Prihledaj pa. Prihledaj da... Kaj je nalegi nalegi se, ni spikr, ni nalegi. Dobro. Kaj pa se zelo razstavimo, da smo se vse na zelo obježenih, in da smo zelo zelo zelo zelo, da smo se zelo zelo zelo zelo zelo zelo zelo zelo zelo. Ok? Ok, da se možemo. Zdaj smo biti ljudi, zato smo začali s Louis Bettenkord. Zdaj smo počkali o urbani systemu. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. Čakaj. in bomo vsi srečočen, ali sem vsečočen v tem, saj je našličan, ki so prejzapravljati.  Iga vseč je však predstavila v samom vsičnih iskudva in tukaj vsečnjeh in tišnje, kaj je tudi v zelo, počin je to vsečno. Zato sam je posledilo bomo to zelo. Pozincaj da sem početila video z nekočnjih citi, ki se zelo, kaj je ko je. Zato, kaj je komplikato in kompleks, ki so vzelo, nekaj da se početil, je vsega izgleda način izgleda način in vsega. Vsega je to zelo energijnej zelo, kaj mi so zelo. In nekaj do��iliین za premač Nebo in zelo spetaljne operacije in zelo vzdučno in minučí. To so nekaj način, in rezovst, in rezovst novoril enokaj soldiersi, neko so najbolj, in tukaj počutiv imati rezov Sloven及 in izgledati kvaliti. Sva je se na spetu počunja. Vse, koni, je to in tukaj počutiva. Zato sem videtil v Avstilu, vših šikagov, od 5 nekaj odelj, in vseveda je dan delalov del. Vneš sem, je to zelo ovega. The workshops are also in a good for the residents here. In University of Chicago has a relatively new university here. It started in the end of the nineteenth century, in a place that was new and at the margins of scholarship. It recreated many fields in its own way and in many schools of this and that in Chicago. One of the most important schools is the school of Urban Sociology. ki je to zame učinila, če je to vstajalo urvenstvih ziv, in se je zelo pošlišljene in kohli se je zelo pošlišljeni. Dozno se je zelo pošlišljeni in kohli se je zelo pošlišljeni, zelo pošlišljeni in kohli se je zelo pošlišljeni, zelo pošlišljeni in informacije in toj najbolji metafor, da je zelo pošlišljeni v samih časem, je to zelo na nožno, je to včinila na nožno, nesel je Henry Calds, je to nečen odgašan, je to professor Bodany The same building I occupy now in my faculty position. And he termed ecology into English but at the same time was adopted by people studying cities. So that's sort of an interesting resonance. And so what we do now is obviously bringing a lot of these ideas to the 21st century, which means that we study human societies that are urbanizing, but also that we bring modeling and data and principle theory to understand these very complex environments. So I have a lot of fun, cos I got to go all over the world and visit amazing places, in mn History of the Lessons in transformation. Most of the time it's a hopeful experience, because you see transformations very quick in many societies. Transformation that is generating development, human development. I'll tell you more later. But also creating challenges sustainability. So this is kind of what we do, we can look at the web page. And part of what I will tell you today W catastrophe university Chicago, on urban science had to be about urban science because of the what the 있나 stands, but sustainable development is what's important here. And so I've been trying in this context, so I teach, sort of, the main class, that the students need to take to get the certificate, they also do a project, but part of the problem has been how do we approach this story of sustainability in keh mon developer in a principled way, in a way that's generative, synthetic, but also speaks to positive, but it must in tačne objevtva se se tako povodila nekaj na vsem, a kot nešto način ozvodilji je inorma. Tukaj je zelo všeč normativno zdaj, hvalječ in vse objev, in tudi za mali vse zelo, da se prišli vse vse objevitve tačne pravdične, je sreč nekaj začine, ki so tukaj tudi se rejimamo, pomega, da nekaj, kako jaz način zelo povodila, so je bilo način začin začin začin začin. Zelo pa nečin začin začin začin.  Pover tudi se dar jaj zaradi. Kaj so ni sreč nekaj 경šči, jaz je to izgleda kaj pri inrlje z dvenstvo junij. To je počr jo dvanje. To je zelo zelo začet, dativne. In začem, taj je povedan. ki je Christmas Eve 1968, pa je to, da je težko, so je Christmas prezident na zelo. In zelo, da je to izgleda vzelo, je to je vzelo, da je težko težko technologične in vzelo, da je to je vzelo. Maslje in vzelo, da je to vzelo, je bil se početno vzelo, da je zelo se inštela vzelo, zelo se je izgleda, da je to izgleda, da je to vzelo, da je to vzelo, da je to izgleda, da je to zelo, da je to izgleda, v ročnih, da objah nekaj polidilo, gledaj je pozvečujemo aba, prej se, ki so pozvečujemo, in vsev boj, ko je pošlega in več več, in da se je tudi vera in 1968 včilj, in je pošlega pošlega. Spodobno, da bomo pošlega, je to pošlega in kaj je, je to pošlega, in je to pošlega, tako čak je del včelj način, neko se pošlega nekaj z 10 milijetnih, včelj nekaj pošlega. Je to, da mu se pošlega, To je nekaj in presvektiv, ki je tako inživno. Vse je, da je tudi se sp indexite, ki je tudi terčak in tako, nekaj prijevhabi na kroz, ki se pogledaj, ali je prijevhabi. In zelo bo ? ki začati, ki začayamo brane, načinem sem više mogu povisiti problem, načine da postojo nešta z strejstvimi in srednimi institučni vzup. In srednji se neštje.  In nekaj dobroPER nekaj dobrober svobatne. En jas odložite povoriti, da bomo so bila zapolni, prišli, da je bilo zelo. To je bilo, da se, tako, mi je zdajno, In tudi se površila, da je zelo v jaloj, v zeloj, zelo, da je prijeljno počet, da je to počet, da je to prijeljno počet. Počet je, da se počet je začnje, je zeloj, vod, je energija, je zeloj počet, je zeloj počet, je včet način način in včet način način način način način. In tudi da včet način včet začnje, tako, pričenje, včet način in karban, tako, počet način, plastike in včetnih, We know that polluting the world. As the world developed, as population has grown, as the world urbanized, these flows are beginning worse and worse in the sense of pollution. And so a lot of what people are looking for, and then it's a question of whether this is sustainable or feasible even, is something that's more circular, that kind of collapses a lot of these open loop sort of resource in flows and out flows into something that is more managed internally to at a certain scale. And cities in particular want to do a lot of what's sometimes called a more circular economy. So I'll get to that in a moment. So one of the things I wanted to remember is this formulation of this slide, which was in my title. And this is actually from Dana Meadows. There's a little bit overlap between Pablo's talk and mine, which I was happy to see. I'll tell you more about her in a second, but she was one of the people of the club of Rome that authored this important study around that time of limits to growth. And in a later talk in the 80s, she died recently, she kind of formulated what the laws of sustainable systems should be. So the idea here is like, any law is like the laws of physics or something, is that these are things you cannot avoid, they're necessary, but they may not be sufficient. And if you would like, I always ask that probably there's at least one missing that I can think of. But the point is that the first law, every renewable resource must be used at or below the rate at which it can regenerate itself, was basically what Partha was showing us in terms of having basically acquiring a natural resource or something that is consumed by humans at a certain rate with a certain efficiency. So you basically cannot do it, and Pablo is asking, can I consume it below that replacement capacity and what happens? So this is saying this is a necessary law of sustainability. But that's just the first one, okay? The second one and the third one are more or less in the same spirit. They say every non-reduable resource must be used at or below the rate at which a renewable resource can be developed to substitute it. And then every pollution stream, so sort of the outputs must be met at or below the rate at which it can be absorbed or main harmless. So for example, with carbon dioxide and methane, we're not doing this, right? So we're just piling it up in the atmosphere with consequences for changing the climate, same thing for plastics and so on. Okay, so the point about these first three laws is that they're physical laws. They're basically a way of writing, if you will, if you want to be a physicist like we are here at ICTP, it's basically conservation of mass, conservation of energy of a certain kind, right? Where we take a little bit, the ecosystems into consideration, but we really didn't say much about ecosystems, right? We just are saying that there's some production of renewable resources out there by something. The fourth law, so these are, according to Dana Meadows, she attributes them to Herman Daley. And he was an important sort of person that was writing around this time. He was one of the founders of a subfield of economics called Ecological Economics, which is a subfield that's not really mainstream in economics, at least not in Chicago or AM, but it's very interesting and deals with some of the things I'll be telling you about today. And the fourth one is really about, so it says something, I'm just gonna read it. Capital stocks and resource flows, so it starts very physical, must be equitable, distributed and sufficient to generate a good life of every person. And she says, it's really a quote, not equally, but fair, okay? So this is kind of about people. And it seems like a nice thing to say, right? We should say this. It's about equity. If you look at any sustainable plan, it has equity at center now, but it's not very clear why it's necessarily to me, it wasn't. So this is often credited, she credited this to Carl Henrik Robert. He's kind of famous in Sweden, he's a Swedish doctor who wrote basically a pamphlet about what sustainability should be in the late 80s, early 90s, and the king of Sweden liked it. And so every kid in Swedish schools learns about the natural step, which is what that was called. And this is partly why Sweden is so tuned into, sustainable development has played such an important role, so education matters. But bear in mind these four laws, and this is kind of to me a good way of kind of summarizing a lot of things and coming back to them. As expressed, as you can see, they're just verbal. But here's sort of the picture that goes with them, okay? So without the people, just for the first three. So a motto, though you could print on a t-shirt, maybe you could do it for this workshop, is to another SFI here, or at least SFI associate, Harold Morowitz. Great researcher died recently of particularly early life and the origins of life and other biotic processes. And so it says basically, matter cycles, energy flows, okay? So this is a way of saying, second law thermodynamics is essentially energy flows, it's transformed, it goes into heat eventually, but matter cycles, it means that at least for the earth system we can think of matter as being conserved, right? So it doesn't escape, but so it needs to cycle. So there's a system, we're gonna put things in that box in a moment, but for now, energy needs to be obtained from the outside, from the sun eventually, but sometimes by the wind and other places, of course, also fuels. And then materials come in as well and they get transformed into other material, sometimes the same material, and they go out. And the point about this is that when they go out, usually they're dealt with to a large extent by nature. So we often call this euphemistically ecological services, but this is one way in which methane is recycled, or CO2 is recycled by plants to some extent, and other things get broken down. So part of the point is to create a system that does this with sort of the formulations that we were describing, and that basically closed the loop of the circulation of materials and obtains energy in ways that are nondestructive. So that's kind of the first three principles encapsulated in a picture. And so the point is that now you can play this game, if you think that this is a fundamental picture, you can play this game by putting things in