I've thought a lot about this episode this afternoon. I enjoyed the interplay between Rachel and Bill. Both were saying fundamentally the same, but language and its use is important and can lead to interpretive challenges. My belief is that, on top of all the other challenges of the so-called polycrisis, the crux of it all is a crisis of values and a crisis of meaning. What do we (collectively, individually) value? Where and in what do we find or derive meaning? The word "mainstream" has been and is used to define or label fairly broad groupings and is often pejorative. I think within the conversation, it was akin to status quo. And it felt like Rachel's questioning of and challenges to mainstream were related to status quo while Bill's definition of mainstream was more about who's driving the bus in terms of governance and control - the gatekeepers or, perhaps, technocracy, if you will. But - and admittedly this is very much anecdotal - when you ask folks who are either challenging the status quo or are raging against the gatekeepers and technocrats what they are willing to sacrifice in order to effect change, you generally find that they do not wish to sacrifice anything, at least anything of substance, and least of all comforts or conveniences. And therein lies the problem. We - socially, culturally - have acquiesced to governments and "the market" to show and tell us how to live our lives (and be our best selves) and they did so by driving consumption and defining the good life through comfort, convenience and material possessions. Now, faced with multiple impending disasters, of which climate change is likely the most acknowledged if not the eye of the storm, we want these same groups and organizations to fix the problem while we go about living in the same manner with no disruption. I suspect that even the people whom Rachel highlighted within her network who were making subtle (relatively speaking) changes have not confronted the reality of what will ultimately be required (and could there also be an aspect of virtue signalling incorporated within? I don't know.) At end of the day, I, myself, am still trying to sort it all out and understand it (and accept it beyond the intellectual level) and these kinds of conversations are of immense help in that regard.
Thank you for another great episode, such important work and ideas being discussed as usual. I'm commenting because I think I understand a bit about what Bill is saying about the mainstream. Living in Los Angeles the average citizen is not at all concerned about climate change, it's quite the opposite with how they live their lives, multiple natural born children, big pickup trucks, wasteful habits, meat diets, travel, etc. In addition, I think anecdotally of my own brother whom I'm not on speaking terms with because despite how much he and his spouse expound about their cares about social issues and climate change their actions show the exact opposite. From having two natural born children, to eating meat, to flying across the country multiple times a year, they aren't changing their behavior one bit to make a change. I think this is the point that Bill is making. I believe there are a lot of people out there who like your listeners are trying and willing to make the changes necessary but are unfortunately dwarfed by how many status quo mainstream people there are that will almost always choose short term comfort over long term problem solving. For me it's just so hard to see a way out of this besides a massive societal/ecological/global collapse and it breaks my heart every day.
Bill Rees certainly gave you a hard time, Rachel. I wonder if he deliberately avoided using the term entropy. His answer about the non-recyclability of energy was confusing. The Earth does not have an energy problem; we get more than enough energy from the. We have an entropy problem. I will try to explain that in a future post.
Global thinking is exactly the problem, not the solution. The global thinking that emanates from the centers of globalization (i.e. the rich nations in the global north) and the global solutions 'offered' (often imposed) by them benefit mainly the centers that devise and offer them. Crises-creation through mental constructs as a result of global thinking has in itself turned into a crisis that's muddling clear thinking everywhere.
When a problem is perceived to be everywhere all at once, there's very little one can do about it in practice, except for pontificating about it on social media and blogs. Issues related to the environment, population, climate, pollution and food production have always been local, national or regional in scope long before were mentally turned into global issues through global(ised) thinking.
What's needed is a refocusing of our attention toward real, tangible, identifiable problems in specific local environments and areas, as opposed to it being directed towards vague, difficult-to-pinpoint unspecified places more or less everywhere. It leads to apathy and inaction and endless discussions that accomplish very little if anything at all.
Imagine if Plant: Critical joined with other like minded groups and extolled the possible short and long term benefits to all existing and all future humans should we decide to cooperate globally. And just to be clear, not the level of global cooperation in use today, but the level of global cooperation that comes with the understanding that all life on Earth depends on our ability to cooperate with one another globally.
