes from the IPCC special report of 1.5 already at one degree and a moderate high risk as we go to 242.5 degrees or higher. Those of us who analyze this global tipping cascade, I came to the conclusion that, you know, as we transgress to and go toward three degrees that it risks really go up that will start this. We made an important comment if damaging tipping cascades can occur in a global tipping point cannot be ruled out. This really is an existential threat to our civilization. No amount of economic cost benefit analysis is going to help us pulling out all the stops to stabilize the climate is the only thing that could help us. We did a little cartoon in a 2018 paper that showed what this looks like. So here's the ice age, and here's the Holocene in a little warm period that sits in a valley in the so called stability landscape. It's a nice spot for humanity, but we have already pushed the earth system out of the Holocene, and we're now wandering away on a trajectory. This is what the Anthropocene really is toward an uncertain future. If we can really limit warming to between 1.5 and two and start restoring the biosphere, we can generate what we call a state called stabilized earth. It doesn't exist naturally in the earth system. It's one created by humans, and it's one in which we have to become stewards of the earth system and manage ourselves and the system properly. Now, unfortunately, we're on a different trajectory, one that leads toward a cliff for a waterfall. That's the tipping cascade that I talked about. And that would lead us to the four degree world that I mentioned before, that we've nicknamed hot house earth. So the point I want to make now is we are at a critical point. This decade we're just starting now I think is going to be the difference between getting on to this trajectory, or getting on to this one. By 2030 or 2035, it may be too late to turn back. We'll be headed over the cliff, no matter what. So now from an engineering approach, we can analyze what this climate emergency really looks like and why we need to act really fast. So when we look at what is our reaction time to get climate change or the earth system under control, we can see that it's commonly 2050. The countries are signed up to net zero by 2050. So that's when we're going to stabilize the climate a little bit thereafter. But then we have to look at the reaction time for some of these tipping points. When are we going to tip them Arctic sea ice. I've put zero years I think we're sitting right at the tipping point now. So the loss of that's accelerating in the northern hemisphere summertime, we could be very, very close to the time at which it's in it will inevitably go down to zero ice during the summer. West Antarctica, maybe 10 years from now under present scenarios, Amazon forest, maybe 15. And the big one the Greenland ice sheet, seven meters of sea level rise, we could activate that in 20 or 25 years to a point of no return. All of these time frames are earlier than the net zero by 2030 when you start here at the year 2000. Or actually know that when you started 2020 by 2050. So they're all within 30 years. So the point is, once you initiate three or four of those, the tipping cascade could be underway. So this is the real climate emergency. This is why the students are right we are facing an emergency 2050 is too late. We need to get to net zero by 2035 or 2040, which really is an emergency situation. And it raises the question, are we already losing control of the system. If we cannot stop these tipping points from tipping in time. To get to net zero by 2040 or 2035 or even by 2050. Look at the curve we have to bend these are observed emissions in tons of CO2 per year starting at 1850 to the present. They follow a curve that's mathematically various students exponential growth curve at 1.65% growth every year. What we've tried to do from IPCC assessments to Kyoto protocol protocol, Periscope has had no effect up till now, that's the sobering truth. Now we have to drop this curve down say there's 2040 2050 or have to drop it down to basically here in two or three decades. One of the biggest challenges that humanity is faced, but we're going to have to meet that one. Okay, I've talked a lot about the climate system. I've talked a lot about the biosphere in the last 15 minutes or so of my talk, I would actually like to talk about us humans and our systems because what happens to the climate system. What happens to the biosphere now depends less on the natural dynamics of the system and more on us, our systems and the decisions that we make. Our system looks like in 2020 a group of us publish this paper in nature to say we need to rethink actually have the earth system works. For most of the time, we thought the earth system can be consistent of a geosphere and a biosphere that interacted you can see all these boxes and lines. I don't have to go through them, and humans were a little part of the biosphere, we were embedded here. But now we've become so numerous and so powerful. We have now given ourselves a sphere of our own the anthroposphere. And so we are intricately connected with the rest of the earth system directly through our production and consumption and energy systems, but really importantly sitting behind this, our knowledge, our science, our technology, our political institutions, our governance systems, and sitting behind this is what I think is the ultimate challenge, our cultures, our values, our beliefs. So I think the future of of us humans and indeed the future of the earth system doesn't sit with scientists like myself. It doesn't sit with the natural dynamics of the earth system. It sits with a really deep analysis of who we are, what's important to us, and how we can go forward in the future. And that's something that all humans need to think about, and all humans need to contribute to the solution. So let's look a little bit more about this first thing I want to talk about our equity issues. All of humanity, humanity together in the Anthropocene, and we've been heavily criticized by social sciences, and rightly so, for missing a very big import, which is the important issue, which is the equity issue. So what I've done here is taken these original 12, or actually 10 of them, and split them into three groups of countries, always CD wealthy countries, the emerging economies Russia, China, South Africa, so on, and the poor ones, and they're color coded in darker medium and lighter shades. Here's a population from 1950. Not much rise and always CD big rise in the emerging economies and the poor countries, but look at the GDP out to 2010. Three quarters of the global GDP was commandeered by 20% of the human