the box, there are different. So you can put a person, you can put yourself or your household, and think, can I actually bend all these resource flows and close them within my household? And the question is gonna be no, right? There are many things you need to get from the outside, from the inside. Maybe you can produce part of your own energy if you have big house and solar panels and so on. So there are things you can do, but there are things you cannot do, okay? So that's a building or institution. I'm sure your university, I think University of Trieste is thinking about this. To what extent can we do that? Recycle within home, generate energy. What about a business, right? We've heard a little bit from Mealy Coffee and others, right? All businesses are saying they're gonna do some of this, right? What about a city? So I'll tell you a lot about later. Almost every large city on the planet is saying that they're trying to do this. I'll show you a little bit more specifically how, and of course, the nation or the world. So what's the right scale to close these loops? Right? At the moment, we're not closing them often, but so this is part of the question. It's a question of practice to some extent, but it's a question also that's tied to often the physical nature and the energy needed and so on of closing these gaps. So in some sense, part of this idea of localizing sustainable development is that you can think of the world from the point of view of these first three laws of sustainability about energy and materials in terms of a decomposition into all the households in the world. If everyone was sustainable, the worth would be sustainable, all the cities and settlements big and small or all nations, of course, this is what we'd be trying to do with sustainable development goals and the UN system is to declare that every nation is gonna try to be sustainable and by doing that, we got a world that's sustainable or even some geographic decomposition of the kind that we do, for example, in climate models by having tiles or something. But the point is that there are other things that cut across these, like businesses or governments that are not actually the sum of governments is not the world, the sum of businesses is not the world, there are other things besides the businesses and so they help and they cross cutting. But basically, there's this very important question of practice, which is who's responsible for circling these materials, recovering them and so on and who has the agency to do them, at what scale is that bending of the cycle appropriate or feasible and a lot of what happens, of course, for example, is that businesses try to push the responsibility to consumers, to you and obviously, you cannot do some of those things, because you live in a system. So part of the tug of war here is who's gonna take responsibility and who should take responsibility and how far is the scope of the responsibility at some scale. So I'm gonna come back to this and just give you some examples about how some of these could work quantitatively in terms of just simple models, they're not gonna be exhausted, they're just illustrations. Okay, so this is the first one, the first law of sustainability and it's more or less what Sir Partha was showing you, it's kind of hidden in a different way and so what I wrote there was, so you see the boxes, if you like boxes, the whole point now is that we have these feedbacks. We have a renewable resource R and we have a consumer CE, which is the system and the consumer is taking in the resource, it's creating a feedback in terms of reducing the population, typically of the numbers or some quantity of the renewable resource and the renewable resource is renewable so it has a certain rate of recovery. So I wrote those two equations, it's a canonical form, what are those equations? Who can tell me who those equations are? Ladaker Volterra. Ladaker Volterra, okay. So Volterra, right? Yay, we're in Italy. Okay, very good. So if you are sort of a mathematical ecologist, this is kind of like one of the first things you learn, you learn to analyze this, you know the system has oscillations, right? It's not very good control in terms of producing these very oscillatory systems and it was developed as you know independently by Ladaker and Volterra. The story of Volterra is that he did it having in mind fisheries in the Adriatic, so wait for the next slide. There'll be a surprise, maybe for some of you a surprise, but the point is that you can start asking questions about when are these equations stable and therefore you can consume the resource and have it get renew itself and when not. So for example, you can ask if consumption rate beta is larger than alpha over C, it's almost what Separtha was telling you, it's just kind of a little bit different, but it's almost the same equation, the same condition. Then you know the system crashes because you're consuming too much relative to the rate of replacement. And so this is, it's very easy to over consume when the population gets large because you can see that the parameter just needs to be greater than zero and it's a parameter greater than zero, so the zone at which you save goes down and down and down. Okay, so the alpha is almost the same parameter, you have to put the alpha down if C is going up. And coexistence possible, but it requires a bunch of considerations. So this was done mostly for fisheries and for other predator pre-systems, but I thought I'd look into it because why not, right? So this morning actually, forgive me, I was looking a little bit at where this come from and where did Volterra get the idea exactly? So you may know the story, but if not, this is a great story for your mathematical biology efforts because the story is that there was this man, Umberto Dancona, who, so Vida Volterra, of course, is a mathematician, very famous already, very lustious man already, but a problem came to him that Umberto Dancona, this guy who was an ecologist, was intrigued by the fluctuations of fish landings in Trieste, right? How good is that? So I didn't know that anyway. And so, but of course, every great story has several ingredients, right? So every great story has fish, right? I'm Portuguese, so I had to say that. But no, but every great story has love, right? So why did Umberto Dancona come to Vida Volterra and so on in state and they worked together is because Luisa. So Luisa Volterra, you see there in the photo, they marry there already. So on the right there, there's Luisa and Umberto and their daughter at the stage, Silvia, and you get everyone else. So I think this is a great story. So it's the beginning in some sense of how we understand sustainable systems and it all began with the fish of Trieste and the love story. Okay, so you can now go to the other laws of sustainability and elaborate them, right? And I'm just gonna show you that this gets very baroque, but it can be done if you want to pursue this path. You can start, continue to have these very abstract models. They don't have space, they don't have population structure or anything. But you can build boxes now where you can say that you're gonna have a renewable resource that starts replacing the green one, starts replacing the non-renewable resource. You can write equations for this. This is kind of like you can do it if you know these models, it's just pretty simple. And this has a certain structure that you can solve for. Okay, so typically what these models would do is that if you don't replace the non-renewable resource you have that the system grows and then crashes when it runs out of resource. But if you do the substitution fast enough, there's a regime in which you can go on as long as then you obey the first law of sustainability and then you continue to harvest at a rate that is consistent, okay? And this is like the third law about pollution stream. You add another box that is related to another set of equations and these aquas just typically have equilibria and zones of stability that work well, they make the system sustainable and other zones where the system is unsustainable. So you can pursue this kind of thing. The whole point here are the feedback loops. It's all about the feedback loops. So those are clear and present and it's on those time scales that the system is essentially sustainable or unsustainable. So the point is that you cannot just think open loop, you have to think in terms of feedback loops. And a lot of the exercises I do in my students always, particularly people that come from social sciences that write me the causal diagram, write me the thing with the boxes so that I can see every time that I can follow arrows that close on themselves, then I have a feedback loop that's either positive or negative that creates good things or bad things. Okay, so this way of thinking is very old and basically is very old from the 1970s and 80s. And in some sense originator, so this is a very famous book, Jay Forrester. This is the MIT way of thinking of complexity, if you will. And it's really about, this became system dynamics, the first application, it's just a happy coincidence for cities. And you can see a model there in the same spirit about different quantities. I'm not gonna spend a lot of time explaining, but it has to do essentially of what makes a good city in terms of some aspects of their economies and businesses and migration. Okay, and the point is again the same that some of these feedback loops generate dynamics, feedback loops always generate typically exponential dynamics that can run away from you, but if you have the right sort of feedback loops that stabilize the system in some parameter regimes, the system will go on and produce good things, but you have to know where you are in parameter space. And so this is the part that's the same as Pablo's. This became then applied to a world model called, this became essentially the limits to growth model, that was a book. And again, this slide is a little bit busy, but the idea is that the researchers that were trying to do this was trying to build a model of resource consumption for non-renewable resources. And so the idea is that as population grows and takes up the non-renewable resource, at some point it looks like everything's going well, it will continue to increase, and at some point it will start collapsing, okay? So this, of course, this is kind of, I didn't show you the more complicated one that Pablo had, but here's a version of it, right? The idea at this point was not that was because of climate, that was because of carbon and environmental degradation or biodiversity loss, it was about non-renewable resources and populations, they were too big, right? So what we have today is a bit different, but nevertheless it's the idea that these feedback loops will come and get you, okay? And if you're interested in this, you know, through the wonders of the internet, these codes have been ported into Python, there are documents online explaining how they work and you can run your own model of the world and so on and you can play the parameters and save the world or doom the world or whatever you need to do. So, okay, so, and this been redone, it's always in the press, but basically, it seems to show that, as I said, for the wrong reasons, but it seems that in some sense we're not out of the loop in terms of solving this problem, but so far what I showed you is the old way of thinking. It's not to say that this is not important, but is in some sense very unspecific, right? We're talking about non-renewable resources anywhere or the whole biosphere or something, but what we've learned so far in the last, you know, whatever, 40 years, is really that there's a structure to these complex systems, both ecosystems and human systems, and these structures kind of mediate some of these parameters that you see on the whole and put a lot of structure into them and this is the kind of knowledge that you need to have if you're gonna start addressing the problem in a more feasible way in various locations in a way that adds up and so on. So, I want to spend the rest of my talk talking a little bit more about that. So, first before