Thanks for this Rachel. Bill is a depressing listen because he doesn’t come with the usual positive message at the end. I haven’t seen many change their behaviors apart from the low hanging fruit and I think it is often only a traumatic life experience that leads to people change their behavior. It’s what happened with us anyway. Dropped everything to live a more simple life but I had a lot of privilege to do that, and it’s still far from being a sustainable life. Meanwhile the teeming masses here in the Philippines still look up to the richest as something to aim for, they subscribe to billionaire.com and love having lots of kids. I think Bill is a too dismissive of the indigenous way of thinking. Thank you for doing the good work Rachel. Looking forward to your thoughts on this interview next week. 😁
Well done Rachel for that challenging interview- I think it’s important to make the hard truths of the future that we face (he’s right after all as you two generally agree) actually PALATABLE. He’s clearly spent many years fighting for the truth to be understood and is incredible frustrated, but we need hope as well as fear, or we simply head to desperation and apathy. Which is seemingly applauded by the powers that be!
Perhaps we could bring the awareness of the Revolution that we desperately need to the general populace via the narrative that you say is so essential: That we are being shafted by a wealthy few, and the whole structure under pinning their extractivist world view is actually harming everyone
.
IF that were the general wisdom of the times we might have a chance for revolutions less bloody 😬
So your efforts at narrative are important. Once again I applaud your work, thank you for bringing this to us week on week.
One of the things I like about this podcast is Rachel's willingness to push back on the guest. In this case I think Bill Rees unintentionally came across as a bit condescending. If he'd just taken a quick look at previous guests he would've seen that a lot of this ground has been covered already, although he has his own pessimistic/realistic take on things.
A couple of points stood out to me:
1) Indigenous peoples (some or all?) throughout history have initially had detrimental effects on their local ecology, and after some sort of collapse, have had to find some way to steward the land somewhat symbiotically, or else die out. Our current civilisation is following this pattern writ large on a global scale, and will follow the same pattern. I think Bill was suggesting that it remains to be seen whether enough is left of a niche for humans to remain.
2) The mainstream doesn't get it. I don't think Bill was talking about media specifically, but about actual people or culture, and I think he's right. This got me thinking about how that could change, or how could the '3rd attractor' as theorised by Schmachtenberger and Hagens emerge. The problem as I see it, is that the subjects discussed on podcasts such as Planet Critical can seem too intellectual or complex. Saturation of news about extreme weather, extinction, together with misinformation in mainstream and social media have left people apathetic and confused. What is a simple message or idea that could be communicated, maybe by popular culture, music/art/comedy, that is so compelling that people instinctively get it?
Rachel, thank you for persevering with Dr. Rees. I was perturbed not by his ideas - most of which I agree with in essence, if not always the specific choice of words - but rather by his lack of research about you and the Planet Critical community (which you appropriately said to him at one point). He "lectured" us in a way that had me fast forwarding through his vast sermons to find the next time you were able to get a word in to challenge or redirect him. As a woman, I find his style cumbersome and rather patronizing. I respect the man, his knowledge, his ideas, and the truth he is trying to put forth in the world (a truth we *do* need to hear and internalize). And, I think you, Rachel, deserve a medal for the way you handled the interview. Again, thank you.
This was a difficult listen as Rachel seemingly struggled to understand that “we” in the purpose of this conversation referred to “humanity” and what her friends and even the Welsh government are doing is pitiful against the collective “we” who are effectively doing nothing meaningful to stop climate change. I felt she was disrespectful to her guest, rude, and even pig headed on minuscule points. The idea that we need positive messages on climate change is just nonsense. We’re adults - we need to the truth from the best minds and experts on the topic, not feel good talking points. I personally have invested $30,000 in planting thousands of trees and restoring wetlands, stopped flying, etc but it’s pointless against the collective “we” who do almost nothing. My efforts, and Rachel’s friends efforts etc, are nothing against governments and industry who are basically turning a blind eye to what the climate experts are telling us. If Rachel is going to continue to be combative with these experts she’s only undermining the value of what’s she’s achieving as a host.
I agree with what others pointed about Bill Rees. He's likely right in his assessment and makes very plausible predictions but his tone can come off as lacking empathy, and his talks often leave me feeling a lot of despair. I wonder if his age plays into it. Meanwhile, I'm 30 years old, and I have to brace myself for the future ahead, meanwhile he will likely pass before the worst of his predictions come to pass. So I find myself automatically feeling defensive of his message, especially when he is dead set on saying there's nothing to be done but suffer towards extinction.
I also sometimes wonder if his perspective lacks a femminist lense, despite the bio-ecological limits of the biosphere, some things in life (like starting a family) are still deeply meaningful to us humans who are wired to form attachment. And there is perhaps more to existence than fading into the background of one's own life to fully minimize one's impact.
