Comments 100

  • ur a proponent of wind and solar energy? I mean it would be great if we could store it, but we cant. Nuclear power makes sense as long as its regulated effectively. What about his message was fearful? to me it exuded hope and good humor. I guess i dont get ur hostility, it seems misplaced.

  • Did I just hear him say only nuclear and hydro are green??? This guy is a moron! What he says about GMO's just isn't true. His quote: "We are as gods so we have to get good at it"… Ugh, I'll bet the corporate elite just love this guy.

  • Some physics:
    First of all Solar energy is already powering the earth, it is the basis of all life that has ever existed on this planet. Including huge imaginary fields of cannabis (alright!).
    Harvesting bio-fuel of any kind, is thermodynamically less efficient than harvesting direct sun energy, as e are simply utilizing hydro-carbon fabricated by photosynthesis.
    Having said that, the highest convertion ratio of mass to energy (besides black hoels), IS nuclear power. (which I do not support).

  • Soilent Green, lets have mandatory Euthanasia and feed the starving people the old, and polluting humans, that are the smartest mammals on the planet, eat smart, eat green, get rid of the polluters one plate full at a time. This Message Was Brought To You By Your Masters Of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Corporation: Obey and Serve Your Masters.

  • Go see the farmer suicides in India over GMO seeds.They are owned by one company and you will soon be owned by that same company, you will pay a tax to eat their food and they will own all GMO foods.This man has some vested interest in the subject, there is over 600, 000 websites that plead for the consumer to get informed about this monstrous practice and most of those sites made from Professors that have left their countries on vessels with their families to get away from these Gods

  • He has it mostly wrong.

  • wow, you are fucking stupid. did you not listen to the talk? immigrant workers have nothing to do with it. child reproduction eventually decreases once within cities. besides, there is the benefit of cheap labor that in turn keeps costs down.

    why don't you read something that isn't far right propaganda?

  • No the biggest problem is southern white male racists supporting right wing psychopaths, lucky that doesn't apply to you eh?…

  • do some more homework on this guy. he does more good than most people on this earth.

  • people against nuclear power please explain your reasoning because I have not heard 1 good argument against it.

    I can see slums being encouraged in the assumption that they can improve to sustainable communities that can still manage to have a high living standard. This may be possible with government/industry aid.

  • Imo, nuclear should be a large part of the solution, but it probably wont happen, so it's time to prepare for the warming b/c straight renewables will not get us there w/o rapid innovation (which we cannot assume). if you do want to assume the innovation is likely, then why not assume similar innovation with nuclear is possible?

  • Anti-genetic engineering has always struck me as being particularly irrational. Humans have been redesigning biological systems for THOUSANDS of years through artificial selection. We've simply found a faster way to do it now.

  • Cchilder.

    Chernobyl is the worst accident a nuclear plant could possibly have; so what was the consequences?

    Well, 56 dead operators and rescue workers, potentially 4000 cancer deaths over the next few decades if the LNT hypothesis is true.

    Coal power kills 30 000 per year in the US alone. That's on the order of 7 to 50 Chernobyls per year, every year; and it's not even an accident.

    In short, you're an uninformed ass.

  • Nuclear power plants have the lowest resource consumption of any kind of powerplant besides gas turbines.

    A tonne of the Earth's crust contains ~3 ppm U and ~10 ppm Th. With the appropriate technology this corresponds to as much usable energy as ~140 barrels of oil per tonne of junk. There is enough fissionable material to sustain 10 billion people until the sun expands and kills all life on Earth.

  • CSP is expensive, requires huge land areas, requires sensitive desert eco systems to be sprayed with sticky binder and pesticides, requires more water than coal and nuclear power in the middle of a desert, requires massive HVDC lines that span continents.

    CSP is not sustainable. The definition of sustainable is "meets the need of today without comprimising the needs of tomorrow". It fails on meeting the needs of today and producing enough energy for the poor to cope with climate change.

