Recorded July 23 2024
Description
In this week’s Frankly, Nate addresses the common desire for solutions to the human predicament – and why the championing of “solutions” is less clear-cut than we might perceive.
Effective responses greatly depend on the context of an individual – by highlighting specific ‘solutions’ we narrow the scope of the conversation and exclude creative and empowered humans with different interests and skills.
Additionally, much like nature, the human socio-economic system is adaptive, and rapidly self-adjusts to new information and threats, making novel strategies difficult to implement and disperse at larger scales. As such, simplistic answers that can be publicly shared with millions are probably not going to work. If we zoom out, we see that responses with the potential to shift our systems in a better direction are only possible through emergent processes.
How can we expect to steer towards more humane futures by approaching The Great Simplification with the same ‘quick-fix’ mindset enabled during the Carbon Pulse? What is the role of critical leadership and governance that will be needed in coming decades but is perceived as too radical today? How can we, as both individuals and communities, think about our distinct place within the larger world and how that might shape our unique responses?
Show Notes
00:29 – The Reality Party Frankly
01:38 – What is the Human Predicament
03:58 – Infrastructure, Social Structure, Superstructure (Marvin Harris)
09:17 – Ed Conway, TGS Episode
11:09 – Regenerative systems
11:34 – Advance Policy
12:47 – Adaptive systems
13:29 – Buckminster Fuller, military contract work with ICBM arctic domes
14:11 – Adaptive response during 9/11 in the United States
15:07 – Net Zero
16:28 – Laws requiring land use projects that destroy a wetland to protect/restore a wetland somewhere else
17:23 – DJ White, TGS Episode, Taiwanese Drive-Kill
18:33 – Term Limits, Age-limits, addressing money corruption in politics
Comments
I got a flash when Nate was talking toard the end about his vague hope that helping some people understand our actual predicament better could lead somehow to their collectively moving toward better responses. I was thinking, But Nate's audience is the people who already have better understanding, and a more honest take, on current reality…so how do we influence the whole? And an image came into my mind, of the front segment moving in a direction, pulling the next segment behind it–that's us talking to everyone we know, making comments online, making changes in our own lives, and influencing those we know to begin moving in the same direction albeit behind the leaders. Nate's guests keep telling him he's doing the right thing with his podcast, and I agree. His guests are mostly outliers, people with a great deal of expertise and knowledge in various relevant fields (sometimes hard-to-define fields), so they're the means of getting the front segment moving.