And two final points, as a psychologist I'm highly critical of the sweeping generalization that Rees' makes about human nature and our incapacity to change. So many human traits and tendencies are moderated by circumstantial variables. When suffering keeps increasing throughout the next century, I wouldn't be suprise to see deep, cultural change occur very quickly. Even someone like Vaclav Smill repeatedly says that the future is not set in stone, he often mentions his great suprise at how quickly the USSR fell (within 48 hours) and how much of the 21st century will be determined by demographic trends (e.g., a planet of 10 billion humans vs 4 billion by 2100 would be two fundamentally different stories).
TLDR (my opinions); Rees' accurate science lacks compassion in it's delivery. The kind of pessimism he espouses leaves one in despair. There's hopefully more to life than trying to achieve total asceticism. human culture is indeed very malleable and the human niche is very flexible (up to some bio-physical limit of course, but I personally believe it's not too late).
Very curious to see your email exchange Rachel! Keep up the great work!
Rachel you handled the situation of a model builder who has tried to explain the problem but faces “ do you understand?” as his limit.
Understanding doesn’t impact our knowing how to rank a strategy for creating the social change. Maybe he is resigned to the collapse because we refuse to change given the facts.
System design and deployment strategy seems the smartest level but education cannot bring itself to make that the curriculum, for the students that wish the change maker responsible. This is a status problem.The market will not produce solutions that evolve and change the marketplace design itself because that is imposed limits to its “ vision or ideology , dominant narrative “. Where can solutions be deployed? Who can build them ? Who funds this ? What ideological agendas Will describe successful design?
This is the level of inquiry I’m left with after Bill describes the real problems. Not a solution, or set of solutions but a sharp questioning of designing solutions and the design of that strategy and the structures for that.
Very frustrating for you Rachel to get brilliant real contributors like Bill to address different level’s clearly & consciously. Kudos to you both for spiciness - the real problem seems like level confusion and discussion orientations.
Real Gratitude for your work.
It has deeply assisted in my progress in level definition not just problem description.
Overshooting Earth's Boundaries | Bill Rees
I've thought a lot about this episode this afternoon. I enjoyed the interplay between Rachel and Bill. Both were saying fundamentally the same, but language and its use is important and can lead to interpretive challenges. My belief is that, on top of all the other challenges of the so-called polycrisis, the crux of it all is a crisis of values and a crisis of meaning. What do we (collectively, individually) value? Where and in what do we find or derive meaning? The word "mainstream" has been and is used to define or label fairly broad groupings and is often pejorative. I think within the conversation, it was akin to status quo. And it felt like Rachel's questioning of and challenges to mainstream were related to status quo while Bill's definition of mainstream was more about who's driving the bus in terms of governance and control - the gatekeepers or, perhaps, technocracy, if you will. But - and admittedly this is very much anecdotal - when you ask folks who are either challenging the status quo or are raging against the gatekeepers and technocrats what they are willing to sacrifice in order to effect change, you generally find that they do not wish to sacrifice anything, at least anything of substance, and least of all comforts or conveniences. And therein lies the problem. We - socially, culturally - have acquiesced to governments and "the market" to show and tell us how to live our lives (and be our best selves) and they did so by driving consumption and defining the good life through comfort, convenience and material possessions. Now, faced with multiple impending disasters, of which climate change is likely the most acknowledged if not the eye of the storm, we want these same groups and organizations to fix the problem while we go about living in the same manner with no disruption. I suspect that even the people whom Rachel highlighted within her network who were making subtle (relatively speaking) changes have not confronted the reality of what will ultimately be required (and could there also be an aspect of virtue signalling incorporated within? I don't know.) At end of the day, I, myself, am still trying to sort it all out and understand it (and accept it beyond the intellectual level) and these kinds of conversations are of immense help in that regard.
On a related not - and not to draw attention away from Planet Critical - there is also some great conversation with Bill Rees and others on the Great Simplification substack which I recommend - https://natehagens.substack.com/p/deeper-ecology-reality-roundtable
Thank you for another great episode, such important work and ideas being discussed as usual. I'm commenting because I think I understand a bit about what Bill is saying about the mainstream. Living in Los Angeles the average citizen is not at all concerned about climate change, it's quite the opposite with how they live their lives, multiple natural born children, big pickup trucks, wasteful habits, meat diets, travel, etc. In addition, I think anecdotally of my own brother whom I'm not on speaking terms with because despite how much he and his spouse expound about their cares about social issues and climate change their actions show the exact opposite. From having two natural born children, to eating meat, to flying across the country multiple times a year, they aren't changing their behavior one bit to make a change. I think this is the point that Bill is making. I believe there are a lot of people out there who like your listeners are trying and willing to make the changes necessary but are unfortunately dwarfed by how many status quo mainstream people there are that will almost always choose short term comfort over long term problem solving. For me it's just so hard to see a way out of this besides a massive societal/ecological/global collapse and it breaks my heart every day.