  • Energy storage is an unsolved problem and an achilles heel of solar.

    You either lose most of the energy you attempt to store(hydrogen+fuel cell), pay through the nose and use up precious rare earths(batteries), function only in a few specific locations(pumped hydro), can't cope with large scale storage(SMES, capacitors), can't make the economics work without natural gas(CAES) or can't scale fast enough to matter(flywheels).

  • You are ascribing magical attributes to smart-grid technology. At best a smart grid can do some demand shifting(I don't care precisely when the water heater is operation as long as the water is hot when I use it; this gives you some tiny capacity to time shift some of my demand) and some better diagnostics of error conditions.

    The smart grid cannot do cheap long-distance transmission nor make up for supply problems. There is no unicorn that shits skittles and rainbows.

  • Because fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro don't need any storage to provide reliable power.

    I can't post links so I'll PM you a link to the graph of wind power aggregated over the entirety of Germany.

  • Looks like either cancer cells or a petri dish that's full to me and ready to collapse.
    Do we really think that this level of human population will exist with decline of oil and climate change?
    Perhaps 2 billion souls may float on the boat so to speak.
    We overreached our capacity.
    Sorry Stew…it will dive like an inverted J curve.

  • this video needs to be updated. it hasn't played well for quite some time.

  • He didn't mention he is an Ayn Rand Objectivist. A total right-wing loony.

  • @geezzerboy Ayn Rand Objectivist? If I could reliably believe that on the basis of a single Youtube comment (no offense) I'd be clicking off *right* now -and yes, *just* because of that.
    As it stands I'll hear him out.

  • @polymath7
    He once called Rand an "exciting figure" who had influenced his thinking.
    He is a significant founding figure in the environmental movement.
    He is also the founder of "TED talks".
    That kind of intellectual honesty is enough to make any partisan's head explode.

  • @geezzerboy Freedom is so crazy isn't it

  • @smkymcnugget420 Because for some people it's either eat that food or starve to death. Who do you think deserves to die?

  • @smkymcnugget420 While I wont deny that agribusiness with all its government support is rather a corrupt as a result, the starvation and poverty in very poor nations is usually a result of their respective corrupt governments. Farmers could compete with those big companies a lot better if they weren't a government backed monopoly.

  • So sad this dude drank the globalist koolaid.

  • wow I actuallly though this man was intelligent untill he started talking about climate refugees.

  • Nuclear is the lesser of many evils. The waste is minimal, and radiation doesn't kill people in the way people think. Sites of natural radioactivity actually have more biodiversity than would otherwise be expected, hence Chernobyl has already reforested itself, and there's talk of making it into a National Park to make some money back through tourism. Even if you lived there, the increased radiation exposure would take roughly 7 days of your life expectancy, as opposed to 7 years if you smoke…

  • As for GM, the yields would be achievable by regular agriculture, but would use a far greater area of land. If people are going to keep shagging, we need to feed them whilst impacting as little of the land surface as possible. It's thesame reason they grow tomatoes in greenhouses… The more land we leave undisturbed for natural ecosystems, the more chance the Earth has to fight back using it's own mechanisms. This is the same reason why wind farms aren't viable: Too much land stolen from naure!

  • @JohnnyRawhide I used to think urbanization and and slums were problems that we had to fix. I thought that the farmers were tricked into moving to the cities and then stuck in poverty. After reading Brand's book I've learned not to fear those words. He never argues that slums are "ideal", he just points out that they grow for very natural reasons (not due to greedy rich people), and that they bring some new challenges with them.

  • For being so smart, you sure are dumb.

  • "until governments make it (coal and oil) expensive, it won't change" Has he never heard of the invisible hand of free markets? I usually find that academics such as this guy thinks of populations and people in mass. Rather than giving credit to individuals making life better by trade and opportunity.

  • 6:40 is astonishing. Pretty damn cool too.