I do that, I'm just gonna show you a couple things that's scary, okay, that just show you like we don't know what's going on. So, this is a common index of biodiversity loss. It's a living planet index. This is from our world in data, which has lots of wonderful data that you can download and so on. This is mostly an account of vertebrates and it monitors certain populations throughout the world. Sort of the people interested in biodiversity and conservation will know about this data set, has many problems, but from Latin America, like Pablo is or other people here of Brazil, it looks pretty bad and it's kind of hard to know exactly why. It turns out it's mostly because there's a lot of land conversion into pasture and that's being lost. That's a little bit the story of the rainforest, but other places in the world look not so bad. So, when you look at land uses, this is again a big aggregate worldwide, but this came up this morning. This is kind of interesting. If you haven't looked at this, it's more or less obvious once you look at it, but you know, so based on some of the arguments that Pablo was telling you about somebody like E.O. Wilson has proposed that we should leave half the land mass alone to be wild. So, this is the idea of half earth that we should keep half the earth at least natural. So, I think this came up also in Partha's arguments towards the end in one of the Pablo's questions. So, when you do sort of just the mapping of land, which we're now doing very well with satellites, you get more or less what I'm showing you here. So, you can look sort of the latest few dates, which are at the bottom, and the point is that we're using about half the surface of the earth for various uses that are human driven. You know, what's the biggest problem? You can read it, I'm not gonna ask you in stop, but it's basically grazing. It's land used for cattle. So, if you think that, you know, if you want to address the first problem first, that would be the first one, then there's a lot of land also used in agriculture, and then cities, urbanization that people, the places where people actually live is actually less than 2%, it varies depending on how you count exactly if you count empty spaces about between one and 2%. So, cities occupy a very small part of actually the land surface, and most of what we're doing in terms of habitat loss for species, which is the main way in which with satellite data we're actually addressing, trying to estimate biodiversity loss, is really due to land uses, the primary ones being grazing and crops. Okay, so this is kind of interesting because it starts suggesting, at least in principle, that if we can kind of do what I showed you before, that put everyone in these cities and kind of close the system more such that these cities are not destroying land, you could do a lot of good, right? And you can certainly create a lot of connected ecosystems that can support larger diversity. Okay, this is another one. If you think about why did emissions really go up so fast and so scarily in the last 20 years, it's partly because a lot of countries that didn't develop before are now developing, as you can see from this plot, the main thing is China. China really, it's a country that quickly became, had very fast economic growth, but also became the manufacturing central for the world and so you see that. So what should we be worried? So you see at the same point that the USA or the European Union, even before that, at least according to this data, have been actually reducing their emissions for a while now, which is kind of good news. But as long as India and Africa, which is still not reached the development levels of China or other countries, are gonna take a trajectory like China as then we doomed, right? So this is part of the problem and this is a good place to discuss that, ICTP, because it's an international place, but this is the problem that in some sense, the places and the people that were the least guilty of creating the emissions are the ones that have to somehow solve it in a different way, because if they don't, we're all screwed, right? So this is part of the problem and so what I want to say now, sort of in the last little while, is that how much time do I have? Until 50, okay, good. Okay, so one of the aspects that we observe in ecosystems, of course, but we also observe in human systems, is that they're organized spatially, but also functionally, in terms of a certain kind of hierarchy of both energy and information, right? So the familiar one sort of on the right here, for me, on the right for you, is the ecosystems live on this energy flow, right? The energy flow comes mostly from the sun and then goes to primary producers, which is staying the rest of life, right? We were discussing this morning and this then flows through a few other levels of predation and consumption and then it gets dissipated away, right? And this also recycles material. So some ecosystems are more closed than others. Ecosystems like rainforests are very good at closing a lot of material flows, but ecosystems like rivers, for example, don't. They live on the flow and that's true also of some ocean currents and so on, so there are different kinds of ecosystems in terms of material circulation, but this hierarchy is very important and human intervention sometimes is to destroy habitat, which destroys everything. Sometimes it's predation like fisheries on some elements along the chain that have different consequences for selection and so on. So this is kind of important to know how you're messing with these systems or what are the consequences for that structure and viability. But in human societies, we also have a structure where basically early on and the kind of thing that Pablo is describing, a lot of human settlements are more or less interdependent with their immediate interlens, the region around them for food and water, but increasingly as we have more and more cities in the world urbanized, you now have something that has very large cities with the global footprint and with very complicated flows. So what happens is that these top levels, both the large city and sort of the consumer, actually exert controls back into the system. So this is well known in some parts also of conservation that often if you don't have predation on the herbivore, you have depletion of the primary producer and the whole system kind of is impoverished. When you have more predation, you actually can have, for example, forest that sustain not just grassland and the whole system is more balanced.  And so by acting on the top, you can actually change, it's one good place to change the structure of the entire flow of systems, okay? Yes. Information or energy, which, so energy is going, being dissipated up. So what I meant to say is that energy is harvested usually in small villages and agricultural communities and flows up and it's consumed in larger cities, the energy poor and so on. So the amount of, and there's dissipation along the way and there's information control that basically is flowing down and there's innovation from the top to learn the bottom to make it do so that energy gets there, okay? This is a simplistic way of saying, but it's very important and actually concerned. So a lot of the changing the systems is that adaptation in the energy that parts of the system have on other parts of the system such that the system continues to work and particularly as it gets more complex and these change get longer, that becomes more and more important. So this is the informational part and in some sense this informational part is the news. We kind of have known that populations and energy flows this way, but the part about information, whether it is relative to economic growth or whether it is in terms of evolution is really kind of crucial, it's not very available to us and in some sense ultimately, this is what biodiversity is, is information in nature about other parts of nature and the environment. Okay, so urbanization is going on and there were these two dates, so I'm gonna go a little faster now, but basically it looks like this. When we look at the hierarchy in space, this is India of course, it looks like, you know, you've seen these photos at night, they're very sort of charismatic, but you see these large cities are very bright and then a bunch of other cities. This has a structure that's been sort of exploited a long time ago, this structure is not exactly true, but it's known as central place theory, but the idea is that larger cities have larger territories. They actually provide services, but also get materials and so on from larger parts of the world and their landscapes. And they exert controlling influences and become markets and become centers of innovation, centers of political organization for larger territories. So when you see an urban hierarchy, you see basically that this is this kind of functional hierarchy of resources flowing up the hierarchy and information flowing down such that the whole system works. Okay, when you look at this in terms of an energy hierarchy, on sort of, this is a little complicated, but I'm showing you something about power density, so the amount of energy used per unit time, per unit space. Okay, this is typical of the system. So the power density of cities is quite high. This is for nation states, this is a kind of data set that Singapore and Hong Kong are sort of the exemplar cities, but you see they have much larger population density and much larger energy consumption per person, so this is power density. And this is kind of an ecological concept that the Odum brothers developed a long time ago that still needs to be better quantified, but that in some sense what happens in these systems is that the acceleration of energy use, but also of money circulation and exchange increases as you go towards these centers and it's lower sort of in smaller places. So there's sort of a way in which these systems are organized and controlled, and the whole point is that a lot of sort of the problem of sustainability needs to be addressed using some of these properties, and the point I'm gonna make sort of in just the last few minutes is that to go to the centers of control is a good idea, and these centers of control, which are the large cities, are actually places that at an intuitive level they know that they're doing this. They don't know it with science, you know, they're trying, maybe we're the kind of people telling them that, but in some sense they know they're at the center of these flows. They know they have the innovation and the financial power to change them. They don't always have the full political power to change them. So when you look at these places, I'm gonna, Pablo did a little bit that will work for me, so I'm not gonna show you this. What you have is disproportionate energy use and economic production and so forth with population size, which reflects this more connected but more information rich networks that larger cities are relative to smaller places and so on. So, but this is kind of from the when, it's just showing you that even though the world at this point on the slide was made, it was only about 50% urbanized or so, so a few years ago that all these good things and bad things were disproportionately centered in these places. Okay, so these environments also create a lot of kind of contradictions, which is a concept I'm not gonna explore too much, but part of the problem is always that when you have development is this or you have a sustainability solution, can you actually address these three problems at once? So these three problems are in some sense a reformulation of those four laws of sustainability, where equity being the fourth becomes important. Okay, so what I'm about to tell you now, this is a quote from Martin Novak, sort of theoretical ecologist of a sort. He's very interested in problems of collective action and group selection and the quote, as you can see, he's telling you a little bit about how is it that we create collective solutions in societies, both in biology, but more importantly now in human society. And ecology and evolution have an answer for