population enormous inequalities and you can see it right throughout these other indicators. It's a big issue here and how we deal with it, but it gets really more interesting when you split the always CD countries to Europe and Japan. So those of you sitting in Barcelona and other places around Europe and Japan would fit in this graph. And here are my colleagues in the English speaking world. What this graph is, is from about 1900, and it's showing income inequality. So if you take the top 1% of income earners in your country, and say how much of the total income of the country do they actually command. In the beginning of the 20th century was very unequal 18 to 20% and even higher in Europe and Japan, sometimes 25% 1% of the population, common during an entire quarter of the economy. But notice how to World Wars and the Great Depression, even things out in the English speaking world and in Europe. But what has happened post 1950 is really interesting. Europe and Japan have managed to keep a very high level of income equality, where the top people are only commandeering six to eight, maybe 10%. But look at the English speaking world and look at the USA. It's going to really strong income inequality in those countries. And you say, why is that important. It's important because of the social outcomes. There's some extraordinary interesting work by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson in the UK. And it's looking at social problems that affect wealthy countries, these aren't related to poverty homicides imprisonment teenage birth obesity, which is a big one now, mental illness, alcohol addiction. They affect afflict wealthy countries. Then when you look at income inequality, and the index of these social issues, you find an extraordinarily tight correlation. To be honest, I was stunned when I saw this I couldn't believe that it went right across cultures went right across language groups went right across continents, but it showed quite clearly. The English speaking countries clustered here, Portugal was the only European country up there. Not surprisingly, the best countries were Japan and the Scandinavian countries, and the other European countries were down here. So any quality leads to huge problems. Socially, they actually need to huge problems in terms of energy use as well. But notice the USA is so bad that it's the only country that's actually off the map. So they have some very big issues that they need to deal with. This gets on to a deeper issue and that's the systems view of life. The fact that we are part of this air system just as I showed you in that box and arrow diagram we are an integral part of your system. Our well being is linked to the well being of the planet. And now in the Anthropocene, the well being of the planet is linked to our well being. And so these two philosophers and so and system scientists looked at a systems view of life starting from the first life 4 billion years ago, all the way up to our present situation where humanity is dominating and looked from a systems point of view how life operates how it's evolved how it interacts with the rest of the year system. And then it looked at our present system, our present socio economic system from the mid 20th century onwards, and they came up with a pretty damning conclusion. Our world today is dominated by a global economic system with disastrous social and environmental impacts, and they called it predatory capitalism. And they noted we are the only species on earth that destroys its own habitat, threatening countless other species with extinction in the process. And they're not alone there's a growing literature in the social sciences and humanities that are really questioning, not only the nuts and bolts of our economic system, but the values that stand behind it. And more and more analysts are calling for fundamental shifts in our systems, all the way back to our core beliefs core values, and so on. There's some more practical solutions to that bring in the planetary boundaries which were mentioned in the introduction. The most innovative one I think comes from Kate Rayworth from Oxford University, who's an economist and, and she's developed a thing called donut economics, a safe and just space for humanity. It's incredibly simple and robust, but I think incredibly profound at the same time. She says what we need to do is there's a social floor foundation that we all aim for. We want to have good food, good health. We're going now for better gender, social equality jobs, resilience, income, all the things that make for a healthy, well functioning society. But what we forget worry what our economic system totally misses completely misses. And our government system to is that the earth system provide actually enforces an environmental ceiling on us. It is a finite planet. That's what we earth system scientists are now saying. That's what we're saying through the Anthropocene. We have breached this environmental ceiling and we're just we're destabilizing the entire planet. But we need to define the environmental ceiling and that's where the planetary boundaries come in. So a group of us have developed this, this framework, where we look at the earth system in terms of nine big components which together interacting can define the earth system. And then we go a little bit simpler than that we say three of them are really the big core boundaries, and they are climate change biosphere integrity or bias biosphere loss here, and what we call novel entities, which are pollutants chemical pollution and so on. Why do we say those three, because each one of those on their own could push the earth system into an entirely different state. The other ones feed into those three. But it's a very powerful and I think very robust framework that gives us some guidelines for how far we can push the earth system. And how far we can. Well, to make a long story short, we are transgressing seven out of nine boundaries, all three of the core boundaries. And the question isn't staying within our environmental ceiling the question is getting back to within our environmental ceiling, which means we need to become an economy, a society that not only stops the degradation but starts restoring the biosphere and so on. We need to completely turn around our economic system. Okay, put up seven principles, I think three of them are really important systems thinking, we need to get away from cause effect simplistic system that could simplistic systems which dominates our thinking particular economics thinking it's dynamic complexity that we need. But these two are important. Our societies need to be, we need to become much more equal by design, not by