  • i wonder if he'd be so in love with nuclear after Japan. This guy seems like a corporatist. the way he talks about the poor as "these people" is really condescending. eww, eww, eww

  • i wonder if he'd be so in love with nuclear after Japan. This guy is a corporatist. the way he talks about the poor as "these people" is really condescending. His little Jerry Brown dig was pointless. We wouldn't have to resort to GM to reduce land use if we stopped eating animals.

  • @thatbitchonskates "i wonder if he'd be so in love with nuclear after Japan."
    Why wouldn't he?

  • Yes, let us help them to have even more babies, so that the whole world can turn into a slum. There our children will be able to choose to join the criminal world or the legitimate one and everything in between. We will never be bored by any luxury in this utopia, always busy and very creative. What utter nonsense!

    All these people want nothing else but to get out of the slums and the only way it can be done is secular education birth control.

  • Basically what he says is, that we either have the choice between:

    building nuclear power stations (for which we do not have the fuel), genetically altered food and a life in slums
    or
    birth control, solar energy, natural food and a life in a house with garden and swimming pool

    I will go for birth control, thank you

  • @SmileyWhiplash "That's what they said about oil."
    There's no oil? Are you sure? What are cars running on?

  • @flamifer1 "nuclear power stations (for which we do not have the fuel)"
    What about this fuel?: nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistribution
    40 trillion tonnes + 160 trillion tonnes of thorium = enough fuel to feed today's power consumption (16 TW) for 32.4 billion years.
    .
    Is a 32.4 billion-year fuel supply not large enough?

  • @mastifiorulamitongla Nuclear power is the ONLY source that assume responsibilty for it's byproducts, not even the toxic silicon from solar PV is taken care of like nuclear does. That's plenty eco-friendly and your false idol solar companies could learn a thing or two from the nuclear industry.

  • @flamifer1 You are welcome, and even encouraged to use birth control.

  • Very kind of you not to advise to shoot myself. You are dreaming of a happy life, with 20 billion people or more on this planet, all consuming current from finit energy resources and living in futuristic skyscrapers. To you techno-religious fanatics it is heresy to even consider to use up less energy and unthinkable not to have the right to pack the world so full with people, that all problems multiply until they become unsolvable. Luckily people with your kind of attitude are becoming less.

  • @flamifer1 There have been two periods in human history when mankind's energy consumption have gone down: The great depression and the bubonic plague. The kind of world you dream of isn't anywhere people would want to live.

  • Your statement about the great depression perfectly reflects your conviction, that mankind could only prosper by using up its finit resources as fast as possible and that overpopulation was a local phenomenon. Prosperity is measured per capita and not by total numbers. In my "dream world" last borns don't have to leave their families' farms to go to the city and work in a sweat shop or prostitute themselves. Why? Because they will not be born. We need more education, not more people.

  • @flamifer1 Listen to yourself. Last borns, family farms, movin to "the big city." The world was like that, 200 years ago. All you have to do is kill 9 out our 10 people, reintroduce plagues, and remove fancy things like electricity and sanitation. good luck.

  • Yes, believe it or not: most people even nowadays still live in small communities and live off farming. And most of them are having too many babies. The result of it are growing slums around the cities of the 3rd world. Only birth control can prevent that the whole world will turn into a slum.

    >> kill 9 out of 10 people
    I am sick and tired of people parroting stupid lies about what birth control is. Please get informed. And try another source than your local preacher too.

  • @flamifer1 I certainly hope you don't have kids, for plenty of reasons. But they have what your talking about in China of course, where people stuff little girls in bags and drown them because they want a boy and can only have 1 kid. You can have that. Otherwise stfu.

  • >> in China, of course…
    So, in your opinion, it is the fault of the "evil" one child policy, that baby girls in China get killed by their parents? Not, mayhaps, because of the "good" old chinese tradition to prefer boys? Do you support this "great" tradition?