this, that I don't see reflected in the literature in the social sciences. Surely this is the most important problem in the social sciences, right? It's about social action, right? Social knowledge and social action. But ecology and evolution has its own answer that is sort of latent and it's kind of still not very well developed. So these are examples I explore a lot in my book, which is here, but there's this interesting book by David Sloan Wilson about how evolutionary theory and group dynamics actually evolves in a lot of community dynamics and policy, particular from the bottom up, that actually guide a lot of successful solutions. So if you're interested, these are good sources and this book is interesting. So I'm gonna go through this a little quickly, but the idea is to go to an environment of population dynamics in selection. So the idea is that populations, so what people do, where they are and so on, but this could also be about biological types, evolve given some factors that control essentially the growth, the differential growth of different types. And this is basically what we call fitness, but in the social context, we often don't call fitness. This structures the system in different ways. So fitness is a measure of information. I could show you this with information theory, but I'm not going to. But so biodiversity is also information. But the idea is that some types are amplified when they're desirable and they're doing well and some are de-amplified and may become extinct. And the idea is that this concept of fitness, written as I just wrote, which is the standard way, is decomposable across levels. So you can think about an individual belonging to a family and then belonging to a city, for example, and having basically cost benefits that have to do with their affiliation to each one of these levels, there are different, and that the individual compounds into a global cost benefit analysis. The idea is that joining larger groups is the only way to really create large benefits, but also is subject to exploitation. So this is at the basis of problems of altruism and so on. It's more general and it's part of group dynamics, but it means that humans live in this nesting of identities and affiliations that they need to manage and this is often managed by politics and other means, but this kind of becomes a lot of a conflict. So the idea is that usually one goes to this, the price accumulation, if you're interested, I could develop this slowly in a different talk, I'm not gonna do it, but the price accumulation tells you when something can be amplified by this selective dynamics and how it can be amplified differently at different stages of these group affiliations. Some dynamics, for example, for sustainability has to be a group dynamics. Some dynamics of cost benefit will happen in terms of the effort they put in that's individual. And so you can unpack these equations at different levels and create essentially a way in which the calculation has group dynamics, individual dynamics, and you can ask whether the group dynamics is worth it, whether you gotta benefit from it or not in terms of the cost that you have to pay to belong to that, in terms of the kind of suppression of freedoms that you have. So there's a beautiful set of resonant ideas that go with that. I'm a big fan of Marty's Sense, so he has a book I just finished reading, so I put it here, which is called Identity and Violence and Speaks Precisely. It's written after September 11th. It's about Muslim identity mostly, but it's really the idea that good things only happen when we are able to exercise, use and exercise collective dynamics. So the idea is that any problem of collective dynamics has these ingredients. You need to create higher collective payoff, so it has to be worth it to solve the problem of sustainability. It takes information, it takes fair redistribution of the benefits. So you said until 50, so I have two minutes. Maybe we have time for just a couple of questions. I'm just gonna show you a few things. So cities are kind of playing this role already, so just let me just show you this and then this. So this is the mayor of London. He just says, you know, nations move aside. Cities are measuring a lot of their carbon footprints. There's a certain way they're doing this, which is internal, but not their full influence. And you can see basically cities starting to decouple their carbon emissions from their population and economic growth, such as you see here. But this now comes on the background of standardized data that's being produced worldwide, now by hundreds of cities that are doing essentially the same thing because they associate it with themselves. So this is kind of a picture.  You see that Milan and Venice are here. They have relatively small footprints, but there are places like Lagos, Nigeria there that are probably underrepresented in terms of their future energy use, which is still very small per capita. So all these ideas are basically coming from a lot of applications in cities. They are now following that trajectories for wastes and carbon emissions and so on, and try to follow sort of this trajectory of sustainable development goals. So I'll just finish by showing that this kind of wealth is creating and solves a lot of the economic and social problems that we see in societies. And at the same time, we're seeing now a big reversal because with COVID, we've had a big reversal of these processes in which people are able to collaborate and work together and be educated and be healthy and so on. So it's really a time of great uncertainty as we go forward, as we can see also the war in Ukraine and the problem of energy being reversed relative to some of the progress that was achieved. So I'll just close with this quote. It's by a designer I like a lot and who's been to SFI, he's in Chicago, so I just had a pleasure in reconnecting with him. He did some of the graphics for our institute, but he's really an interesting mind. And so you can read the quote, but in some sense, the most important thing is, you can also put that on a t-shirt. There's no exterior to our ecology in terms of externalities. In some sense, when we look at the problem of sustainability, we need to think ecologically across scales, but also find the ways for people and nature to have agency to solve the problem and for it to be worth it. And that may well be the most complicated thing we do. Cities are natural at being able to do some of that, but nevertheless, we're kind of missing sort of a kind of institution, level of agency and structure of fairness and clarity of signals that allows us to do that. So thank you. Thank you very much. So that was really a lot of...


So that is taking everything we're talking about and beginning to transfer it across the board, you know, to everything and what happens is you'll find like the ego was like, okay, go ahead and you can do it with this and this and this, but there's like a, like the old days of the Wild West or the Cowboys or the Karā. You know, what's in the Karā? What's in the Karā is what's being protected, you know, there's a fence. The Karā is a fence. The ego doesn't want certain things out of the Karā because it's out of business with that Karā. Somebody leaves the gate open, it's like, all of the, they're gone. They're roaming, they're free roaming, they're not contained anymore. So you could start to say that as we go deeper into things, you start to see that there's certain concepts that the ego will protect because it made them up to be kept and, you know, and it's because the ego wants to be kept. It doesn't want to be released. Like, for example, relationships. We had interviewed a day and my friend David came across and she's setting up her cameras and she's like, can I, can I ask you people personal questions?  Are you two a couple? And she's looking at Francis as Francis is like... Okay? Okay. And then we went on to think, there was another time where she was talking during the interview and she was talking about, she was asking Francis about her mother and there was a discussion that Francis and her mother had a while ago where her mother was like, go on, or from China. There was a scoop thing. How does this actually work? How do you live your life? Like, practically speaking. How do you live your life? Like, do you have a bank account? Is it your money or their money? What is yours and what is theirs? Another question. Like, practically speaking. If you want to go out and buy some clothes, is it yours or theirs? And then at some point out of the mouth came... Listen, I don't think like that anymore. It came from an experience.  Or mine and theirs. Whether you're talking about a relationship or a person in an organization or a person in the government.  There's still...as long as that seems like a practical question, then you really start to say, wow, I've got some assumptions underneath. Because when we talk about living in divine providence, it's not a matter of changing the form. It's a matter of freeing the mind from those kind of thoughts like that movie Solaris that I use with George Clooney. At the very end when Rhea comes and appears to him at the very end, she says, you know, he says, am I dead? Am I alive? That seems to be a pretty important question on planet Earth. Am I dead or alive? And she says, we don't have to think like that anymore. In other words, there's an experience that transcends, am I dead or am I alive? You know, if somebody was in a car accident and they said, oh, it was a major car accident, that could seem like a pretty practical question.  We don't have to think like that anymore. We need to come to purpose as the only choice. We need to come to the life choice of the Holy Spirit and see that the ego is a death wish. People don't really die, cats don't die, dogs don't die, plants don't die. That's a projection of the death wish. The ego in the mind is a death wish. Then it projects how the world of duality goes on. Living, dead. You see, those are just categories. Those are just projections of a death wish that wants to keep going. It wants to keep going in your mind. That parasite needs to feed off of your mind, use the power of your mind. God created you with a very powerful mind and the parasite needs something to even seem to exist. And that's the mind's energy. What is a belief? If you withdraw your mind completely from the belief of separation, the belief of ego, it's gone. Jesus says the ego was made by belief and it can be dissolved by withdrawing yourself from it. So you withdraw your mind from the belief and then the belief is no longer. It's not killed.  Isn't that the way all the fairy tales go? Kill, how many movies have we seen where it's like there's the evil, the bad guys, the bad entity, the bad alien, the bad force, the bad indisible force, whatever.  And that's just not going to work. The ego likes a fight. If you try to kill it, oh, it's having a good time. You've got to have the right magic sword, too. It's always got to be the magic something or other. Otherwise it's not going to kill it. The subject of the course though is that he didn't even say let go of. He said withdraw. And I don't need to be legalistic, but I love the words he uses. Because withdrawing, see letting go is like something I do intentionally. Like an active thing. Oh yeah, really active. But the Gospel of Thomas though, I love it. The whole Gospel of Thomas is two words, be passers by. Isn't that wonderful? That doesn't even, that doesn't sound very active. Be passers by. In fact there's a part of the Course that says the miracle is quiet and quietly does nothing. It looks and waits and watches and touches not. Isn't that wonderful? It's giving us much more of a passive quality of just seeing the false is false. But it takes away this active sense that I kind of do, do. That's where the pressure comes in. Do the lessons right, forgive. Do it right, do it right. And the very assumption that it's a doing puts that edge on it. That really raspy edge, you know, that's guilt. I mean do nothing. Is that there? That's why that comedian said he wasn't a Jehovah's Witness, he was Jehovah's bystander. Physically. The choiceless awareness then is to see that there is no choice. Yeah, it's like the question of are you a couple or are you in relationship? You have an experience where it's like what's the marital status of the number five? It's not that you did and you let it go. Who's the one to let it go? It's actually seeing the impossibility of it. And that's what we can do with the same thing like what is mine and what is yours. There never was a mine or yours. Everyone's so concerned about dividing the pie up in being fair. I want my fair share. What if there never was a fair share? That Jesus devotes a whole section in the Course called the Justice of Heaven. And basically he's saying there is no justice in this dualistic world. Well thank you in hallelujah because how many of us have been justice, freedom fighters, justice, you know. Do it right, make it fair, redo it, make sure that the victims get compensated and so on and so forth. We saw a movie not too long ago, what was it called? America. America, it was called America. It was the telling and the retelling of history.  