governments having to redistribute incomes. After the fact, the whole economic system should deliver equity, more equity by design. And this is the one I think is really important. We don't need we shouldn't be having to set aside special areas in national parks, we should be regenerating the whole biosphere by design, our economy should do it naturally, not exploited. If I had my way I'd get word get rid of the word resource or natural resource. It's a disaster. Our planet is not a natural resource it's a life support system. And unless we get that through our heads and get that embedded in our value system, and in our governance and economic systems we aren't going to solve this problem. And that's what Kate's doing, saying we'd have to completely revamp our economic system along the lines that she's recommending there. And that we need a different value system. And that's where philosophers come in. There's a lot of good information out there from that community. But I want to quote one here from a colleague that oftentimes works with us down here in Canberra. And he's saying our problem now is that we're a homo centric society we're centered around humans. It's all about us. How wealthy can we get. Can we go over in my case can we go over to Europe for holiday, or you know, can we like some wealthy American shoot ourselves out into space and see what the your system really looks like. Unfortunately, it hasn't sunk into them I think what they're actually doing. But he's saying contemporary society is based on a homo centric approach, but the Anthropocene now demands a zoo centric approach. It's not about us. It's about life. It should be life centric, and we should value all of life on the planet. There should not be a premium put on human life. We were part of this system. And dipash puts it really well he says look we are, we are really plagued by departmental thinking. When you look at it the whole economic system is departmental thinking. The whole governance system of the planet is departmental thinking that's what nation states are their departments. Now that we're learning how to work together but we have a long way to go. But what we need is the popular consciousness. I just want to throw in here, a really interesting idea from one of my colleagues in Portugal, named Palomar Wallace who's a legal scholar. And he thinks the whole problem boils down to this. Our view of the earth is one in which we split it up. All right, you're sitting in Spain. You've got Portugal nearby you've got France nearby. Europe is split up into countries, and we fight over that Russian Ukraine are now having a bit of a spat about what those two provinces should they be in Ukraine, Ukraine should they be independent should they be Russian. And this happens around the world. So it's the physical earth we're splitting up and now we're starting to do with the oceans, the ocean zones that are belonging to countries they can fish there and so on. The scholar says this is totally wrong. What we need to do is legalize and recognize the earth system, the intangible system, the flow of energy materials and so on that makes the light this planet habitable. That's why we can live on it. We don't even recognize it legally we exploited is something we can make money off of, rather than our whole life support system that we need to protect. The idea is simple but it's also it's also a genius you really really is saying if we don't start legally recognize our own life support system will never solve this problem. So that's what the past is saying, we need to get epochal consciousness, which completely changes how we think about governance, how we think about national borders, how we think about us as a species. So that we're not going to have a very good chance of stabilizing the planet. And if we get the, the tipping cascade going. It's pretty much game over. It would be pretty lucky to keep 1 billion people 1 billion people alive. If we go through a tipping cascade. It's an existential threat. I'm going to conclude my talk and hopefully leave some time for discussion because I think we were an extraordinarily interesting situation in Australia. We have the longest living culture on earth. Indigenous Australians came here at least 65,000 years ago, maybe earlier. The European invasion actually has now sputtered to a halt 35% of Australia now has gone back into indigenous hands they are actually controlling it and managing it. And us white fellas are actually trying to learn from the help manage the rest of it. But they have an extraordinarily different and very robust view about the role of humans on the earth. And they say one of the one of their elders from Western Australia says we're only here for a short amount of time to do what we've been put to do, which isn't to make a bucketload of money and travel around the world and so on. It's to look after country country is the Aboriginal word for the whole complex environment in which we live. They simply call it country. We're only a tool in the cycle of things notice they understood systems, even back then, we're only a tool in the cycle of things we go out into the world, and help keep the balance of nature. It's a big cycle of living with the land, and then eventually going back to it. So for the view of indigenous Australians this is what humanity ought to be doing. We need to hit that sweet spot of having very good lifestyles, lifestyles which we have healthy lives, good interaction with our fellow humans, but really importantly reconnecting with a biosphere reconnecting with the rest of life on on this planet. That's really what the Anthropocene is saying the Anthropocene is saying going back to Paul Pritz and he's saying, Well, I recall I'll just call it on a little vignette I worked a lot with Paul after he put the term out. And we were hit we had adjacent offices in when I was working in Stockholm Sweden, and he came in and he sort of threw his hands up when he saw the latest data come in and he sort of looked at me says, What are you going to do here he said we've got at that time I think it was 6 billion. We got 6 billion hyperactive monkeys running around this planet wreaking havoc. How are we going to get them under control. So that was just a sort of humorous view of where we were. It was sort of a pretty brutal view to have really who we are. So ultimately that's what we have to do. And that's why our planet, our future is so really important. We have to do a complete rethink of our future on this planet. So thank you very much for allowing me so much time. It's obviously one of my favorite topics. And what gives you some ideas that you can talk about over the next three or four days.