I am having a hard time finishing this podcast since I disagree with this gentleman on so many levels, including the Great Barrier Reef, limits to growth, capitalism, and the myth of the green transition.
Hi Tina, yes, the reef data seemed out of date to me, but I'll need to go fact check it (currently on a plane to Perth so can't for the moment). Perhaps ask Michael here to back an argument you object to?
Will do. Michael, I was curious about your comment regarding colonialism. It sounded like you were saying that colonialism is a shining example of collaboration. Is that correct? I didn't hear any mention of the genocide of native peoples that resulted from colonialism. I am specifically thinking of the trail of tears displacement and genocide that occurred in the U.S. southeast across to what is now Oklahoma.
On colonialism, it's an example of cooperation, but we can cooperate toward good and evil. Our greatest achievements and worst atrocities are both collective acts. If you'll forgive a plug for my book, it's discussed at length in Chapter 6 on the science of cooperation: https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everyone-Science-Where-Going/dp/026204837X/
Thank you for responding to my questions, Michael. I really appreciate it!
Unfortunately, we will not fix our way out of the polycrisis through economic growth, even if humans collaborate better in times of abundance.
1. Economic "growth" is leading to the destruction of our planet. The burning of fossil fuels is directly linked to GDP growth. See Nate Hagens https://youtu.be/-xr9rIQxwj4?si=MXadMELHVpzFM1bx.
2. The burning of fossil fuels is directly correlated to global heating. There are too many sources to site here.
3. Global heating is causing drought, fire, the collapse of food sources, political instability, authoritarianism, and inequality, among many other issues (each of these issues is very complex, but all are ultimately caused or exacerbated by extreme and accelerating global heating).
4. We are in ecological overshoot. We have overshot the earth's carrying capacity to sustain life and absorb our waste. No amount of economic growth or technology innovation will solve this problem, in fact they are making the problem much much worse by the day. Unfortunately. This is a hard fact to come to terms with. We are in a predicament, not a problem.
5. As Sarah Wilson points out adeptly, what is left when we lose it all? Love, community, human connections, more than human connections. Being in service of life at all levels is holy work in these times (Michael Dowd). We simply must find ways to collaborate, even when we are not in times of abundance.
Thank you again for your time and dialogue and thank you for grappling with these complex issues.
Hi Tina, growth is beginning to decouple from fossil fuels, which of course have all of the harms you list and more. Hannah Ritchie is a wonderful source to follow for a data driven realistic view of what's possible: https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/sustainable-generation
I recommend her last couple of books as well.
Unfortunately without economic growth and access to (clean) energy, we won't have the resources to tackle the climate challenges we've created for ourselves.
Same. At the 10 minute mark I've realised this person has a very modern, western, colonial understanding of deep history and human development. The AI influence is also very obvious already.
Not sure if I'm going to regret listening on, but I will...for the challenge.
Yeah, I think it's actually important to stay in discussions sometimes to help hone your own views and moral outlooks. I think it could be fruitful to pose a question or challenge to one or some of Michael's points. I've asked him to chime in here in the comments. I'll be interested to see some good faith to and fro!
This conversation felt resonant with two things I'm exploring personally:
1) We are stuck in systems and ways of thinking that prioritize products, outcomes, and linear pathways to predetermined solutions. But that is not the best way to get ourselves out if the poly-crisis we currently find ourselves in. Emergent is one term to express the alternative, but from my point of view as a dancer, it is the creative process. What I heard Michael saying (using my own native language here) is that we need to ignite the creative potential of as many people as possible (flower metaphor) on a variety of levels. Inherited norms do keep us stuck so we need to find some way to break those up, make them less cyclical. A flurry of activity involving individuals contributing a bunch of ideas that are true to their experience (a potential positive of sycophantic AI?) would certainly create short-term chaos, but the kind of chaos that is native to the creative process. The messy part where experimentation occurs and the bad ideas are gradually sifted out as the good ideas emerge into the eventual presentation.