Bill Rees certainly gave you a hard time, Rachel. I wonder if he deliberately avoided using the term entropy. His answer about the non-recyclability of energy was confusing. The Earth does not have an energy problem; we get more than enough energy from the. We have an entropy problem. I will try to explain that in a future post.
Global thinking is exactly the problem, not the solution. The global thinking that emanates from the centers of globalization (i.e. the rich nations in the global north) and the global solutions 'offered' (often imposed) by them benefit mainly the centers that devise and offer them. Crises-creation through mental constructs as a result of global thinking has in itself turned into a crisis that's muddling clear thinking everywhere.
When a problem is perceived to be everywhere all at once, there's very little one can do about it in practice, except for pontificating about it on social media and blogs. Issues related to the environment, population, climate, pollution and food production have always been local, national or regional in scope long before were mentally turned into global issues through global(ised) thinking.
What's needed is a refocusing of our attention toward real, tangible, identifiable problems in specific local environments and areas, as opposed to it being directed towards vague, difficult-to-pinpoint unspecified places more or less everywhere. It leads to apathy and inaction and endless discussions that accomplish very little if anything at all.
Imagine if Plant: Critical joined with other like minded groups and extolled the possible short and long term benefits to all existing and all future humans should we decide to cooperate globally. And just to be clear, not the level of global cooperation in use today, but the level of global cooperation that comes with the understanding that all life on Earth depends on our ability to cooperate with one another globally.
“despite the best evidence you can possibly come up with in terms of climate activity and so on and so forth, the mainstream has not budged”
Why do we keep trying to budge the mainstream?
We need social innovation to meet the changing challenges of our changing times in the 21st Century.
Not more of the status quo.
Thanks for this Rachel. Bill is a depressing listen because he doesn’t come with the usual positive message at the end. I haven’t seen many change their behaviors apart from the low hanging fruit and I think it is often only a traumatic life experience that leads to people change their behavior. It’s what happened with us anyway. Dropped everything to live a more simple life but I had a lot of privilege to do that, and it’s still far from being a sustainable life. Meanwhile the teeming masses here in the Philippines still look up to the richest as something to aim for, they subscribe to billionaire.com and love having lots of kids. I think Bill is a too dismissive of the indigenous way of thinking. Thank you for doing the good work Rachel. Looking forward to your thoughts on this interview next week. 😁
Well done Rachel for that challenging interview- I think it’s important to make the hard truths of the future that we face (he’s right after all as you two generally agree) actually PALATABLE. He’s clearly spent many years fighting for the truth to be understood and is incredible frustrated, but we need hope as well as fear, or we simply head to desperation and apathy. Which is seemingly applauded by the powers that be!
Perhaps we could bring the awareness of the Revolution that we desperately need to the general populace via the narrative that you say is so essential: That we are being shafted by a wealthy few, and the whole structure under pinning their extractivist world view is actually harming everyone
.
IF that were the general wisdom of the times we might have a chance for revolutions less bloody 😬
So your efforts at narrative are important. Once again I applaud your work, thank you for bringing this to us week on week.
One of the things I like about this podcast is Rachel's willingness to push back on the guest. In this case I think Bill Rees unintentionally came across as a bit condescending. If he'd just taken a quick look at previous guests he would've seen that a lot of this ground has been covered already, although he has his own pessimistic/realistic take on things.
A couple of points stood out to me:
1) Indigenous peoples (some or all?) throughout history have initially had detrimental effects on their local ecology, and after some sort of collapse, have had to find some way to steward the land somewhat symbiotically, or else die out. Our current civilisation is following this pattern writ large on a global scale, and will follow the same pattern. I think Bill was suggesting that it remains to be seen whether enough is left of a niche for humans to remain.
2) The mainstream doesn't get it. I don't think Bill was talking about media specifically, but about actual people or culture, and I think he's right. This got me thinking about how that could change, or how could the '3rd attractor' as theorised by Schmachtenberger and Hagens emerge. The problem as I see it, is that the subjects discussed on podcasts such as Planet Critical can seem too intellectual or complex. Saturation of news about extreme weather, extinction, together with misinformation in mainstream and social media have left people apathetic and confused. What is a simple message or idea that could be communicated, maybe by popular culture, music/art/comedy, that is so compelling that people instinctively get it?
Rachel, thank you for persevering with Dr. Rees. I was perturbed not by his ideas - most of which I agree with in essence, if not always the specific choice of words - but rather by his lack of research about you and the Planet Critical community (which you appropriately said to him at one point). He "lectured" us in a way that had me fast forwarding through his vast sermons to find the next time you were able to get a word in to challenge or redirect him. As a woman, I find his style cumbersome and rather patronizing. I respect the man, his knowledge, his ideas, and the truth he is trying to put forth in the world (a truth we *do* need to hear and internalize). And, I think you, Rachel, deserve a medal for the way you handled the interview. Again, thank you.
This was a difficult listen as Rachel seemingly struggled to understand that “we” in the purpose of this conversation referred to “humanity” and what her friends and even the Welsh government are doing is pitiful against the collective “we” who are effectively doing nothing meaningful to stop climate change. I felt she was disrespectful to her guest, rude, and even pig headed on minuscule points. The idea that we need positive messages on climate change is just nonsense. We’re adults - we need to the truth from the best minds and experts on the topic, not feel good talking points. I personally have invested $30,000 in planting thousands of trees and restoring wetlands, stopped flying, etc but it’s pointless against the collective “we” who do almost nothing. My efforts, and Rachel’s friends efforts etc, are nothing against governments and industry who are basically turning a blind eye to what the climate experts are telling us. If Rachel is going to continue to be combative with these experts she’s only undermining the value of what’s she’s achieving as a host.
I agree with what others pointed about Bill Rees. He's likely right in his assessment and makes very plausible predictions but his tone can come off as lacking empathy, and his talks often leave me feeling a lot of despair. I wonder if his age plays into it. Meanwhile, I'm 30 years old, and I have to brace myself for the future ahead, meanwhile he will likely pass before the worst of his predictions come to pass. So I find myself automatically feeling defensive of his message, especially when he is dead set on saying there's nothing to be done but suffer towards extinction.
I also sometimes wonder if his perspective lacks a femminist lense, despite the bio-ecological limits of the biosphere, some things in life (like starting a family) are still deeply meaningful to us humans who are wired to form attachment. And there is perhaps more to existence than fading into the background of one's own life to fully minimize one's impact.
And two final points, as a psychologist I'm highly critical of the sweeping generalization that Rees' makes about human nature and our incapacity to change. So many human traits and tendencies are moderated by circumstantial variables. When suffering keeps increasing throughout the next century, I wouldn't be suprise to see deep, cultural change occur very quickly. Even someone like Vaclav Smill repeatedly says that the future is not set in stone, he often mentions his great suprise at how quickly the USSR fell (within 48 hours) and how much of the 21st century will be determined by demographic trends (e.g., a planet of 10 billion humans vs 4 billion by 2100 would be two fundamentally different stories).
TLDR (my opinions); Rees' accurate science lacks compassion in it's delivery. The kind of pessimism he espouses leaves one in despair. There's hopefully more to life than trying to achieve total asceticism. human culture is indeed very malleable and the human niche is very flexible (up to some bio-physical limit of course, but I personally believe it's not too late).
Very curious to see your email exchange Rachel! Keep up the great work!
Rachel you handled the situation of a model builder who has tried to explain the problem but faces “ do you understand?” as his limit.
Understanding doesn’t impact our knowing how to rank a strategy for creating the social change. Maybe he is resigned to the collapse because we refuse to change given the facts.
System design and deployment strategy seems the smartest level but education cannot bring itself to make that the curriculum, for the students that wish the change maker responsible. This is a status problem.The market will not produce solutions that evolve and change the marketplace design itself because that is imposed limits to its “ vision or ideology , dominant narrative “. Where can solutions be deployed? Who can build them ? Who funds this ? What ideological agendas Will describe successful design?
This is the level of inquiry I’m left with after Bill describes the real problems. Not a solution, or set of solutions but a sharp questioning of designing solutions and the design of that strategy and the structures for that.
Very frustrating for you Rachel to get brilliant real contributors like Bill to address different level’s clearly & consciously. Kudos to you both for spiciness - the real problem seems like level confusion and discussion orientations.
Real Gratitude for your work.
It has deeply assisted in my progress in level definition not just problem description.