    For your info, my poor, uninformed friend: China's 1 child policy has saved the country from permanent famines with yearly tens of millions of deaths. Did it ever occur to you, that there could be grave reasons for such a policy?

  • @flamifer1 Actually, the one child policy in china is evil. It goes against the basic human nature. The day this country tries to tell someone they can or cant have kids is the day this country burns, Thank god the influence of people like you extends no further than your mother's basement,

  • Yes, birth control does go against the human nature. It is in the nature of all living species to multiply until more individuals die off of hunger and epidemies than are born. This is the "natural" way you seem to favour.

    Thank god, UN-statistcs show, that more and more people are seeing the benefits of having less children. Against bitter resistence of religious fanatics or nazis, who are using well meaning ignorants like you to their sinister ends. Start using your own brain!

  • @gamble180 Get real. There are already far too many people in the world. 7 billion and this number risks stabilizing at from 10 to 12 billion by 2050 when the planet's biodiversity is already under huge pressure. I'd prefer people to have fewer kids through education and access to contraception but if not, then compulsion. Today, having a large family is an anti-social act.

  • GMO's? Really? I have to wonder how much he held out for. What an ass. He needs to do more research. The answers are everywhere. Same with distributed CHP solar. It's cheaper, faster, independent and uses less resources. What a shill.

  • informal economy = the free market
    and if you want to know how it works, study austrian economics.

  • precisely. people confuse aesthetics with pollution too.

  • this is completely false and chernobyl, fukushima, etc couldve all been severally worse and still could be, when coal, gas, solar, wind, geothermal etc goes wrong, they dont destroy the earth for countless years
    it brings me back to the goldbloom quote in Jurassic park, "when the pirates of the carribean break down, the pirates dont kill everyone". nuclear accidents, or disasters has the potential to destroy the world!

    fail-safes you say? ok fukushima

  • i hated this ted talks, its my least favorite ever, i do not like this man, he is an evil old man who would destroy this planet if given the chance, every answer he gives is the EXACT opposite of what we should be doing
    gm, nuclear, geo-engineering its all nonsense and he knows it, you can hear the shakiness in his voice as he lies and lies especially about gm. i love and respect ted but im appalled that this man was part of tedtalks

  • i strongly recommend tedtalks remove this talk as it brings down the incredible reputation ted has in my opinion, this guy is not worthy of tedtalks, i was truly disgusted listening to him on the netflix version

  • thinking things people would rather shy away about and deny ahem climate change and the link with fossil fuels.

  • *Brand is just engaging with ideas of the future and

  • Your personal opinion on the matter expects a great leap humanity making decisions for the greater good. They don't. You may not agree with it, but it's the only way we can manage the fact that the earth is going to be more crowded and we try to manage the real impacts of real scarcity. If you don't agree, then grow your own crops and get off grid.

  • yes i dont agree, we have many other options than terraforming, nuclear power and genetically modified food

    BUT like you said, that only works if we are interested in doing the right thing, if we just care about exponential growth and greed than of course we need nuclear, gmo, and terraforming

  • i think nuclear power is just a kind of stupider form of burning oil. one sitting on the ocean somewhere with humans in charge of it is a kind of hair raising concept, this bland acceptance of an urban reality is really depressing. this kind of "realistic" thinking is really not what the human race needs. there is no way this planet can continue to support these urban realities. there is a breaking point. just the heat of producing the energy for this population is phenomenal.

  • GMO is really dangerous, in the hands of greedy people it can only spell the doom of our food chain. i get the feeling that he is like cleaning his house after a hard LSD trip or something.