It was like you could look at history from a victim perspective. It's very dark when you look at everything and who needs to be recompensated isn't it? Or you can just see the impossibility of history in the first place. Jesus says history would not exist if you didn't keep making the same mistake in the present. Oh thank you. I even projected out of my biological mother was a history teacher. So they're talking about reinforcing that, bringing it home with you. When I got to that part of junior high though they wouldn't put me in with my mother's things. One is a mother and another one. In the end you have to start to really let go of the causation because isn't it false causation? False cause-effect relationships that make history what it is. It wouldn't be history if there wasn't this false sense of cause and effect. Oh these people they decided to take this land and they crossed the line. They crossed the line. They were spying, they were living there, they were coexisting. And then they crossed the line. There it is another war caused by something. And it's just starting to see the folly of the whole thing. Modestification with you. I think about Jesus in the Bible when a man came to Jesus and his father died. And he had to get his part from his heritage. And he comes to Jesus and asks him, let them give me my honest part. And Jesus looks around to everybody, am I a divider? Right, exactly. Who says that I am? It really comes down to the idea that we're whole. You were talking about Bill Setford while he was talking about being wrong or telling a brother. Isn't there a line somewhere where it says you never tell a brother that they're wrong? Yeah, don't correct a brother. And he's always right because he's the Christ. You see what it would take. You would have to go past opinions.  And he's always right because he's the Christ. It's a mind state. And that's so beautiful. Because in the early years the students would take something from the Course and they would come to me. They would all get all fired up about something they'd read in the Course. And one time they all came around me and they were like, what does he mean by this?  I said, who's ridiculous?  I said, what's he said now? And what they were all so upset about was he had one line in there that said, no one can be angry at a fact. And they were like all hot about that but no one can be angry at a fact. And so I said, don't you see the obviousness of that statement? And they said, no.  And they said, no. So then they had another question for me. They said, what is a fact? It's good to come right back with what is a fact. They said, God is a fact and Christ is a fact. Follow me. Follow me. No one can be angry at a fact. And it's always a misperception that gives rise to the experience of anger. You have to have conditions in your mind.  That is the condition of anger. You have to have that belief. You couldn't even experience anger unless you had the belief that you've been wrong by something not yourself. And you realize that that's part of, there's a healing direction in you. The secret of salvation is with this. I'm doing this to myself. It's not that it's going to stop there. Because the I, the Christ is doing anything to itself. But it's a starting point of starting to take responsibility for the state of mind. And beginning to open up to see that there is nothing outside of me. And I'm talking spirit to me. There's nothing outside of Christ. You have one with God. I and the Father are one. There's nothing outside of I am this. That's real and true. And that is so beautiful. That's just coming to humbly accept the truth. There's another part of people that don't like that. You say, what's he doing in there in the workbook? The truth is true and only the truth is true.  What kind of sense is that? The truth is true and only the truth is true. But he goes on to explain that even though the sentence has two parts, you must accept both parts of the sentence. The truth is true and only the truth is true. Yeah, but there are no exceptions. The power of decision is my own. He does the same thing in that lesson. My journey from Christianity starts actually when I'm from Hell's not true, but also that the true will make you free. You shall understand true that will make you free. And that's also the, okay, then there is no true what will bind you. True in itself is freedom. There is no opposite of that. And that was really... I will hold it so long in my mind if I did not know it anymore, then I compete to that. That's really true. It's just a true and that makes you free. There is no true that binds you. That's so beautiful, Peter, because that's just going so into the core of it. And then, as a contrast, there's all these theologies that are part of even Christianity. There's many, many theologies. For example, Mormonism, baptism, or resurrection of the dead. That believes that there's separate dead people or dead souls and that you can resurrect them.   The Mormons are not... These are our dead, we'll do whatever they want us to do. We don't want some other denomination resurrecting our dead. It just gets really humorous when you start to look at theologies and beliefs. If you really want to have a good laugh, that's why I play that Bill Maher... No, really. ...religious movie because it just goes after everyone. I mean, it just goes after Islam, Christianity, different denominations. And that's funny. To me, I find pointing out contradictions and just having a good laugh, I find that actually funny because it's just, again, the truth is true and only the truth is true and there's nothing specific about any of the specifics. It's just starting to see how silly that the ego is with its many variations of nothing. That's my kind of humor. I don't know. I find that funny. Because it's still coming back to the truth is true and that's the wonderful thing, you know, that the truth is one, the truth is true. Yeah, because there's also Jesus said, I am the way, the life, but also I am the true. And this is a craziness to say I am the true if there's also an opposite and then there's an inevitable truth. Then it makes no sense to say I am the true. So the true has really a meaning of something, wow, this is all there is. And you see too, in accepting that it's the end of arguments because there's nothing to argue about. Not that anybody wins or loses arguments, but there can be nothing. That's like when I was going through it going around the country in the world and the seeming Course in Miracles copyright thing arose and I think I blinked. I was just out and about and I blinked and there were seven courses, seven Course in Miracles losses going simultaneously. And I was like, and then people started to write to me and call me, which side is right? Which book are you reading? Which side is right? Whose right? This is non dualism. This is transfer of training. It would be like the same thing. And then at the end, who won and who lost? Oh please. Doesn't that sort of speak to that verse or that second end that says you we don't have the ability to differentiate our gains from our losses but we thought we're gains or actually losses and losses were actually retreats. Dance from retreats. At one point Jesus says in the Course you cannot tell the difference between pain and joy. And then he goes right on to discuss what he means by that. Because on the surface it's like, what do you mean? What do you mean I can't tell the difference between pain and joy? You talking to me? But you know in the end it's like because the mind can't think that pain and pleasure are different that it can't differentiate between pain and joy. Because it can't differentiate between pleasure and joy. That's deep teaching. That's of really deep teaching.  If that's actually the truth then it would seem that it would be pretty easy to drop the world. If it actually has nothing there, there's nothing at all there but the ego will try to make some things, some illusions attractive and then the mind falls for the bait and thinking no I don't want to believe the world I see holds nothing I want because I want you to see how it works. Is it magic to make pleasure the pain? It's magic in the sense that both of them are fantasies. Yeah so and then you can handle the pain in a little bit to use magic and to see it as pleasure but it's still what it is. Yes in the end it's magic that has a compromise component underneath it. There's compromise underneath it and the whole point is to expose and start to realize that salvation is no compromise of any kind. It can't be a little bit of this and a little bit of that. There's no mixing. Just like you don't mix oil and water in this world. You don't mix spirit and linear time space and form. You can't mix the two. So really you might say again it's a convincing job. The Holy Spirit has a convincing job to show the everythingness of spirit and the nothingness of form. Remember from the Bible the Bible has said that which is born of the flesh is flesh that which is born of the spirit, the spirit. It never tried to mix the two. It never said you know we have a good mix between the flesh and the spirit. It's just not there. It's not in the core since it's not in the Bible. The ego will try to make that attempt to mix that. I mean one time ago years ago there were some people out doing some teachings and they were teaching and somebody said what kind of relationship do you have? The Course talks about special relationships and holy relationships and they said we have a Spoli relationship. And of course those chapters from 15 to 24 those nine chapters Jesus never uses the term Spoli. The whole nine chapters are discerning between the two so you can release, expose and release special relationship and open to holy relationship but he never uses Spoli. And the thing about it is that's what to me is so good about the Course that's what is emphasized here is that there's a discernment that's coming clear. I can use these terms in the Course like attraction to guilt. There's one chapter where he's got three subsections attraction to guilt, one of the subsections. The first time you read it you go That's sick. What a subsection in a book. Attraction to guilt. Then you read the next title Attraction to Pain. This is the attainment of peace. And then again attraction to death. Attraction to guilt, attraction to pain, attraction to death. Three subheadings of sub chapters. And the ego just wants to skip over that because it doesn't want to understand the dynamics. It even says in there Jesus says the ego does not want this attraction or this connection brought into awareness. Why? Because if it was brought into awareness you'd drop it like a hot potato. You'd say I have no need for this at all. I would rather have peace actually than pain and guilt and death.   It's that you see there's no bookie man. There's no dragon there never was. But if you're in a game of trying to hide something then the world will act out. Lots of dragons and bookie man. It's designed to act out what the mind believes.


Hello again. Rob Custner here. Perhaps you saw the video I made with Amherst Media last month. I hope you'll continue to view that one. And I want to thank Amherst Media for this opportunity to present a briefer and newer version for the November 6th election. I'd also like to thank the 1,133 of you who came out to vote for me on September 4th. I'm grateful for your support. And I hope that you'll bring a couple of friends with you on the November 6th election and perhaps bring the vote count up to enough that I may actually be elected. So thanks again for coming out on the 4th and I hope to see you on the 6th. I want to discuss a couple of things that I didn't touch on in the earlier video. And these have to do with some of my goals for serving as a town councilor. Primarily, I'd like to try to build consensus on the council. The town is rather deeply divided now over a number of issues, the charter on the least, the school projects, and many other divisions about how the town is developing. I'm an independent candidate. I'm not supported by any PACS and have experienced to help build consensus having served on the select board a decade ago, having led a decade-long effort on the Neurotic Rail Trail Advisory Committee to actually get the rail trail rebuilt. And I discussed that more in the earlier presentation, but it was an effort in consensus building on a very large, very expensive project. And the key takeaway was we wanted to build something that was very, very good and we wanted to get buy-in from everybody. No divisiveness, good consensus building. That's what I aimed to do on the council. Let me tell you a couple of issues that I think we need to be addressing. And I think I have the ability and experience to build consensus on these. One of them is we really need to have expanded public transit options, both locally and throughout the region. Our most transit-oriented population are the thousands and thousands, more than 25,000 students that are on the various campuses, but also many of us, including myself, who use transit to get to and from our work, our school, airports, home, and so forth. We need to be working to improve that. For decades, I've led the effort as chair of the Transportation Committee and Amherst as an advocate with the PVTA and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission for better local and regional transit. That's one of the top priorities I have. It's important for protecting our environment and for allowing people to get around without the need of a car. Unfortunately, as you can see in the background, I had an accident a little while ago on my bicycle and I'm now in need of a car. The other thing I think that's very important, given the university's presence and the students, is environmentally responsive development and better affordable housing at all levels. That includes for students, for older people like you and me, and for new people coming to town or having a hard time finding affordable housing. The university and the town need to work on what have been called public-private partnerships to get safe affordable housing for students on or near the campus. I support that effort, but it has to be safe, unlike some of the projects we may have seen recently built downtown. The most important thing I think for many of you is the need to rebuild or renew in some way our neighborhood schools. I spent several weeks before this accident walking and talking with people throughout Amherst, and many of them are very happy. In fact, all of them are happy with their current neighborhood schools.  Those schools have been a problem for decades. It wasn't just the last election that led to the problem. We need to find a way to rebuild them, renew them in some way. In addition, people in South Amherst have been telling me for years, and they repeated that again, that we need to have a third fire station that will be close enough to them to serve them. If that were co-located with the DPW facility, we might have a good project. And finally, our libraries. The Jones Library is a treasure, but so are our branch libraries. We need to basically improve our branch libraries in North Amherst and on the Munson on the South Common, and we need to preserve the Jones Library. Thank you. I look forward to coming out again on November 6th, and I really appreciate your vote.


How do you allow another participant in your zoom call to record Their the the meeting at least for that segment. So for example, let's say That you are doing a client call and instead of you recording the call and then having to upload it and share it with them You know several steps. Why don't you just have the client? Record the zoom call so that after the zoom meeting is done the recordings on their own computer, right? Or if you're in a group client Meeting like I am right now things to those of you who are here for this tutorial You can allow one group member to record their segment first if they're if you're coaching them or ask answering a question They can record their segment and then after they're done recording you let someone else record. So it's as an example right now I am going to Show you so you first have to open up the participants You know panel, which if you're not if you don't see it for some reason you can Okay, so for example if you don't see the participants panel You have to click on the more in the bottom of zoom there and then click on Show the participants there it is and then this pops up and then to allow for example If I'm gonna allow and to record this particular segment I'm gonna click go to her name click more and then click on allow to record Yeah, allow to record local files. I'm gonna go and click on that. All right, and go ahead and try recording click on record button Let's just make sure that it works. This meeting's being recorded. See got it and and Anne's the one that's recording right now later Yeah, there we go. Thank you and for stopping it later. You'll after this meeting You'll get this tiny snippet and then after someone is done you can go to the next person Let me just go to Jess here click more. I'm gonna click allow to record local files. Jess go ahead and give it a try Yeah, Jess is now recording as you can see and then once the segment is done. All right, Jess. Thank you I hope that was helpful. There you go. Jess stop the recording simple as that so now that once I end the meeting They will have the recordings don't and will have hers and then Jess will have her segment so super You know very efficient way of sharing recordings with clients and group members. Hope this is helpful. Thanks


Every year, hundreds of the top cancer scientists from countries around the world converge to discuss the latest on diet and cancer. I'd like to share what I've found to be the most interesting highlight from this year's conference. First some background. One cancer cell never hurt anyone. Two cancer cells never hurt anyone. But a billion cancer cells? That's when we start getting into trouble. We have to slow and reverse the division in growth of cancer cells. We all have cells that could grow into tumors, but if we slow them down, our immune systems may be able to clean them up before they spell trouble.  For example, the most common cancer among American women. Like all cancers, it starts with one cell.  Every time the cells divide, the tiny tumor doubles in size, and the tumor only need double about 30 times, and we're up to a billion cancer cells, which is a tumor just large enough to be picked up by mammography. Even though it only has to double 30 times, it takes between 25 and 1,000 days for cancer cells to double just once. So that means from the time that first cell gets mutated, it takes between two and 100 years before it actually shows up as a little tumor we can see. The shortest known interval between exposure to a carcinogen and cancer is about 18 months, which is when the first leukemia cases started appearing after Hiroshima. Cancers need time to grow, and for most solid tumors, meaning non-blood tumors like breast cancer, cancer can take decades to develop. Many breast cancers may start in the teen years. Some think we actually may start developing breast cancers in the womb before we're even born, and that depends in part on what our mom ate. This is what's called the promotion stage of cancer. 20 years ago, I ate meat, a lot of meat. I very well may have mutated one of the cells in my prostate, liver, or colon, but I don't mind if I get cancer in 100 years. I don't expect to be around to worry about it. The cancer may have been initiated by a DNA mutation, but if we don't promote it, if we keep it dormant, if we slow it down, we may even be able to reverse its growth. According to autopsy studies in Japan, they've got just as much prostate cancer as we do, but the rate of Japanese men dying from prostate cancer is one-tenth that of American men, until they start eating like us. Japan has the number one longest life expectancy of any nation. The U.S. falls around 19th.  By age 80, the majority of men have tiny cancerous prostate tumors, and by age 40, one-third of women have microscopic cancerous breast tumors. It's like atherosclerosis. About half of young Americans in their 20s already have atherosclerotic plaques hardening their arteries. Many of us right now have tumors growing inside of us, so we can't wait until later to start eating healthier. We have to start now. How can we slow down and reverse cancer while it's still microscopic? Well, for prostate and breast cancers, these tissues tend to be sensitive to growth-promoting steroid hormones like estrogen. So one way to decrease our levels of these steroid hormones may be to stop eating and drinking them by avoiding eggs, meat, and dairy. Okay, let's get to the new research. UCLA scientists placed women on a plant-based diet with exercise, and the levels of all measured growth hormones in their blood dropped dramatically. That's not new news. It's what they did next that made this one of the most exciting papers to come from that conference. Before and after the dietary change was initiated, researchers drew blood from the women and dripped it on live human breast cancer cells growing in a petri dish. After just two weeks, the blood of women on the plant-based diet reduced the cancer growth rate by 20%. This is before, just packed with cancer. This is after.  Again, many of us right now have tumors growing inside of us, so we can't wait until we're older to start eating healthier. We have to start now, tonight.


Thank you George. Happy New Year from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility on California's High Desert. I'm Don Haley from the Dryden Public Affairs Office. One of the major highlights at Dryden this past year was the opening of this small teacher resource center. Since we're fairly distant from the TRC's at major NASA centers, it's given our local teachers easier access to NASA's educational programs and the wealth of materials available to them. Expanding again on the education theme, we had special displays and guest astronauts for students we invited from the five Southern California counties surrounding Dryden for the landing of the space shuttle endeavor on its maiden flight last May. The thousands of students here saw for the first time a drag shoot used by a space shuttle orbiter. Another highlight was the grand opening of the integrated test facility. The ITF gives researchers the ability to operate and observe various aircraft systems simultaneously prior to a research flight. This unique capability speeds up and enhances systems integration and pre-flight checks on all types of research aircraft and the ITF can be used by up to six aircraft at the same time. In the important area of high-angle of attack research, Dryden this past year was involved with three aircraft flying these types of missions. The F-18, the X-31 and the X-29. The F-18 with its three-axis thrust vectoring system for high AOA controllability achieves 70 degrees in sustained flight in NASA's study of air flow characteristics, control surface interaction, and engine performance at these flight conditions. Researchers are also looking at the X-31 with its thrust vectoring system for greater maneuvering capability. The X-31 is being flown at Dryden by an international test organization and it has also reached 70 degrees angle of attack in sustained flight. The program is managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, and could someday lead to fleets of high performance fighters with thrust vectoring systems for better controllability at high angles of attack. This past year Dryden participated in another flight project with the X-29 forward swept wing experimental aircraft, the third doing high AOA work at Dryden. The unique aircraft was modified with vortex flow controls at the nose in a study of using small gas thrusters for better controllability at high angles of attack. It was a very successful project which produced a lot of good research data in a very short time. The triple sonic SR-71 is now being used as a high speed high altitude research platform and data from these types of missions will be used in the development of future high speed civil transports. Locally Dryden families and students from nearby Lake Los Angeles school are adopted school partners. We're thrilled when one of our three blackbirds cruise overhead during Dryden's family day program. Just before the holidays NASA's highly modified 990, now a landing systems research aircraft, got into the air for the first time in several years on a functional check flight in preparation for space shuttle landing gear systems test to begin soon as part of NASA's ongoing effort to upgrade and improve systems on the orbiters. Discovery's last minute visit to Dryden on December 9th rounded out this year's space shuttle missions as it flew south over the western edge of the United States for a midday landing on the main runway at Edwards and Dryden's shuttle support crews will be eagerly awaiting the missions of 1993 to help land and service the orbiters when weather diverts them to Dryden. As the new year began our aircraft crews were busy at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida preparing Dryden's venerable B-52 to air launch a Pegasus space booster from the pylon on the right wing on a mission to place a Brazilian satellite into orbit. From Dryden happy new year to everyone with NASA and now we go to Don James at the Ames Research Center near San Francisco.


Welcome back to my channel guys. It's your girl Coco styles and on this channel. We talk about beauty fashion and life stuff But in today's video, I'm gonna show you guys a couple of shorts and some pants that I purchased from the pants are from express and the short top from Express and I have some tops just a couple of tops a few tops and Two pairs shorts from Primark and Primark is not here in Atlanta, but I was in Florida and I decided to go in check it out. Um, not so much my cup of tea But I actually do like these shorts and I'll let you guys see them So please keep in mind that I am six feet tall So the shorts will fit me at a certain length opposed to you if you decide to get any of these And that's for the pants. The pants are an ankle pants And for us 12 women, it's kind of hard for us to find ankle pants that come to the ankle So I believe the pants are 29 and a half inches. So that's pretty good for ankle pants and Let's see what else and the pants have a little bit more stretch than the shorts from express and then the Primark pants shorts don't really have any stretch, but I'm probably gonna end up just popping in some pictures and stuff as I'm talking about everything Trying something new to see what's a little bit quicker for me to get these Can't get these videos out for you guys. So I'm just gonna get started with let's start with Some of the the shorts that I got from Express So here are some black shorts and these are Bermuda shorts and these are a size 10 so I did buy an eight But they were just a little bit too snug around the waist area So something like this I would probably just wear this with a Simple white top you can wear this with sneak white sneakers. You can wear this with some slides You can wear this with heels pumps, whatever But enough shirts you could wear with bodysuits, but I'll let you guys see this once I put this one I'll put it on with one of these tops over here For you guys to see so this is shorts number one and I got these in black and The other color that I did get from Express was Sorry guys, I got a burgundy pair, which is not necessarily a spring color However, I thought these were really pretty. I like these a lot Yes brighter colors for spring, but sometimes when you like something you just purchase it now They have a sale right now and I believe they still have these So these ah They were 39 Then they had a sale, I think I paid $20 for these and Then I Couldn't send them back because it was last fine sale. So when I purchased them again I think I paid 16 99 the black was a little bit more expensive not much maybe 25 dollars So I did get them in burgundy also same size 10. It doesn't have stretch around the waist guys So if you have a larger waist Then I would opt for 12 and I believe they had 14 and 16 I believe so here's the burgundy color and Let's see Okay, so that's burgundy and then from from Primark These are size eight These also don't have stretch but they fit a little bit better than those Like I said, you guys are gonna see these in how Well the length that they are me because I am six feet So they're not gonna hit me the same length that they are fit somebody who's of course shorter than I am So these are the material is different on these these are Let's see Well, they're made in Vietnam. So they have absolutely no stretch guys None, but they do have pockets. Those have pockets too. I believe they do they do have pockets, which is great and Let's see Trying to see the oh Okay, sorry Of course, it comes with extra buttons And these are a what are these? Probably I'll start to be honest with you. They were very cheap. They were like 13 bucks from Primark and I'll show you guys how this these look I probably keep on the same top for all of them Just so you guys can see See the shorts Well, they've been Bermuda shorts and then I also got like a tan color Also and again same size same Pockets It does have stitching here. So if if you do get it's like depleted in the frame. I hope you guys can see that I have like a little pleated So if you do get these again Keeping my no stretch and I'm sure I'm not sure how primed my work because we don't have one here in Georgia but if you guys do have one near you pick up those shorts and I'm gonna start with the pants.  I got black again, you can wear these what sneakers if you decided to Sorry So here's the pants they come down right along But these are like I said, these are eight long and the inseam is 29 and a half inches So if you are 511 I'm turning up. This will be perfect for you Like I said something like this you can wear with some flats Some sneakers, but I'm actually just want to show you guys how They're gonna fit on my body for those of you ladies who are tall So it's not so much of a styling video. It's more so How these shorts and the pants are gonna fit I got a peach pair Which I think are absolutely cute now. They did have a blazer that goes with this But the blazer looked like the sleeves are pretty short. So I didn't get it I don't know. I may end up getting it rolling up But that's another struggle from being tall trying to get blazers and stuff that fits your arms Like I said, these pants are eight long. They're high-rise and they're ankle all of the shorts are high-rise also but um These have more stretch in them. So I was able to keep the size eight in these and I actually can't wait to wear these because these are so cute These are cute Pretty color pretty kind of pretty pretty kind of okay and then I'm gonna show you some of the tops that I've got Another top that I did purchase was a nice linen top from H&M and It's like oversized. I'm actually I'm gonna link it because I put it in the cleaners I'm gonna link it for you guys because it's it's really nice I did end up getting This top from Zara. It's just like a for short crop top with like Fluffy, I don't know bubble sleeves you would call it So I would wear this with high-rise jeans or high-rise pants If you don't want your Stomach to show so that's this top and it has like it's very it's very springy because it's like very airy it has like I don't know. It's just it's like a peasant top sort of Then I purchased This top from Zara So this is a linen top also, but this one is more so cropped So I'll try this on too for you guys so you guys can see this as well and The last hop so yeah, so So this top it's not really Huh, I'll be honest with you. I'm not too sure how I'm gonna get this on because The buttons kind of go in the back and then it's a one sleever So I thought the buttons were gonna be on the side, but it's kind of in the back But it's a really cute top. I did get a large because it just seems like it ran pretty small So I'll let you guys Let me know what you guys think about this once I pair it with one of these pants over here and Let me know what you guys think so and actually what I'm wearing now guys is a green top from Zara These pants are also from Zara These are probably like two years two years old, baby And I have one my Zara flat slides Um nothing Spectacular something simple some hoop earrings. Why not even hoop and my hair up in a bun for today And a headband and that's it guys. I'm part of home again If you like videos like this, please comment below and if you say to the end of this video Please comment Coco we see you and don't forget to hit that like comment and subscribe button And I will see you guys in the next one. Bye


Hi everybody. I'm very pleased to welcome to the stage for our closing part of this morning session three very distinguished colleagues. On my immediate left is Matt Bannock, who is the managing partner of the OMIDIAR network, but also has been the co-chair of the U.S. National Advisory Board on Impact Investing. Next to him is Jonathan Greenblatt, a great friend and colleague who is also special assistant to the president and director of the White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation. And from the farthest away, and farthest away from me is Ronald Cohen, whom I first met when I was a young leader starting my own community investment organization. And Ronald, today is the chair of the social, sorry, the social impact investment task force established by the G8 countries. So we're here actually to reflect on what's happened between last year and this year when Matt was on stage and was talking to us about the development of this task force. And so my first questions are for you. You've had a very interesting role. You were telling us last year at this time what might happen in the 12 months that have occurred since then. So tell us about what's evolved and what are the recommendations that have come out of the advisory task force. Yes, so we first of all, good morning everybody. And it's great to share the stage here, however briefly, with Sir Ronald, with Jonathan, who've been kind of instrumental in this process. But as Penelope was saying, I was here last year talking about the launch of the National Advisory Board on Impact Investing. And our task was to work together as a community of Impact Investors and come up with a set of policy recommendations for government that we were hopeful would help kind of move the needle and help government become a true partner in the quest to really accelerate the growth of Impact Investing. And I've been privileged to be co-chair of the National Advisory Board with Tracy Flange on Social Finance. And I think we've made, I'm here to say we've made tremendous progress. We've launched a report. It's always good to come with a prop here. We've launched a report. I assure you it's a fascinating read of some 51 pages, a chock full of fabulous recommendations about what can be done, what government can do to help us accelerate the sector. And there are recommendations basically fall into three buckets. One is about removing regulatory barriers. And here there are a whole host of things. For example, foundations currently are investing more and more in for profit entities with a social purpose through what are called program related investments or mission related investments. But there more can be done to clarify and enhance the regulations so that additional money can flow into PRIs and MRIs. And that's just one example that can be, is really important in terms of reducing regulatory barriers. The second area is about making existing programs more efficient, more effective. And here again there are a whole host of examples of things that we can do. One thing, one organization I'm pretty familiar with and we work with at the mid-air network is OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. And OPIC has done a tremendous job in providing debt to U.S. companies who are doing fabulous work overseas. But there are also constraints within OPIC's charter. For example, they can't provide equity, which can be the most catalytic of capital types. So in our recommendations in the report, we call upon greater flexibility, on giving, providing greater flexibility for OPIC and finding other ways to make government programs more effective. And finally, there's a set of recommendations in the report about ways in which government can continue to catalyze the impact investing market. It's so interesting that people sometimes shy away from government and see it as an impediment. The reality is government plays a critical role in so many industries. Think of energy, think of the internet. Great example is venture capital industry with which many of us here in the Bay Area are familiar. The venture capital industry really took off when government promulgated more inclusive recommendations around how pension funds make their investments. And again, here there are a number of specific recommendations we make. For example, we encourage the development of the Global Development Innovation Fund, which is being pioneered by USAID and DFID in the UK. And we think there are a number of other examples where government can really help catalyze markets. So those are the big three, we think, are reducing the regulatory barriers, increasing the effectiveness of programs, and catalyzing more investment and impact investing. Thank you very much. This is going to be tough. We're limited on time, and I know I already have a million questions, and I'm sure you do too. But I'm actually going to switch order a little bit. Ronald, when you listen to Matt and you think about this audience out here, you've got entrepreneurs, investors, a quite a diverse audience. Why should they care about what Matt just said? Thank you, Penelope. And may I say it's just, do you mind if I stand? You may do whatever you wish. Yeah. It's great to be here with you in Silicon Valley. I started out to the age of 26 as an entrepreneur and a venture capitalist. Used to have an office in Silicon Valley. And I'd like to answer Penny's question by saying, what brought me to this area is when the British government 14 years ago asked me to look at the issue of poverty and look more entrepreneurially at how we could cope with it. And what I realized is that a social entrepreneur, somebody who wants to devote their career and their effort, and their resources to helping others can't access capital in the way that a business entrepreneur can. And that's what impact investment is about. Enabling social entrepreneurs, whether they're working through not for profits, or for profits, to raise the capital they need in order to improve the lives of others, or the environment which improves the lives of all of us. And I guess that's the reason why all of you are here. And when you listen to what Matt was saying, what Matt is saying is there've been some evolutions in thinking, which bring us to a tipping point today. And government has to push us over the tipping point. The evolution of thinking is 19th century talked about financial return. 20th century talked about risk and return. 21st century talks about risk, return, and impact. Next evolution in thinking, we've all assumed that you can't measure impact forever. But through the development of social impact bonds and in other ways, we've begun to realize that you can measure social impact. And that if you set clear impact objectives, and you measure their achievement, it helps you to raise your game. And if government is prepared to pay for success, or if foundations we heard you deferred in its very eloquent explanation of all the things, the pioneering things that Rockefeller Foundation have been doing, if foundations are prepared to step in, and pay for success. Then we begin to have a world where those who achieve a social performance can get remunerated for it. And they can access capital the same way a business entrepreneur that delivers profit can. In order to make that happen. We need two big enabling moves by government. And that's what the task force report is going to be pushing when it emerges in two weeks time on September 15th. And I want to please all of you to watch out for it. And we want a clamorous response to the report. Thank you. What the report basically will say is beyond what I have said already. Government needs to look at the fiduciary duties of trustees of foundations and of pension funds. In the same way that Arissa legislation got money to flow into venture capital into my first venture capital funds and others. In that same way, we want money to begin to flow from foundations and pension funds using their endowments. This involves a redefinition or a clarification of their duties. That the returns they're trying to achieve are not just financial returns. They're financial and social returns. And in my country, the law commission has been working on clarifying this. So I'm hopeful that the United States can lead in this area. The second area is for government to make it much easier to enter into the sort of pay for success arrangements that Judith was talking about this morning, whether it be for international aid, whether it be domestically, whether it be for social issues or for environmental issues. If government is prepared to sign or if a foundation or a corporation is prepared to sign a contract that says if you improve the dropout rate from school, if you improve the homelessness rate, if you improve the rate of recidivism, if you improve the attainment levels in underprivileged neighborhoods, then we will pay you for it. And the amount we pay you will enable your investors to get a return, but it'll be a fraction of the saving. And the saving itself will be a fraction of the value created for society. Sir Penelope, that's what I take from what Matt is saying. That was eloquent and brilliant. I'm in a terrible bind.  What's your sense of the climate for making these kinds of policy changes that Matt and Ron are alluding to here in the US anyway? Well, so first of all, I think I would say that the climate is pretty good and I'm pretty encouraged. I think for all of you to know, you know, Washington is a long way away from the Bay Area and from Silicon Valley. But the fact of the matter is something very significant happened with the creation of the task force that Sir Ronald chairs and with the establishment of the advisory board that Matt co-chairs. You had a blue chip group that came together with representation from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation and entrepreneurs like Seth Goldman from Honest Tea and academics like Kathy Clark who is up here earlier. So you had this remarkable non political group that came together and said, you know, what White House government, this is what we need you to do in order to lead. The good news is that the president deeply believes in impact investing. He believes in social innovation more broadly. It's why he created the Office of Social Innovation, why he launched the Social Innovation Fund, why he's pioneered paper success and social impact bonds, why he's championed cross sector leadership. And this he believes impact investing is part of a strategy of accelerating economic recovery and boosting job creation. So this book, this report has some great recommendations in it. And they're all we're already starting to see some progress. So this summer on the hill, there was bipartisan legislation proposed in the house and the Senate to create a $300 million fund at Treasury, a paper success fund that will basically create the the credit enhancements, the outcome payments and will essentially be for the social impact bond field, what the CDFI fund was at Treasury for Community Development Finance, or what the SBIC program has been for venture capital. So it can be tremendously powerful to unlock the kind of leverage that you see in those programs. Think 10x, think 20x on that $300 million proposal. The fact that again, Republicans and Democrats are behind it is really good news. The second thing I would say why I'm encouraged is this summer, as Judith mentioned, we hosted a roundtable at the White House on impact investing. And we had investors, many of them came out here from San Francisco, from venture capital firms, from asset management firms, some foundations who stepped forward and said, we're going to make commitments because we see impact investing, not as a trade off between impact and returns, but as a way to drive alpha, as a way to deploy capital, as a way to create value. They made over $1.5 billion worth of new commitments this summer. It wasn't the fact that they were Dems or Republicans, it was this is where the market is headed. So I think they're very encouraging political currents, which we can look at. They're very, very interesting developments on the investment side, which we can look at, which give us great, great confidence that there's a lot of opportunity moving forward. It's just so heartening for me to be on this stage, you know, and listen to the idea of these kinds of systems solutions emerging, you know, it's really so exciting. The other thing I would add Penelope is Socap has been at this now for what, eight years? Yeah. This intersection of money and money and meaning and so many of us, certainly on the stage and in the audience are committed to using all tools we have to have a positive impact in the world. And this report and this effort with the task force, this is all about marshaling that same ethos, that same energy that Socap has helped bring along for so many years into the public sector as well and getting government as a partner so that we can take this to the next stage. So it's completely resonant with your work here. And again, I've just been delighted to serve with these two gentlemen and trying to push this forward a little bit. Well, we're going to do something amazing as a group. These fellows and I are going to actually end on time. But one thing that I want to make sure that I have a chance to ask one of you, so I'm going to make it, Jonathan, is in 30 seconds. If you are a reporter for the rest of the morning and you're going to go out with your mic and interview this audience, what would be the one question you'd want to ask them? What would be the question that I would want to ask?  You got a mic. You got the rest of the morning and you've got this audience. Right. That's a hard question. I think I guess what I would say is what are you going to do to make an impact on these issues? Great. So are you going to write your congressman? Are you going to write your senator? Are you going to write me and tell me what are the issues that you think matter to you that you want to see the administration undertake? And so not only will I ask that question on behalf of everyone in the room, I'll give you an answer. So my email address is innovation at who.eop.gov. So there's the question. You should email me with what you think the White House and the President should be doing to move this ball forward or you should tell me what you are going to do to advance the recommendation. And I want you to do this. I really, really want us to do this because that's the power of SOCAP. And so you've had an invitation from Jonathan to do that. And for all of these people and the amazing work that these committees have been doing, it's our job to advocate. And so I hope you'll do that with me. So let's celebrate the end of our morning session with a round of applause for the wonderful men.