2) Resistance. Both in Sarah's intro to the conversation as well as in the comments. Resistance in this case feels like how the ideas land within us - perhaps a little itchy or squeezing in uncomfortable ways. I'll offer key takeaways from a Substack article I published on how resistance shows up in the body as a process-based methodology for sorting through any resistance that came up.
Embodied Resistance Key Takeaways:
- resistance can be stabilizing, giving you a foundation or focus to build off of
- no resistance leaves you without sensory feedback to guide you and make whatever you’re doing feel more intentional or meaningful
- too much resistance shuts you down and uses all your energy
- mild resistance acts as a gentle guide, whereas more intense resistance requires you to focus only on exerting enough force to counteract it
- static resistance exhausts you and limits your innovation, whereas resistance that can move around invites you to follow your curiosity towards new opportunities
- external resistance is more satisfying because there is an interaction with something else, whereas internal resistance feels manufactured and keeps you stuck in your own patterns
Sarah, et al. I thought this was an excellent conversation. I appreciated Michael Muthukrisha’s explanations and (seeming) acceptance of human behavior. And I think, having followed Sarah for many years, that that was difficult to hear for many. I know it was for me.
I firmly believe, as many of the people here likely do, I suspect, that the vast majority of our species are better at heart than the destruction that ‘progress’ has so far wrought. But as Michael points out with his example of the only way that managing progress works is if the whole world is on board; the reason for the non-alignment of ‘mostly good people’ and our ‘progress mess’,… is that our species is also flawed.
In overly simplified terms: we have a small percentage of people who have no problem exploiting any resource for their gain,… and know how to convince/ manipulate others that it is a good thing (did someone say capitalism?). EVERY person has their flaws and frailties (of course; and in different ways and to more or lesser degrees); and unfortunately, good critical thinking skills and healthy skepticism are not as abundant as we would like (see Carl Sagan’s ‘The Demon-Haunted World’ for essentially 450 pages of him begging that this wasn’t so).
Which is why, when we really get to the root cause, we are saddened and disappointed with our species.
We also have to have compassion for humanity. Which, of course, requires humility...and a reckoning with, as you way, our limitedness. We just aren't as great as we think we are! What relief!
This is really interesting and there's an awful lot to process. I think I understand, and can see the sense in, some of what Michael's arguing. I am glad you decided to air this interview Sarah. I think it's very important for us to be looking at different models and it’s likely to be a mix that has the best chance of success. I don’t see that accepting (or having to accept!) a limit to materialistic growth and living within our means needs to exclude growth in some areas.
I may have misunderstood Michael but I thought he seemed a bit black and white /naive about some of hisnpoints. For example US succes vs other nations such as Europe. Colonialism and empire building and rogue capitalism has been and is still a big part of US dominance (and of course in many countries as well) and despite their wealth the inequalities in US society are really significant.
I'm a bit of a stick in the mud re nuclear power but admittedly don't know enough about it. I associate it with right wing politicians and self serving companies. (hello capitalism!)
Land tax as a strategy to limit inequality is interesting. We've certainly done the opposite here in Australia with negative gearing and it's caused more problems than it has solved.
Nuclear is correctly associated with right-wing govts because they tend to use it as a distraction in green discussions. it's a way of kicking the can down the road (because it takes decades to feasibly get it off the ground)).
And it’s something big tech and those bros have to be invested in if their data centres are going to run efficiently. I’ve met tech investors - who have invested millions in AI and were once anti nuclear who are now pro nuclear simply because they now fear their tech investments plunging if the AI can’t run.
Awesome conversation and debate. We were taken on a journey and at times I disagreed and agreed with both points of view. This is what collapse is, isn’t it? Every idea and ideology is in the mix as the new world order is being birthed.
Our human brain has evolved to prepare for the next season and we are all grappling with what…that… is… and prepare for the next season. Our only reference is based upon what happened post (insert reference here) over 100 or 200 years ago.
These ongoing open and transparent conversations will help guides those of us who don’t have access to all the information from the powerful players. By disseminating.and discussing it openly, we get to make decisions about what we can advocate for. A few will have the power and influence to make the next move and the rest of us have the numbers to either accept or reject it by protesting.
I have been musing about this subject for a while now
The themes of renovation, renewal, reuse, and shared resources has been buzzing in my brain
We have the tech to make things easy to share and organise ourselves
Ride sharing, home sharing, skill sharing, care sharing, tool sharing, food sharing, building materials sharing within a co-operative business structure , owned by the users and for the users. Not by fuckwits looking for a pay day to buy a yacht , a rocket and a wife
And restrict Ai to only community owned entities and build it for specific uses (not for making Ai slop and girlfriends). Medicine, physics, social connections and resource sharing, education, manufacturing and environmental monitoring and protection.
I consider this a good and valuable session for me to listen to because it challenges some of my assumptions. I need to listen to it again to run Michael's thoughts through my head a second time. Am I perhaps blindly accepting all of my thoughts on collapse when there might be alternatives? I don't know. I certainly appreciate his enthusiasm and his urge for action, but I can't yet fully accept all of his ideas. However, there seems to be a significant amount of common ground.
I'm glad you aired this episode, Sarah. I get his point about cooperation only being possible when there is abundance. I think he understands human behaviour. A simple example - we are planning to reduce our dependence on the food supply chain by growing more vegetables. We live on acreage to it's more than possible. But in a scenario of a global or even local food shortage (which may be coming due to lack of fertilizer), then if our neighbours haven't done the same or we don't share with them, then they will just come and help themselves. So it's in our interest to encourage them to grow their own and maybe help them to do it. Cooperation has to be driven by self-interest
I agree...it's a scenario many discussions in this realm land at - working with the existing paradigm and behaviours v reaching toward something better...pragmatics v utopian ideas
Interesting conversation across ‘challenging’ areas . I am with you Sarah against the mantra of constant growth. Whatever the Tech bros think the benefits are and how much they think AI will save us 🙃
As you are talking about energy I think this article is mind blowing about a huge game change that is underway.
I am very interested in your thoughts , when you get a chance to read it, long but worth it …for helping making sense but opening up a huge WTF happens next ?
I think we all need to do the “humble-work” in the sense of thinking small and personal in our solutions. The first unit of measurement in the post-collapse is the agriculturally productive town or community. A lot of people are still thinking with this kind of fossil-fueled power projection approach to activism that is hyper focused on big systems and big solutions, but this still feeds into a positive feedback loop for decadent dissonance. The first step in dealing with collapse is acting like no one is coming to save you or your community, while still working within existing power frameworks (don’t drop out). Call on God but row away from the rocks. Call on the higher political systems of power and organization, but don’t neglect your own city’s gardens! Because without having the basic means to life secured, your community is at the mercy of the fascists who run the global economy and depend on our dependence!
A great example is here in Kharkiv, Ukraine, where I’ve taught English for 3 years.
When the Russians invaded, no one here had any idea what was happening. No one expected it. No one was ready. But people literally held out, under siege for over a year, maintained city services, and distributed food and water. The government in Kyiv had no way to help them. And actually it’s still the same. Most of the cities of Ukraine now have to provide for their own infrastructure in the face of daily Russian air attacks. And yet, when something is damaged, people here fix it in under 48 hours. Again, that’s not the government, it’s the people. No one gives them orders. They figure it out in real time, and make innovations other countries with more means dream of.
Because Ukrainians have already experienced collapse at the fall of the Soviet Union. So they know what happens when the system fails. If the government one day collapsed, everyone here would just continue working their jobs. No one tells them to. No one threatens force. They do it because they know it’s necessary to maintain the world they want to live in!
Like many others, I found this podcast both challenging but also inspiring in almost equal measure. I don’t know Michael’s work but the ‘vibe’ reminds me of many of the utopians I have interacted with who in that very American way of pitching their solutions representing human ascension as the solution. But there was a compelling mix of liberty and humility too which is often hard to find. Michael does address the moral imposition I find troubling at times too.
Great conversation and it deals with the human weakness for hoarding head on. So appreciate conversation around this fact of our glitchy nature. Conversations starting there of most interest to me. Thankyou.
I find it interesting that Michael mentioned constraining kings, as was done with the Magna Carta. We can’t increase equality without constraining the tech bro oligarchs. We can’t enforce rules without constraining the tech bros who are enabling autocrats to undermine democracy (for example Trump). Michael talks about enforcing the law. Trump is attempting to rewrite laws to suit himself. To enforce the law you have to constrain the tech bros, because they are the ones funding Trump (and other autocrats around the world) to undermine laws so that they can do what they want. My question is: How do we constrain the tech bros & Trumps of the world? I don’t agree with Michael that we need to grow nuclear. Nuclear needs heaps of water to prevent going into meltdown. Without diesel, how do you mine the uranium you need?
Yes I too found this conversation very enlightening. It has stimulated my thoughts from feeling stuck in a sort of emotional grief to wanting to dive into a bunch of research. Thanks Sarah and Michael I needed some inspiration to dive deeper and I have sent it off to all my old work buddies in the Community Development field and am looking forward to discussing some of the concepts and ideas talked about, as opposed to our usual stagnant, slightly depressed, the world is f&$ked conversations.
I am having a hard time finishing this podcast since I disagree with this gentleman on so many levels, including the Great Barrier Reef, limits to growth, capitalism, and the myth of the green transition.
Hi Tina, yes, the reef data seemed out of date to me, but I'll need to go fact check it (currently on a plane to Perth so can't for the moment). Perhaps ask Michael here to back an argument you object to?
Will do. Michael, I was curious about your comment regarding colonialism. It sounded like you were saying that colonialism is a shining example of collaboration. Is that correct? I didn't hear any mention of the genocide of native peoples that resulted from colonialism. I am specifically thinking of the trail of tears displacement and genocide that occurred in the U.S. southeast across to what is now Oklahoma.
Hey Tina, on the reef, the point was about only being able to invest in it when there is sufficient economic growth. This is a balanced outlook: https://www.whoi.edu/ocean-learning-hub/ocean-facts/is-the-great-barrier-reef-making-a-comeback/
On colonialism, it's an example of cooperation, but we can cooperate toward good and evil. Our greatest achievements and worst atrocities are both collective acts. If you'll forgive a plug for my book, it's discussed at length in Chapter 6 on the science of cooperation: https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everyone-Science-Where-Going/dp/026204837X/
Thank you for responding to my questions, Michael. I really appreciate it!
Unfortunately, we will not fix our way out of the polycrisis through economic growth, even if humans collaborate better in times of abundance.
1. Economic "growth" is leading to the destruction of our planet. The burning of fossil fuels is directly linked to GDP growth. See Nate Hagens https://youtu.be/-xr9rIQxwj4?si=MXadMELHVpzFM1bx.
2. The burning of fossil fuels is directly correlated to global heating. There are too many sources to site here.
3. Global heating is causing drought, fire, the collapse of food sources, political instability, authoritarianism, and inequality, among many other issues (each of these issues is very complex, but all are ultimately caused or exacerbated by extreme and accelerating global heating).
4. We are in ecological overshoot. We have overshot the earth's carrying capacity to sustain life and absorb our waste. No amount of economic growth or technology innovation will solve this problem, in fact they are making the problem much much worse by the day. Unfortunately. This is a hard fact to come to terms with. We are in a predicament, not a problem.
5. As Sarah Wilson points out adeptly, what is left when we lose it all? Love, community, human connections, more than human connections. Being in service of life at all levels is holy work in these times (Michael Dowd). We simply must find ways to collaborate, even when we are not in times of abundance.
Thank you again for your time and dialogue and thank you for grappling with these complex issues.
Tina
Hi Tina, growth is beginning to decouple from fossil fuels, which of course have all of the harms you list and more. Hannah Ritchie is a wonderful source to follow for a data driven realistic view of what's possible: https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/sustainable-generation
I recommend her last couple of books as well.
Unfortunately without economic growth and access to (clean) energy, we won't have the resources to tackle the climate challenges we've created for ourselves.
Thank you, Michael! Thank you for writing back and for the article suggestion. You are one of the good ones. Thank you
Same. At the 10 minute mark I've realised this person has a very modern, western, colonial understanding of deep history and human development. The AI influence is also very obvious already.
Not sure if I'm going to regret listening on, but I will...for the challenge.
Yeah, I think it's actually important to stay in discussions sometimes to help hone your own views and moral outlooks. I think it could be fruitful to pose a question or challenge to one or some of Michael's points. I've asked him to chime in here in the comments. I'll be interested to see some good faith to and fro!
I completely agree that we need to stay in dialogue even when we disagree. I will finish the podcast. You are amazing and very patient!
Ok, I finished it. Bless you Sarah for your perseverance, you have the patience of a saint! And I can see why you were hesitant to post it at all.
I don't actually have the bandwidth to engage with Michael, I don't believe there would be much fruit there. I wish him well.
This conversation felt resonant with two things I'm exploring personally:
1) We are stuck in systems and ways of thinking that prioritize products, outcomes, and linear pathways to predetermined solutions. But that is not the best way to get ourselves out if the poly-crisis we currently find ourselves in. Emergent is one term to express the alternative, but from my point of view as a dancer, it is the creative process. What I heard Michael saying (using my own native language here) is that we need to ignite the creative potential of as many people as possible (flower metaphor) on a variety of levels. Inherited norms do keep us stuck so we need to find some way to break those up, make them less cyclical. A flurry of activity involving individuals contributing a bunch of ideas that are true to their experience (a potential positive of sycophantic AI?) would certainly create short-term chaos, but the kind of chaos that is native to the creative process. The messy part where experimentation occurs and the bad ideas are gradually sifted out as the good ideas emerge into the eventual presentation.
2) Resistance. Both in Sarah's intro to the conversation as well as in the comments. Resistance in this case feels like how the ideas land within us - perhaps a little itchy or squeezing in uncomfortable ways. I'll offer key takeaways from a Substack article I published on how resistance shows up in the body as a process-based methodology for sorting through any resistance that came up.
Embodied Resistance Key Takeaways:
- resistance can be stabilizing, giving you a foundation or focus to build off of
- no resistance leaves you without sensory feedback to guide you and make whatever you’re doing feel more intentional or meaningful
- too much resistance shuts you down and uses all your energy
- mild resistance acts as a gentle guide, whereas more intense resistance requires you to focus only on exerting enough force to counteract it
- static resistance exhausts you and limits your innovation, whereas resistance that can move around invites you to follow your curiosity towards new opportunities
- external resistance is more satisfying because there is an interaction with something else, whereas internal resistance feels manufactured and keeps you stuck in your own patterns
The takeaways may not make as much sense out of context of the full article so here it is in full. https://danceattheintersection.substack.com/p/resistance
Thanks so much for these considered ideas... I like the idea of tempering your resistance...
Sarah, et al. I thought this was an excellent conversation. I appreciated Michael Muthukrisha’s explanations and (seeming) acceptance of human behavior. And I think, having followed Sarah for many years, that that was difficult to hear for many. I know it was for me.
I firmly believe, as many of the people here likely do, I suspect, that the vast majority of our species are better at heart than the destruction that ‘progress’ has so far wrought. But as Michael points out with his example of the only way that managing progress works is if the whole world is on board; the reason for the non-alignment of ‘mostly good people’ and our ‘progress mess’,… is that our species is also flawed.
In overly simplified terms: we have a small percentage of people who have no problem exploiting any resource for their gain,… and know how to convince/ manipulate others that it is a good thing (did someone say capitalism?). EVERY person has their flaws and frailties (of course; and in different ways and to more or lesser degrees); and unfortunately, good critical thinking skills and healthy skepticism are not as abundant as we would like (see Carl Sagan’s ‘The Demon-Haunted World’ for essentially 450 pages of him begging that this wasn’t so).
Which is why, when we really get to the root cause, we are saddened and disappointed with our species.
I wish I had a different conclusion.
We also have to have compassion for humanity. Which, of course, requires humility...and a reckoning with, as you way, our limitedness. We just aren't as great as we think we are! What relief!
This is really interesting and there's an awful lot to process. I think I understand, and can see the sense in, some of what Michael's arguing. I am glad you decided to air this interview Sarah. I think it's very important for us to be looking at different models and it’s likely to be a mix that has the best chance of success. I don’t see that accepting (or having to accept!) a limit to materialistic growth and living within our means needs to exclude growth in some areas.
I may have misunderstood Michael but I thought he seemed a bit black and white /naive about some of hisnpoints. For example US succes vs other nations such as Europe. Colonialism and empire building and rogue capitalism has been and is still a big part of US dominance (and of course in many countries as well) and despite their wealth the inequalities in US society are really significant.
I'm a bit of a stick in the mud re nuclear power but admittedly don't know enough about it. I associate it with right wing politicians and self serving companies. (hello capitalism!)
Land tax as a strategy to limit inequality is interesting. We've certainly done the opposite here in Australia with negative gearing and it's caused more problems than it has solved.
The AI stuff does my head in……
Nuclear is correctly associated with right-wing govts because they tend to use it as a distraction in green discussions. it's a way of kicking the can down the road (because it takes decades to feasibly get it off the ground)).
And it’s something big tech and those bros have to be invested in if their data centres are going to run efficiently. I’ve met tech investors - who have invested millions in AI and were once anti nuclear who are now pro nuclear simply because they now fear their tech investments plunging if the AI can’t run.
Awesome conversation and debate. We were taken on a journey and at times I disagreed and agreed with both points of view. This is what collapse is, isn’t it? Every idea and ideology is in the mix as the new world order is being birthed.
Our human brain has evolved to prepare for the next season and we are all grappling with what…that… is… and prepare for the next season. Our only reference is based upon what happened post (insert reference here) over 100 or 200 years ago.
These ongoing open and transparent conversations will help guides those of us who don’t have access to all the information from the powerful players. By disseminating.and discussing it openly, we get to make decisions about what we can advocate for. A few will have the power and influence to make the next move and the rest of us have the numbers to either accept or reject it by protesting.
Yeah, this is certainly what we're in...all things in the mix.
It was great to meet you and your crew last night!
I have been musing about this subject for a while now
The themes of renovation, renewal, reuse, and shared resources has been buzzing in my brain
We have the tech to make things easy to share and organise ourselves
Ride sharing, home sharing, skill sharing, care sharing, tool sharing, food sharing, building materials sharing within a co-operative business structure , owned by the users and for the users. Not by fuckwits looking for a pay day to buy a yacht , a rocket and a wife
And restrict Ai to only community owned entities and build it for specific uses (not for making Ai slop and girlfriends). Medicine, physics, social connections and resource sharing, education, manufacturing and environmental monitoring and protection.
wouldn't that be good! It would balance the recursive info it feeds on, too
I consider this a good and valuable session for me to listen to because it challenges some of my assumptions. I need to listen to it again to run Michael's thoughts through my head a second time. Am I perhaps blindly accepting all of my thoughts on collapse when there might be alternatives? I don't know. I certainly appreciate his enthusiasm and his urge for action, but I can't yet fully accept all of his ideas. However, there seems to be a significant amount of common ground.
Good convo. Glad you ultimately decided to publish it.
I'm glad you aired this episode, Sarah. I get his point about cooperation only being possible when there is abundance. I think he understands human behaviour. A simple example - we are planning to reduce our dependence on the food supply chain by growing more vegetables. We live on acreage to it's more than possible. But in a scenario of a global or even local food shortage (which may be coming due to lack of fertilizer), then if our neighbours haven't done the same or we don't share with them, then they will just come and help themselves. So it's in our interest to encourage them to grow their own and maybe help them to do it. Cooperation has to be driven by self-interest
I agree...it's a scenario many discussions in this realm land at - working with the existing paradigm and behaviours v reaching toward something better...pragmatics v utopian ideas
Interesting conversation across ‘challenging’ areas . I am with you Sarah against the mantra of constant growth. Whatever the Tech bros think the benefits are and how much they think AI will save us 🙃
As you are talking about energy I think this article is mind blowing about a huge game change that is underway.
https://consortiumnews.com/2026/05/11/an-armed-robbery-of-the-worlds-energy-supply/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4eb65a14-ed90-447f-9861-0c5686f31d77
Thanks Susan, will take a look
I am very interested in your thoughts , when you get a chance to read it, long but worth it …for helping making sense but opening up a huge WTF happens next ?
I think we all need to do the “humble-work” in the sense of thinking small and personal in our solutions. The first unit of measurement in the post-collapse is the agriculturally productive town or community. A lot of people are still thinking with this kind of fossil-fueled power projection approach to activism that is hyper focused on big systems and big solutions, but this still feeds into a positive feedback loop for decadent dissonance. The first step in dealing with collapse is acting like no one is coming to save you or your community, while still working within existing power frameworks (don’t drop out). Call on God but row away from the rocks. Call on the higher political systems of power and organization, but don’t neglect your own city’s gardens! Because without having the basic means to life secured, your community is at the mercy of the fascists who run the global economy and depend on our dependence!
A great example is here in Kharkiv, Ukraine, where I’ve taught English for 3 years.
When the Russians invaded, no one here had any idea what was happening. No one expected it. No one was ready. But people literally held out, under siege for over a year, maintained city services, and distributed food and water. The government in Kyiv had no way to help them. And actually it’s still the same. Most of the cities of Ukraine now have to provide for their own infrastructure in the face of daily Russian air attacks. And yet, when something is damaged, people here fix it in under 48 hours. Again, that’s not the government, it’s the people. No one gives them orders. They figure it out in real time, and make innovations other countries with more means dream of.
Because Ukrainians have already experienced collapse at the fall of the Soviet Union. So they know what happens when the system fails. If the government one day collapsed, everyone here would just continue working their jobs. No one tells them to. No one threatens force. They do it because they know it’s necessary to maintain the world they want to live in!
Good guests Sarah, very positive and proactive people 👌🏼✌🏼
Like many others, I found this podcast both challenging but also inspiring in almost equal measure. I don’t know Michael’s work but the ‘vibe’ reminds me of many of the utopians I have interacted with who in that very American way of pitching their solutions representing human ascension as the solution. But there was a compelling mix of liberty and humility too which is often hard to find. Michael does address the moral imposition I find troubling at times too.
Great conversation and it deals with the human weakness for hoarding head on. So appreciate conversation around this fact of our glitchy nature. Conversations starting there of most interest to me. Thankyou.
Oh I'm glad Mark...another version of ...emergence!
I find it interesting that Michael mentioned constraining kings, as was done with the Magna Carta. We can’t increase equality without constraining the tech bro oligarchs. We can’t enforce rules without constraining the tech bros who are enabling autocrats to undermine democracy (for example Trump). Michael talks about enforcing the law. Trump is attempting to rewrite laws to suit himself. To enforce the law you have to constrain the tech bros, because they are the ones funding Trump (and other autocrats around the world) to undermine laws so that they can do what they want. My question is: How do we constrain the tech bros & Trumps of the world? I don’t agree with Michael that we need to grow nuclear. Nuclear needs heaps of water to prevent going into meltdown. Without diesel, how do you mine the uranium you need?
Yes I too found this conversation very enlightening. It has stimulated my thoughts from feeling stuck in a sort of emotional grief to wanting to dive into a bunch of research. Thanks Sarah and Michael I needed some inspiration to dive deeper and I have sent it off to all my old work buddies in the Community Development field and am looking forward to discussing some of the concepts and ideas talked about, as opposed to our usual stagnant, slightly depressed, the world is f&$ked conversations.
Oh, that's awesome
Mark, Wendy - delighted to hear this.