8 Comments

Quickly, because I did study Austrian Economics (free market economy idea) in the early eighties, in simple terms, the concept of money and debt was the cause of over consumption of the biota (not in their words, but that fits my understanding). These early books (back then little or no fossil fuels to prop up the economy) on this subject these authors were very concerned about the boom then collapse of economies, and they did understand the concept of the biota.

Of course, they believe Gold to be the most stable form of money mainly because if its scarcity, that scarcity kept the economic value at a low level.

Today, we do not have a free market economy. We have monopoly money debt system and free market capitalism which abhors the free market economy. The elite controllers are fascists, their primary directive is the higher level of destruction, the more of the surplus they can siphon off, the higher the profits. Lots of people now are depending on these monetary flows, you know...

Anyway, takes a bit to get used to the accent, this person is on point in my view.

Expand full comment

I completely agree with you, Rick. It would be very interesting to know the early critiques of neoliberalism to see how preliminary warnings agains Hayek's model are now coming to a head.

Expand full comment

Fascinating interview with incredible scientist. I’ll be planting more trees this winter!

Expand full comment

She is utterly amazing—keep an eye on her work!

Expand full comment

Clever and so enlightening.

Very good science!

Expand full comment

Thanks for listening, Peter! Glad you enjoyed it.

Expand full comment

I wish we had a transcript of this interview. Between 1985-1991, I wrote 6 teaching packs on the biggest crisis facing us - the loss of natural systems, in particular the forests. Now getting rid of fossil fuels is the main act in town and no one seems to understand the vital role of forests for the human world and no one wants to tackle the evil people that are lying and cheating and logging their way to get rich. At least the drivers of fossil fuels can be seen and named and be subject to some regulation - not so the loggers. And why hasn't this vital understanding of our ecosystems been at the forefront of our curriculum? I've argued and argued for the twin need to have education for ecological understanding and develop a sense of awe and wonder for the natural world. I'm 72 now and started on this journey in 1979. I'm losing hope that anything will be achieved when the very best of the environment and development movement is so focused on fossil fuels and a just transition. There is no social justice for anyone when the custodians of our forests across the world are marginalised, murdered, cleared so their precious forests can be felled. How can we move away from exploitation of nature to satisfy the drive to consume? Or to get rich? Thank you for this wonderful episode of your brilliant podcast Rachel.

Expand full comment

Hi Susan,

Thank you for your marvellous comment. I will think about back-releasing the old transcripts when (if) I have time in the future!

In which context did you make your course? It sounds utterly fascinating! I obviously completely agree with you about the role of forests and the worrying obsession with fossil fuels. Have you read Sarawak Report? Much of the work we do there is to highlight these very dangers. Certainly, indigenous peoples in SE Asia and the Pacific know exactly how dangerous these loggers are, and continue to warn against them—in vain. These criminals are also adept at hiding money offshore.

I don't know how we change the world, but I believe there is a great impetus to—and, if nothing else, we will be forced to before the decade is out, for better or for worse.

Thank you, Susan.

Expand full comment