  • Putting nuclear on he same page as coal shows your gulf in understanding of thermodynamics. Granted solar panels are getting better, but the problem is the relative output. Yes the sun is free, but the number of panels you'd have to make to match the output of even a small nuclear reactor is phenomenal, and definitely wouldn't be free… And there will always be your problem! x

  • That's the first time I've been abused by a random online, thanks for robbing my troll-ginity. I hear it usually means you've struck a nerve? I notice too you didn't meet my point with anything, just repeated your dogma of "free" energy: I'll have to come to your house and you can show me the tree the "free" solar panels grow on…

  • Righto, I get all of that. What has that to do with a comparison of nuclear and solar? It's a good point on how abundance comes around, but nothing to do with this! I'm here to talk about the science and thermodynamics of generating electricity, as is Stewart Brand… Why are you here?

  • Not twisting your words man. What do your words mean re. making solar more economically viable than nuclear? You haven't made any points on the subject, just abstractions about abundance

  • Not twisting your words man. Your point is sound, so apply it: Abundance makes things free, so how do you make so many cheap solar panels that they will out perform a nuclear reactor?

  • 14:01 the chick in the white suit on left with arms crossed is kinda boneable…

  • I think this man stopped studying scientific facts and figures and new technologies about 30 years ago. Seriously, It's makes me sad to watch this man. This is not TED worthy.

  • It may be the lesser of many evils, but it is still "evil" nonetheless. For one, we havent even decided (in the US) on where to put the nuclear waste. Politics chose the worse place possible based on no scientific evidence and now it has been determined it is not ideal for nuclear storage. So now all the nuclear plants store their waste on site. I would not want to live near a nuclear reactor, especially one that has nuclear waste on site. Subsidies attempt to make them cheap, to no avail.

  • "we havent even decided (in the US) on where to put the [spent fuel]"
    It doesn't need to be decided. It doesn't take up much room, and putting it on concrete patios is working fine: google. com/search?q=nuclear+dry+cask&tbm=isch
    .
    "now all the nuclear plants store their waste on site."
    …And?
    .
    "I would not want to live near a nuclear reactor, especially one that has nuclear waste on site."
    Why?

  • treating women like people achieves the same drop in fertility as urbanization.

  • cities mean supply lines, which are vulnerable and inefficient.

  • None of this addresses the broken nutrition cycle, and urbanization will probably make it harder to do so. Building swales will allow people to endure both droughts and floods, by slowing the movement of water you can both reduce run-off and increase infiltration… infiltration being what recharges aquifers making water that otherwise would of caused a flash flash flood availiable during a drought.

  • finally, both nuclear and 'space solar' are bringing energy, and hence heat, into our enviroment that wouldn't otherwise be there. Having solar panels on your roof, even with the inefficiency of batteries still imports very little energy compared to a black roof.

  • @1:11 Is that Hans Rosling in the first row? 🙂

  • Anybody else at 11:43 think "wait 1.2 gigawatts… that's almost 1.21 GIGAWATTS!!!!"

  • I'm sort of pissed off how he talks about this so nonchalantly.

  • anyone knows how to get that video from the train in bangkok?

  • Far out.  

  • This video disturbed me a little. The guy is very proud of his state, and he should be. Then he shows examples of what is happening around the world with major slum areas stacked up right next to opulent areas where a very few of the poor people work. He's very excited about this. Why? Where is the middle class? There is an exodus that's been happening in California for a while now. Many of you might have had people from California move to your state. These aren't California's rich or poor, they are the state's middle class. As more of the middle class move out, what is left is the poor slums and the opulent rich. What side of the fence does this guy live in? Well, it's not the slum area, begging for water and power. California is a good example; a rich state surrounded by poor states. Cali needs water to survive, and they get this water from poor states. Without it, they would be a poor state. If the poor states around Cali were rich, they wouldn't let Cali have the water and Cali would be poor. Cali needs poor states, like opulent areas around the world need slums to remain opulent. The middle class acts as a buffer between the two, for both financial and physical security. When you have no middle class a tall fence is erected to keep the slum out, like he showed. The contrast is blatant. The Nairobi train example of people living near the tracks was used to further his point, but he didn't point out 100's of people have been killed by that train. Google nairobi train, the accidents are horrific. Instead of making slums work, lets get rid of them by offering sustainable living situations – like making the farm areas they came from be more exciting and have greater opportunities. California only works when someone else is footing the bill.

  • Whole Earth Catalog. I owned one from about the age of 11 and it made me appear very cool at school.

  • I think the least controversial method of geoengineering is the direct removal of CO2 from the atmosphere using giant filters, algae beds, or other methods.  All we would be doing is taking out what we put in in the first place.  The catch is that it is expensive and requires a source of clean energy to power the process, or it is a self-defeating proposition.

  • Unlike many environmentalists, including other famous ones like David Suzuki, Stewart Brand lacks the ugly misanthropic vibe that they give off. Often their environmentalism is a channel for a discomfort with people and modernity that stems from other psychological issues or an ego trip about how awful we all are. The feeling that we need to 'pay' for what we have done also stems from similar sources.

    Brand, however, seems to genuinely like people and want us to prosper. We didn't plan on putting ourselves in such a bind, all we wanted was to create better lives for ourselves and our children through material prosperity. That drove the Industrial Revolution and modernity. A lot of people don't realize how wretched life was for most of society before the Industrial Age. We wanted to change that.

  • Brand is a clever guy with sound demographic and technical analysis.  What I admire about him most though is his sheer patience.  He never resorts to disgusted invective when faced with the sheer ignorance and lack of realism evident in mainstream environmentalism, not to mention the ageist and misandrist backlash against his personality.  I was once the sort of Green who thought guys like Brand were creeps, capitalistic, pale male corporate shills and what have you.  There are still legitimate debates to be had about the political hue of green modernity but its technical form has now simply been finalized in the minds of the informed and lucid.  Urbanization, nuclear, GMOs and geoengineering all have their roles to play in it.

  • Очень интересно, спасибо.

  • Please note this BP and Monsanto paid "hip capitalist" (see resume) shill is advocating big nuke before Fukushima. His claim that "nuclear waste" can be stored in a beer can is beyond absurd.

  • Nuclear would beat coal in cost? What a bullshit. If anyone considers the cost for keeping the nuclear waste save for thousands on years, nuclear power is the most expensive power source ever invented in the history of man!

  • If GM crops have modified amino acids (proteins) particularly the aromatic amino acids without which life is impossible, then they will not replace the proteins humans need for their immune and endocrine systems. The shape of a protein determines its function; modified proteins have
    a modified shape, which means that the function will be altered in some way. That compromises our defences against infections and diseases.

  • Finally! A sane environmentalist! Listen to this guy, y'all^^

  • anyone that says nuclear is green and solar is a waste due to lack of storage loses all credibility. Nuclear is NOT green by any means. It uses massive amounts of water just to cool the rods, let's not forget about the mining of uranium, transport, and of course last but not least, nuclear waste. Elon Musk and many other entrepeneurs have solved the problem of storage for solar, and wind and tidal turbines as well as hydrogen fuel cells should be the only forms of energy production today. The technology is there but dirty energy just won't give in.

  • Wow…2017 has shown this to be largely inaccurate! The earths temperature has been dropping, coal now has zero emissions technology and GMOs suck…just go have a meal in Europe where its banned. The sky isn't falling….yet but give the chemtrail engineers a few more years….illegally without our consent. Nobel prizes… can be had in a cereal box these days…its a joke.
    Oh, did I mention the 31,000 plus scientists that say global warming is a fraud! More FAKE NEWS…even at TED.

  • Yet another fluffy TED talk romanticizing the devastating situation of the poor. If it's so good and hopeful why don't you join them??… Sometimes it is OK (and more helpful) to feel bad for fellow human beings as opposed to trying to put a positive spin on every miserable thing to make ourselves feel better about our fortunate lives.

  • 1000 years ago an no African country wow I smell white supremacy 🤨

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *