It's now my pleasure to introduce a very special guest, Dr. Peter Brown. He's written a book entitled, Right Relationship, Building a Whole Earth Economy, and we'll be speaking on that same subject. It's an excellent book, which I've greatly enjoyed reading, and it's in the bookstore, shameless plug for you. So I recommend going to take a look at that. I first heard of his book from some NGO colleagues who told me I just had to read it, and then once they heard he was speaking here said my job was to convince him to come back to New York and speak there as well. So we're really looking forward to this talk this morning. Dr. Brown's book, Right Relationship, uses the core Quaker principle of right relationship, respecting the integrity, resilience, and beauty of human and natural communities as the foundation for a new economic model. So I think it'll be a really interesting presentation. Dr. Brown is a professor in the School of Environment, the Department of Geography, and the Department of Natural Resource Sciences at McGill University. Before coming to McGill, he was professor of public policy at the University of Maryland's Graduate School of Public Affairs. He is the author of Restoring the Public Trust and the Commonwealth of Life, as well as this new book. And he's actively involved in conservation efforts in the James Bay and Southern regions of Quebec and in Maryland. So please help me in welcoming Dr. Peter Brown. Thank you, first to Peter, Adrienne, for inviting me to this wonderful conference, to Tara for a wonderful introduction, and to the organizer of the conference for interest in this topic. The idea of this book, which I'm going to talk in part about, came from a despair actually over the relationship between the macroeconomic processes of the industrialized societies and even non-industrialized societies and the well-being of the Earth's living systems. And so we decided to write a book that would try to examine carefully and critically that relationship, and it was written by myself, Jeff Garver, who also lives in Montreal, and with very substantial contributions from three other people, Keith Helmuth, from Frederickton, New Brunswick, Arias, Steve Sege, who teaches economics at Wilmington College in Ohio, and Robert Howell from New Zealand. So what I want to do, I'm going to change the emphasis of the speech a little bit in light of what Peter has talked about and what Arthur talked about last evening. I'm not going to spend any significant time on the dismal future. You know, I think that's been well documented, but I'm going to talk about how we can move away from that path and draw on the religious resources that we have, but I also want to spend a bit of time on some of the developments in science of the last 50 years or so and how they really reinforce and ratify basically of a high vision of the world because I think there is a remarkable but not complete convergence here. So what I'm going to hope for and provide hopefully an image for a moment of grace, a transformation of the human-Earth relationship based upon a combination of science and religion, and this is a phrase taken, a moment of grace is a phrase taken from Thomas Berry's really a terrific book called The Great Work where he envisions a possible re-envisioning of the human place in nature and the human place in the earth and in the universe. This is, I'm not going to talk about the dismal future, so I'm not going to talk much about this slide. This is the Alberta Tarsans project, one of the most egregious abuses going on on the face of the earth right now. If you want to help Canada, the best thing to do would be to boycott fuels coming from this source, have a Quaker friend who is a chemical engineer and trying to figure out whether we can find a molecular signature to oil from this source so that you could identify if it was in your, in particular petroleum sources. So we're not living up to our responsibilities in Canada even remotely on this subject, please help us. One of the themes of the book is right relationship and one of the ways to understand a tricky concept like that is to start with its opposite. And here's an example of the opposite of right relationship. This is the yellow line here, is the line for the size of the Arctic ice cap in the fall of 1979, where the ice is there is where it was in 2005. It shrank considerably in 2006, 2007, rebounded a bit in 2008, but the overall thickness of the ice continued to decline. This is an example of human beings being in a wrong relationship with the earth with basically being abusive and neglectful toward the earth. And we defined, as Tahira pointed out, right relationship as a relationship that respects the integrity, resilience, and beauty of human and natural communities. And what we need to do is to redesign the economic system so that rests on principles like that. Now, if you melt all of this floating ice from some points of view, it doesn't really matter very much. It's already floating. It's not going to make sea level rise significantly. But what it will do is change the heat balance of the northern hemisphere of the planet and will accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice cap. And I have a friend at McGill, Lawrence Mizak, who studies long-term climate trends. I asked him, what would it take to melt all of the natural ice on earth? And he said, well, get to 700 or 800 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, stay there for 100 or two years, and you'll melt it all. If you do that, you get 80 meters of sea level rise or about 260 feet of vertical sea level rise. This would obviously dwarf, I'm tempted to say swamp, the one to two meter rise that Arthur was speaking about last night. And it would destroy basically this civilization in every way as we now conceive of it. But that's where we're headed. We have no policies whatsoever to prevent that outcome. And so this is really the principle, a principle example of wrong relationship.  Here's a picture of several, many of them dead on the ground following his instructions. And my basic argument in this talk is that that's what we're being directed to do by our governments, by the Federal Reserve, by Secretary Geithner, by Professor Summers, that we're being urged to go forward with a way of relating to this planet that will basically undercut future human well-being dramatically and inalterably and negatively change the prospects of other life forms on the earth. So it's a sort of harsh indictment, but I think it's true. And we need to be aware of this and get off the bandwagon of this sort of false prosperity that we have. So basically we need to change the question, which we've been asking now for several centuries, how can we dominate and use nature? How can we live with an ethic of respect and reciprocity toward earth and the life on it? And if we can do this, I think we can change our hearts and minds in the way Peter has suggested, Gospeth has suggested. And to do this, we need to rethink citizenship, the economy, and our personal role in securing a just and flourishing earth. So four steps to write relationship, how we got on the wrong path, how to re-envision who we are, how to get economics and governance on the right path, and then what we can do as individuals. So part of that, I'm going to go a little light on this section because I think Arthur covered a lot of these issues very well last night. But I think the Western tradition has put us on a tragic course. It's taken several thousand years to get to this crisis, but I think the seeds of this crisis are in the foundational ideas of our culture. And I've been very influenced by Albert Schweitzer's philosophy of civilization, of which he completed two books in approximately 1923. There are actually two additional volumes that haven't been translated into English. In philosophy of civilization, Schweitzer makes the really bold claim that the Western tradition got off on the wrong foot by asking the question, what's good for humanity, not the question, what's good for life. And he says that this is a characteristic both of the Judeo-Christian tradition and of Greek thought. I take my student, when I'm teaching at McGill, I sometimes take my students to a very beautiful Catholic church, a St. Leon Catholic church in downtown Westmount. And we spend about an hour there looking at the images that are in that church. And on one part of the church, there's the scene of the creation and fall of man. Then there's the history of the church, kind of goes around the back. And then on the left-hand side, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. And then on the ceiling is the depiction of the day of judgment. So it's the beginning of human history, all important events in human history, and the conclusion of human history are all represented in this church. One of the things I ask the students is, have you got anything like this, right? Anything worldview, right? You got any sort of comprehensive interpretation of human origins, experience, and destiny, and usually that's followed by a rather profound silence. What's interesting about, and many things interesting about this church, and it's a very beautiful place, but one of the things is the images are almost all about humans or God or buildings of humans and almost nothing about nature, right? Almost no pictures of landscapes or trees or anything like that. So I'm afraid that Schweitzer was right, and I think the same charge can be leveled against Plato and Aristotle. Okay, second problem is we have too narrow conception of morality. Recall that in the Good Samaritan story, Jesus has asked what one has to do to secure eternal life, and he tells then the Good Samaritan story where it turns out that the neighbor in question is another person, right? So in the Judeo-Christian tradition, moral obligation is almost, not completely, some of the things that Peter put on the screen this morning are exceptions to this, but it's almost all conceived of as obligations to other persons. Martia Sen just wrote a book, which I haven't read, but I've spoke with somebody about it called The Idea of Justice, in which it's just assumed that justice is only something that arises between persons. It's assumed that way. It's not argued and demonstrated that. That's just an operative assumption. So I want to come back to the, in fact, I have a picture at the end of this talk of eternal life, right? So it's not all talks have pictures like this, right? So you might want to hang on for that, right? So other things that went wrong, sort of it's like a sailboat that gets a little bit off course and then keeps getting more off course. I've done that myself. And another deflection point was the rise of Baconian science, where the object of science became getting power over the earth and of nature, as opposed on an Aristotelian conception of science to have understanding of nature and the earth, right? The idea that we can control and manipulate nature was another big, a big mistake in my opinion. As was the Enlightenment conception that mind is something that's uniquely human. Whereas in fact, and I'll try to show in a minute, mind is in fact bountiful, even ubiquitous on the earth and perhaps in the universe. Another, yet another difficulty is the pre-scientific character of our moral systems, both from the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Enlightenment. And I think it's very instructive to look at an analogy. There's a really great movie by Peter Sellers called The Magic Christian, where he's the richest man in the world in the movie. He's holding a board meeting of his company on a train and they're going through somewhere, I guess it's somewhere in New Yorkshire, not really sure. And he's pointing out that everything is going wrong. The profits are down, public confidence is down, and we should, you know, the company's in a mess.   And he hands each of them a map. But it's not a map of Yorkshire, right? It's a map of anywhere, basically New Zealand, northern Norway, Paris. And so they're not maps of where they are. And our moral maps are not maps of where we are, right? So we're lost, basically, right? We haven't been able for very complicated reasons to connect our scientific knowledge with our ethical systems, right? And I can give some examples of this a little later on. Thomas Berry points out that we need a moral system which includes, excuse me, moral frameworks which include duties to systems, not just duties to individuals. And our moral systems are almost entirely individualistic in their orientation. And the last problem of our tradition is that we're somehow, rather no matter how much we mess up, we'll be rescued from somewhere else, right? And so somebody will come or something will come from outside and help us reach justice, as in the Book of Revelations, I guess, would be an example of that. And it's very much in the theme of what's been said at this conference so far and in the Baha'i readings, teachings that I've been reading, that if there's to be a rescue, it has to come from within us. We'll find spiritual resources that will help us to accomplish that, but we are key players in getting this going. So how could we possibly reconstruct a worldview, that would lead to better outcomes than this? And here are, it's a big question, obviously, and I'm only giving some examples of suggestions. And I'm going to spend a little bit of time in this section on some contemporary developments in science, which I think are crucial in understanding our role in the universe and how we fit into it. I love the picture in an impeter's presentation of a galaxy or something. I'm not sure which one it was. This is a very famous photograph at this point from the Hubble-based telescope. It's called The Pillars of Creation. And what it shows is a vast process underway of creating of the creation of stars. Basically, these are huge columns of gas. The distance on the left-hand column, the distance from the bottom to the top is six light years. So it's enormous. It's being bombarded by ultraviolet rays.  Some of them don't. They blow up or collapse or don't fail to make that. But this basically is a star factory or a place where new suns are being made. And this is going on all the time in the universe. So from the point of view of contemporary science, the universe is a creative process, not a created process. It's something still unfolding. It's not something created at an instant and then left alone. So what are some of the properties of a universe with these characteristics? And this is somebody before I gave this talk, this lady sitting here in second row wished me good luck on this talk. And if I needed it, I needed it for this slide and the next slide. After that, pretty much easy. Easy going. But anyway, thank you for that. So what do we know from a scientific point of view about the evolution of the universe? That's a big subject, obviously. But I'm going to talk about some general features of that process. It's generally conceded that there was an event around 14 billion years ago called the Big Bang, an enormous explosion that began in the present universe. What happened before that? We don't know. We don't even know if there was a before that. And what people who work in this field now say is that the characteristics of this process that began 14 billion years ago is that it was basically an evolutionary process. Biological evolution, as discussed by Darwin and others, is a special case of a general characteristic of the universe. So the universe began as a rather, in some ways, quite simple thing and has become, through evolution, more and more complex. A very, very good book on this by Shea Song called The Epic of Evolution, just a terrific, terrific book. There's also a nine-page summary of that which you might want to look at rather than a 500-page book. But as an author, I hate not to say a Bible. Okay, so what makes this thing work is about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, there was a division between matter and energy and set up basically a temperature gradient in the universe. The universe, in a way, is trying to get rid of anything where there's a gradient. So if I hold up my watch, there's a gradient between my watch and the floor. If I let go of my watch, it'll fall and hit the floor. What the second law of thermodynamics does is to describe that process as it works in the entire universe. The universe is trying to get to cool itself off. And so the second law of thermodynamics is a description of that attempt to get rid of that temperature gradient. This is referred to in some of the literature on this as the law of laws. This is why everything in the universe isn't the same as everything else. Why is there difference? Why am I different than you? Why is this microphone different from my watch? All of these things, all these differences are made possible by this effort, if you like, on the part of the second law of thermodynamics or the universe to cool itself off. This law describes the processes that reduce temperature and other gradients, and this process is referred to as entropy. Now, this is a concept that terrifies lots of people. It is a kind of worrying idea, and it's also a little bit difficult to grasp. Here's a good example.  No, right, basically, right? It's always something a little bit different and not improved, right? Now, you could think that's just because he's rude and inconsiderate, but that's not true. He's actually trying to teach you that if you don't continually put new energy and investment into something, it falls apart, basically, right? That's what entropy is. Entropy is the tendency of everything to disintegrate, if you like, or to reach an equilibrium with the things around it. Now, so that's a sort of overall direction of the universe is toward simplicity, or everything going back to being the same as everything else. But in the universe, so that's the characteristics of the universe as a whole, but within the universe, there are places where new energy is flowing in, right? So these are called open thermodynamic systems. So the earth is an open thermodynamic system because we're getting new sunlight all the time.  So the universe is at once running downhill through entropy, but in certain places it's running uphill, and the earth is one of those places. And this is the toughest part of this lecture here, this next idea, or two ideas. So how the earth does this was clarified, or excuse me, how the universe does this, was clarified substantially in the 1970s through the concept of dissipative structures. And the idea here is that that thermodynamics works by finding ways to get rid of heat more efficiently.  And after a while you'll get a rolling boil. Those big bubbles are dissipative structures, right? They're trying to throw off the heat that you're pumping into it from the burner as fast as possible. And these become self-organizing, right? These bubbles can kind of pull themselves together and hold together just for an instant or two. And if you look at things through these two concepts of dissipative structures and self-organizing entities, you can think of them in very common sense ways. So for example, look at the wind patterns on the earth. The wind is basically an attempt on the part of the air on the earth, if you like, to become the same temperature everywhere. Okay? So the earth, it's always hotter at the poles, excuse me, always hotter at the equator than at the poles. And what the currents, the air currents, the winds are doing is they're trying to bring about a thermal equilibrium on the earth. They're trying to get rid of the temperature gradient, right? So they're doing what the universe is telling them to do. They're never going to succeed because of the angle at which the sunlight strikes at the equator is different than the angle at which it strikes at the poles. So the winds have got a kind of perpetual job never going to win. The ocean currents are the same way, right? Ocean currents are an attempt to get the temperature of the ocean to be the same, and they're not going to succeed either for the same basic reason. Okay. Now what's what happened and what's really exciting to me, at least in the, particularly in the mid-1990s through work by a Canadian who unfortunately died very young, James Kay, was to look at life as a process like that, to say that the evolution of life on earth is basically a dissipative structure, right? It's an attempt, or it's a design feature, if you like, that allows us to dissipate heat more efficiently, right? So the heat dissipators are already at work, or the wind and the ocean currents and other things like that. But living beings are also heat dissipators. And also what Kay was able to show is that ecosystems are heat dissipators. So if you look at it this way, the universe is always, is both creating complexity and destroying complexity at the same time. And what's happening on earth is we're a sort of window or island, if you like, where complexity is being created in a whole universe in which the net effect is to destroy it. Okay. So I just want to talk a little bit about how mind and spirit fit into this picture. So looked at this way, the universe has direction, but no destination, right? So it's a train headed somewhere, but it doesn't know exactly where. It's an optimizing process, right? It's an attempt to find the most efficient way to cool itself off that it can find. It isn't necessarily going to succeed in cooling itself off. In fact, we know it isn't. But it's trying to be as cool as it can be. So a tropical forest, for example, is a very efficient heat dissipator. In the atmosphere above a tropical forest, it's typically very cool, right? Because it's been in a very efficient way to get rid of the heat. So the human mind and the human spirit are emergent properties that are implicit in the universe from the beginning, as Telyard Deschardin says. So mind is not something on this view that starts the universe. It's something that emerges from the universe. And what we regard as spirit, which we experience as spirit, is an emergent property of this very long evolutionary process. Okay, now if you accept that so far, then we want to look at where there are other minds are, where the humans are the only minds. And I think this is one of the places where we got off on a very bad direction, because mind is widespread. And there's a beautiful quote here from Henry Best in the Outermost House. I worked hard on trying to shorten this, but I really decided not to, because it's so beautifully written that I couldn't help but degrade it. So here's what he says of them. And I guess I'll read it, but I'll read it a little bit slowly, because it's very beautiful. Imagine he's just a book written about Cape Cod. So he's looking at seagulls and whales and sea otters and things like that as he's writing this. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we air and greatly air. The animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete. Gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings, they are other nations. Caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth. I will come back to this idea when I talk about the idea of communion toward the end of the talk. Now you might think, well, okay, and I can tell you some stories, some how we figured out whether beavers can think or not. Let me tell you they do, right? And they're a lot smarter and some things than we are. But do plants think, well, in a way they do, right? If you live in the country and you have a septic system and you plant a maple tree near it, the maple tree will harvest the nutrients from your septic system rather rapidly because the maple tree has a capability of changing its behavior in response to new information, right? So there's mind all around us. We've got glasses or screening or conceptual screens on it to make it hard to see. Okay, so that's sort of point one. Let's think about how the universe works and how we fit into that. Point two is just the image here. This is from Voyager in 1987, a photograph of the earth from four billion miles. The little bars there are just so you can see where the earth is and see how tiny it is. Here's what Carl Sagan had to say about it several years ago. Basic idea here is it's a very small thing in a very, very big place, right? And we have the opportunity at our junction in history to nurture and support and enrich this place where we are taking the opportunity to degrade it. Here's what Aldo Leopold, we drew on a lot in our book, has to say about this. This is written in the early 1930s. Basic problem is to get into right relationship or basically to get into a respectful relationship with the planet where we live. To do this, I think we have to rethink citizenship or recover citizenship, maybe is a better phrase. If you made a list of mistakes in the 20th century, it would be a really long list, but one of the ones that would be near the top is the substitution of consumer for citizen, right? Government thinks we're consumers basically, right?  We should insist on dropping that vocabulary and getting a better one. What is citizenship? Well, a terrific book on this subject is by James Karst, a very short book called Finite and Infinite Games. And in that book he makes a distinction between finite games like football or baseball or hockey, things like that, where the point of the game is to win, the rules are set in advance, the number of players is set in advance, no new players can be substituted, etc. Everybody knows all those rules. But he says there's also an infinite game or set of infinite games, and those are games where the point of the game is not to win but to keep the game going. That's civilization. That's this association, right? People don't want to win in this association. They want to keep this conception of themselves and of the universe going. So we're players, we're all players in finite games, we all want to win certain things, but we're also players in an infinite game. Rufus Jones at Quaker, who taught at Haverford College where I went, Lolo before I went there, refers to human beings as amphibian, right? We're both within time and outside of time in our experience. And when we're playing as finite players, we're in time, but when we're playing as infinite players, we're taking the perspective of 5,000 centuries, of taking an extremely long view. So the ultimate infinite game is evolution. And what we're doing now on the Earth is stamping that out, basically, through biodiversity loss, through cultural loss, through the loss of languages and so forth. Okay, the last point I want to make in this little section is this will probably offend some people, but I don't see a way around it. Not only frontal male nudity, but other things may offend them. So I think the idea that God made man in his image embodies a kind of dualism that's been very, very damaging, that we're somehow separate from and better than the rest of nature. And also that God gave the world to man for his use, right? Something that Locke makes a lot of although the passage that Peter quoted from Psalms this morning goes in a different direction. These ideas legitimate the destruction or the degradation of the Earth. Now, I'm quite aware that there's a large literature on the concept of dominion and how it's been translated in King James and other translations of the Bible. But I still think the predominance claim that Lynn White Jr. makes in his very famous article that there's a dualism built into this religious framework is true and it's one we really have to take to heart in dealing with and setting aside. So the ultimate act of hubris is to improve on Michelangelo and I got one of my students to do that. So we need a different sort of image of ourselves, right? We're not special creation. We're part of a long co-evolutionary process which hopefully will continue indefinitely into the future. So how does this fit into economics? Well, it has a lot to say about economics because basically economics, the current macroeconomics which I want to talk a little bit about now is part of a wrong narrative, right? It's part of a set of metaphysical, theological, and scientific assumptions that are wrong. And because it's embedded in that system of thought, it's bringing mayhem to this planet. So in the breakfast room this morning, the Wall Street Journal was there. I got there a little early. If you're wondering why there weren't enough, that's why in part. Europe recovers as US lags. I can barely read things like this because this is a legitimation of destruction of the Earth's natural systems without any regard for the fact that that's what's being done. I think the environmental damage of the rebuilding of American and British and mainland Europe consumption is not even mentioned in a newspaper like this. So these guys are lost basically, right? Let me name who they are. Secretary Geithner. Well, I already named them, right? You know this. It's a rogues gallery, right? Of rascals. Okay. So what's the economy for? Well, they say it's for full employment or high levels of employment, low inflation, and increased consumption as measured by GNP. There are lots of studies about why the GNP measure isn't very good, useful, but they haven't gotten past those studies. So the chief data displayed on the front of the paper is the resurrection of GDP growth in Europe. So we ask five questions of them and we think they can't answer any of these satisfactory. What's it for? How does it work? How big is too big? What's fair? How should it be governed? So I just want to quickly answer those from our point of view.  Okay. What's the economy for? Well, ironically, we think that the person who had the right answer to that question, John Maynard Keynes, who invented macroeconomics. Keynes was a delegate to the Versailles conference near Paris at the end of World War I. He left the conference in a huff, went back to England and wrote a book, a very important book called Economic Consequences of the Peace, which said that if you impose this peace treaty on the Germans, the one that's being proposed at Versailles, you will get large-scale unemployment in Germany, get inflation, financial collapse, the rise of a dictator, and another war. Wrote that in 1919. 1939, that all more or less came to bear, a tragic turn of events if there ever was one. So what Keynes did in the mid-30s was to try to come up with a conception of economics that would prevent, basically, economic instability. And that's the book, the very famous book, the most important book in economics in the 20th century, General Theory of Employment Interest in Money. The purpose of economics, as I read that book, is that economic policy is to bring about social stability. What we don't want in particular, sorry about this ladies, is large numbers of unemployed males. That's just bad public policy. And so what we need to do is to find ways to create enough employment so that we don't get that consequence. Okay, that's so far so good, but what Keynes left out for very complicated reasons historically is the world, basically, right? Forgot about the earth, right? So what we just say, right, what we aim for is stability or resilience or the ability, if you like, to keep the game going, but we've got to broaden the framework to include the well-being of the earth's life support and biological systems. So here's a picture of what the economy is for, in my opinion, right? It's for a resplendent, feaken, beautiful, life-bursting earth. That's not the one we've got, though. Okay, how does it work? Well, this is the most banal remark ever you're ever going to hear, probably, that I'm about to make, is the economy is part of the universe.  You might think that's not really news. Well, here's a book, hold this way, I probably can't see it, by Benjamin Bernacke, Andrew Abel, and Dean Krushor, called Macroeconomics. This book was published in 2008. My son used it when he was a student at the Columbia Business School last year. I didn't want to buy the book for obvious reasons. Now, what this book, this book is up to date scientifically for January 1, 1800. There is no systematic connection in this book or in this framework of thought between the way macroeconomic policy is thought about and the science of the last 200 some odd years. No connection to thermodynamics, no connection to evolution, no connection to complex systems theory, no connection to ecology. None.  On page 30, there's a green box. And in the green box, sorry about that being so loud, it says, ideally for the purposes of economic and environmental planning, the use and misuse of natural resources in the environment should be measured into national income accounts. Unfortunately, they are not. Okay, we'll see how I can show you this book for an estimate. It's a little bit like a book, right? And big pages, okay? The last, so there's a 585 more pages of that book, right? Are used even though he's just acknowledged that he hasn't got any systematic way of thinking about the relationship between what he's doing and the earth, life support systems. So this is really, really a dangerous bunch of guys. Okay, so how does the economy work? Well, basically, you have to think about it in terms of two budgets. The first budget is what I call somehow the complexity budget. It's the ability of the earth to support complex systems through photosynthesis, right? The driver of everything we do is, the basis of everything we do is the ability of green plants to convert sunlight into usable energy. Have you thanked a green plant today? That used to be an old bumper sticker. Not around so much anymore. If you haven't, you should because it wasn't for them, you wouldn't be here. Okay, so the earth has only a certain limited ability to support life. And it also has a limited ability to support or to rather to assimilate in a benign way the waste stream from industrial society and other sources. Thank you. So one of the many things that the current macroeconomic framework doesn't take into account, these two features of our spaceship, this pointed out by Kenneth Boulding in a very famous speech written in around 1965 called Spaceship Earth. So the basic unit of wealth is not dollars. It's the photosynthetic capacity of the earth to support life. And this leads to rethinking of some of the basic ideas in economics. So money looked at this way, paper money or credit card debt or things like that, our rights we give each other to use some of the earth's limited life support capacity. This conception is not at all evident in macroeconomic policy. And I'll skip just to the last item here. A budget then is a way of thinking in a systematic way about how much of that life support capacity is being used and why. I can come back to some of these other things if you want later. How big is too big? Well, the answer here is self-evident. I think it's too big if it overwhelms the earth's life support systems, both in its ability to support complexity or create complexity and its ability to absorb the waste stream. And so the answer is the economy too big. It's much too big. It's not only too big, it's much too big, much too big already. That's what all of the much of the list that was in Arthur's talk last night is about. It's about this thing being too big. So we're now celebrating a recovery of a return to mayhem. Okay, so what's fair? Okay, well, one of the things that we argue, and it's a complicated subject obviously, is that fairness is something that accrues between humans, between humans of different generations, and between different species. So human beings are using up about 50% of the net primary productivity, about 50% of what green plants can produce to support life on earth is being used by us, something around that. We're one of about 20 million species. You ever take five? So we're basically using up half the pie. Seems like it might be a little overreaching. It's also, I just want to make a quick illustration here of the problematical nature of some of our moral concepts. So when, because they're not connected to science in a systematic way, when, and it's true of human rights ideas too, not just the older ideas from Plato and Aristotle and the Bible. So when Obama goes to Russia or Prime Minister Harper of Canada goes to China, they're instructed by NGOs to scold the heads of those governments about human rights. And I don't know whether they do or not, but probably they need scolding, and if they do it, great. What they don't get at all is that the primary human rights violators, par excellence, is us. Every morning during the week, there's a traffic jam in Montreal and in most other North American cities. Those, they're regarded as inconvenient. You're told over the radio how to avoid it, all that kind of stuff, but you can't, of course. Those traffic jams are killing people in other parts of the world. Systematically, day in, day out. But we don't want to hear that, because once you hear that, then it undercuts the consumer culture, which is what these guys are trying to keep alive. Okay, how should it be governed? Well, we need to really rethink governance completely, and I'm going to spend a few minutes on this and then conclude. You can't get to a proper conception of the future using, with all due deference, the framework of the Stern report cannot get to where we need to get to with the theory of market failures for a lot of reasons. We've really entered the period when the nation state is, the inability of the nation state to deal with the problems that we've got is strongly upon us. And it's a, let's see, I've done something here I'm not supposed to do. We need to move beyond the nation state as a metaphysical, anachronism, and a moral and metaphysical impediment to what we need in the future. Now, one thing we could do is, of course, leave governance to the people who are already doing it, who are the high priests of the state sponsored religion. The man on the left is Mark Carney, he's the head of the Bank of Canada, that's Ben Bernanke, obviously on the right. There was an issue of the Claims magazine a few years ago that had a picture of the president of Iran on the cover, and it said, the most dangerous man in the world. And I said, well, that's not right, can't possibly be right, because what about the guy in the White House? And then I thought, well, that's not really right either, because the most dangerous man is the Fed chief, right, because he believes in infinite growth in a finite system. And what makes him even more dangerous is that nobody knows these dangers. So we need to get beyond these guys, head of the Bank of Britain and Bank of England. We need to rethink the governance problem altogether, and I'm going to give a couple of reasons here. When the national governments like the United States, Canada, and so forth were set up, the scale and velocity of environmental change was small, and maybe even negligible, and certainly unnoticed, but now it's fast and large, right, and the governments are not, as you can see just from what happens, not able to deal with it. Going down to the third reason, many governments, including the government of the United States, I'm sorry to say, have been captured by their elites, and they do not act in the public interest. And so the ability, when the governments go to meetings like the Copenhagen meeting coming up, they're not really looking to the well-being of the world system, they're looking to the well-being, I'm sorry to say, of their own, in this case, financial elites, for the most part. Why isn't international governments working? Well, again, there are lots of reasons, just going to take a couple of them. There's no means to ensure fairness. You have in the world today vast inequalities in wealth of people who are desperately poor and people who are rich beyond belief, and we have no way systematically to redress those problems. I'll come back to that in a minute. Last, and the second, third reason here that I'll mention, power imbalances, the world, particularly the Security Council, much too weighted to giving power to the winners of World War II, the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia, also, by the way, the largest arms exporters in the world, perhaps should be renamed the Insecurity Council. So what to do about this? Well, and here the overlap between what we're suggesting and the suggestions from the Baha'i readings, it's really phenomenal. We urge for some sort of global democratic federalism, possibly modeled on the European Union. We urge trust for the protection and restoration of the global commons, some kind of analytical capacity, the Earth Reserve or Global Reserve, to understand how the Earth works and how the economy could fit in it. And we suggest using a formula by Ehrlich and Holdren of the IPAC formula, where impact is a function of population, affluence, and technology. We added the ethics variable there to highlight conduct or spiritual, moral issues. But basically we need some capacity to figure out how to reduce very substantially the human impact on the Earth. And the four variables with which we have to work are population size, wealth, our affluence, technology, and conduct. And we think that we need to allocate certain capacities or certain impacts to different nations, and nations have to decide whether they want to be large in population, rich, have a different technology, or have a different ethics. But those are the sort of theaters of public policy. And then lastly we favor the strengthening and making mandatory a world court, some images of these things at global federalism, that's the European Union obviously. A very good book by a friend of mine, Peter Barnes, setting up a trusteeship for climate, for the United States. This is an idea we generalize in our book. In Quebec, where we're in southern Quebec, there's a beautiful apple growing region. When the apples are harvested in the fall, there's about 10 or 12 great varieties, you can also buy apples from New Zealand at about the same price. We need to tax the use of the commons, the oceans and the atmosphere, and we need to use that money to redress, among other things, the grinding poverty in the world. This idea I already mentioned, figuring out how the earth actually works and fitting the economy to it, and using the iPad formula or something like it to figure out what that looks like. Here's an image from Bob Costanza. Basically what I've been talking about for about half an hour now, the earth is a system which receives free energy from the sun. Everything on the earth, or almost everything on the earth, operates from that energy source, and then waste heat is dissipated back out into space, but we have no analytical grasp of how that works that's been adopted in macroeconomic planning. Lastly, we need to strengthen the world. So what to do? We suggest four ways of thinking about this based on looking at people who've been very effective agents of social change. Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Chico Mendez, the woman, I don't remember her name, I was head of mothers against drunk driving. We look at those people, they go back to what Thoreau called the fountain head, right? An inner source of energy and conviction, a place of where they find a foundation, if you like, where there's something on which they can stand. They find here a way, an inner strength and resolve, and they connect from here, as Arthur was talking about last night, the inside to the outside. The second thing is, we need to figure out what we want to do, right? And we've suggested in the book, those four things I just talked about, the four institutions, we then need to work toward a public epiphany, or a public change in consciousness, as Peter was talking about this morning. And then we need to move to some sorts of nonviolent reform, and in the Quaker tradition is what we call witness, or bringing to the public consciousness a wrong and insisting that it be changed, even if that requires civil disobedience or direct action. Here's a picture or a drawing made by Quakers around the year 1800 of the slave ship Brooks, a diagram of the conditions under which Africans were brought to North America. These ships were very crowded, as you can see from this, and many people died on this due to that and other adverse conditions. This served in part, there were other factors, to galvanize the British public to say this is not acceptable by British, in the moral traditions of Britain or Christian values, and in 1813 about slavery was abolished in Britain by the parliament, in part due to these activities of the Quakers, not the only people doing anything. They didn't want that to be their legacy. Well, this is our legacy, the way we're headed, right, with, you know, they basically take Arthur's number from last night, one meter sea level rise displaces 150 million people. That's refugee flows that we don't have any idea how to deal with, basically. James Hansen says that sea level rise by 2107 will be 15 feet, so basically roughly five meters or four and a half meters. That's where we're headed, and it's essential to get off that path. So could this be our moment of grace? Could we do what Gus and Mary Evelyn and many other people are urging us to do? Could we reconceive of our place on earth and our place in the universe? In a universe it learns, in a universe, it's not only civilization that's continuously advancing, it's the universe that's continually advancing. The universe is becoming more complex, more varied all the time, and that was happening on earth until the last several centuries. We need to move from consumer to ecological citizen, think of ourselves as embedded in the cosmos and in the workings of the earth. We need a new economics and new governance, and we need them urgently, and the challenge to do all of this is great, but big-scale social change has happened before, and the alternative, which is staying on the present course, is unthinkable. So we need to do, coming back to Thomas Berry, what Thomas Berry suggests here, we need to become in right relationship with the earth and to have a relationship where we're nurtured and the earth is nurtured, and where we change our view of the universe as composed of subjects to be communicated with, not as objects to be exploited. Use as our primary relationship with the planet must be abandoned, and just keep my promise, victory of eternal life. This is a picture taken by a colleague of mine, Catherine Scott in the James Bay region of Quebec. It's one black spruce growing out of another. The baby is on the top, obviously, and the stump is the older. So I can't get immortality out of my metaphysics, but I do get a flourishing earth. Thanks for listening. Thank you very much, Peter. I think we've all really appreciated the overview of the challenges we're facing and the way that you've approached the new system that we need from both a scientific and ethical or spiritual perspective. So I'm sure there's going to be a lot of questions from that, and I really, really appreciate your effort in coming here to present that with us. So thank you so much.


Hey guys, what is up? Welcome to my channel. For today's video, I am going to be doing a review, tutorials, and some comparisons with the new Huda Beauty Wild Obsessions palettes. So if you want to see what's up with them, then just keep watching. Hi guys, if you're new here, my name is Morgan. I am a parodic knowledge enthusiast. I just love knowing anything and everything about all of the new makeup on the market and sharing my thoughts with you guys and a collection that I always review are the Huda Beauty Obsessions eyeshadow palette collections. She comes out with multiple themes a few times throughout the year and this time it is the Wild Obsessions palettes. Now four came out in this launch. I picked up three because three are available at Sephora. The one that's not available is the Tiger eyeshadow palette. I was going to pick up all four from the Huda Beauty website because Tiger is the only one that you can get on the Huda Beauty website. But I happened to walk into Sephora that day and they had these three and I was like, you know what? I'll save myself $30 and expedited shipping and I'll just do these three because the Tiger didn't really call out to me anyways. I was just getting it to review for you guys. It was these three that really caught my eye. The Tiger Obsessions while I don't have it in my hands, it really reminds me a lot of the Toffee Brown that came out in the most recent obsessions collection. So I mean, I'm looking right now. I'm good. Like, I don't feel like I'm missing anything. I'm still going to do the Jaguar, the Chameleon and the Python palette. Before we get into the demo, let's talk about some product details. Like I said, all four of the palettes are available on the Huda Beauty website. What is also good about wondering from the Huda Beauty website is there are a couple kits if you're interested in that and bundles. But the three that I just mentioned are available at Sephora. And if I'm being honest, these three are definitely the prettiest and most unique. So wherever you want to purchase from, they are available there. Each of these palettes are going to be $29 each, which is on par with their regular price of these. If you don't know, these are nice, portable little eyeshadow palettes, which I really like because they're great for travel. There's no wasted space with these. There's no space in between the shadows. You have a nice big mirror, a good solid compact that's going to protect the eyeshadows. So I think we all love these monochromatic nine-pan palettes from Huda just because they are so convenient and they are so much more affordable than her full-size eyeshadow palettes. I know everybody says this, but they say it because it's true. Her obsessions palettes are not as good quality as her full-size eyeshadow palettes. The full-size eyeshadow palettes are made in Italy. The mini obsessions palettes are made in China. There definitely is a difference in formula. And with the obsessions palettes, these have a reputation for being very inconsistent, mostly misses, very few hits. The best obsessions collection to date has been the nude obsessions. For the most part, all the ones that have come out post that and a little bit prior to that have definitely been misses. And you guys asked me, why do I review these? Have I always say they're bad? Because I'm waiting for them to be good because she has good ones. She has in her to create good ones. And I'm happy I reviewed these because I'm telling you now, you guys, these are the good ones. Now, what is special about these before I get into the demos is each of these are going to have one eyeshadow palette that has a Python print on it. You'll see it when you get into the demos. This is a new formula from Huda Beauty. It's supposed to be multi-reflective. The formulas that are also going to be in these are matte, metallic, sparkly and foiled. And according to her website, all four of these are going to be limited edition. That being said, we are going to get into the tutorials of each individual palette. The first palette we're going to look into is the Wild Jaguar. And all of them are going to come in the traditional obsessions palette itself component. But the print on the front, you can see when you were a kid, it's one of those things where they shift pictures. There's a Jaguar print. It has a khaki component. These are all going to have a 24-month shelf life and they are made in China. They all have a mirror. You'll have a little bit of control. If you get it at the right angle, it's not going to fall. And then you have your nine shades. Now, this is the one that I knew I had to pick up. I was really excited for this one because this is definitely my kind of color story. I knew that this is the one that I would wear the most once I got it. So taking a look at the textures here, you have four mattes. I really like how there is a black and a cream. And then you also have your neutral transition shades. They seem to be very good transition shades. All of them swatch beautifully, even the black. I will show you that in a second. And then we have five shimmer glitter shades. However, you interpret it. All five of them have glitter. There is no true shimmer in here. The one shade that swatched bad was this one. So I'm worried about this one. You'll see when I show you the swatches that there's not much of a base to it. It just looks like glitter and it looked a little bit patchy. The Python print shade felt a little bit dry. It has more of a duochrome shift. Almost seems to be more of a lid tapper type texture. The remaining three shimmers all swatched really beautifully and they have a lot of dimension. So you'll see this is the shade that I was worried about down here and the black swatched really, really pigmented. And then you can see all of the glitters. So so far just based on swatch. I'm really excited about these except for this shade at the bottom. I have very, very high hopes for these. I really liked the way that these swatched. So let's get into it. I am going to start off with Too Faced Shadow Insurance. We're going to use this for all three palettes for my brushes today. I'm going to use the Sigma Beauty and Beauty Bird Collaboration Brush. I have all of the eye brushes in here.  I sent this to me in PR and I haven't used it yet. I haven't washed the brushes, which I probably should have done, but it's fine. They have this gorgeous marble handle. I'm obsessed. I'm taking the cream shade. It has a little bit of tan to it. It actually might be a little bit, yeah, it's a touch deeper than my skin tone. Actually, I was hoping it would highlight, but on my skin tone, it's like a quarter shade deeper. But that's fine. We'll just kind of blend it down. If you are lighter than me, then it will definitely work as a really nice highlight shade. We're moving into the gray shade right here. So this did have a little bit of kickback, but nothing crazy. And I'm going to use this as the crease color. Now, in her last obsessions palettes, I found that the mattes worked good and it was the shimmers that were giving me trouble. So we're really going to investigate that today. On this along the lower lash line. I'm just going to use that same brush. I'm going to go into this shade right here, putting this in the outer corner, not doing anything out of the ordinary here. Just like yesterday's video with the Pat McGrath palette, I'm just trying to test the colors. So the look might not necessarily be the prettiest. It has a little bit of plum to it. You can see it's giving me a very cool toned smoky base and everything is working out beautifully. Piping my brush off, making sure the edges are blended. Then lastly, we're going to use the black. Got to know how the black is because it's swatched really nice. I mean, I'm not going to use too much of the black, but I'm just really going to focus it in this outer V area right here. Take my blending brush and work on blending it out.  It was easy to work out and it still holds the opacity and the blend looks really even. So, so far, so good. Let's test these shimmers out. The first one that I want to do is the one that swatched questionable. I'm going to use my finger. I mean, it's pretty and it's subtle, but it's not going to give you a base color. I might almost suggest to use a glitter glue if you really want the base color to show through, but it really is going to give you a sparkle. I would say if you use a matte all over the lid and you just sprinkle this all over the eyelid, it definitely could work, but it's not amazing quality by any means. I'm actually just going to go in with this kind of gunmetal shade right over top of that. And you can see this is very dimensional and this does give a base. That's so pretty. It's a gorgeous color. You can still see those purple glitters peeking through, but it's gorgeous. Then we're going to go in with a lighter shade. You'll see this is the shade that we just put all over the lid and we're going to go in with this shade, which has a little bit more silver to it and it feels very creamy and I'm not getting any fallout. That creaminess is sticking to the eyelid and I have nothing but cream on right now. So if something falls down, it's going to stick. None of that yet. Maybe a little bit from the mattes, but nothing crazy. Oh, that's super pretty. Going to blend a little bit. It's going to be very interesting, but we need to see the pipe on shade. So we're going to use the printed shade in the middle now. This is the one that's a little bit drier where I feel like we're going to get some fallout. It's going to give you the most glitter and it has a duochrome shade. It's kind of gorgeous though. Do you see that? This one I would definitely recommend using a glitter glue if you're going to put it all over the lid, but as an accent color like I'm using today, it's fine. I still am getting maybe a touch of fallout from the glitters. Really pretty, a nice touch and all of that leaves that I hadn't used yet is the gold. So I'm just going to put this in the inner corner. The gold swatched pretty nice. It didn't have as much vava boom as I was hoping. You see how this has so much to it. It's a little bit more subdued compared to the others. I think this one would pair very pretty with the mattes as well. I will show you how it looks with liner and lashes at the end of the tutorial. So before I show you the final look with the lashes, I really like this one. I really like the quality on this one. Like I said, maybe this one's not the best, but it's definitely workable. Other than that, I found everything to work beautifully, blend beautifully. This is definitely one of her better obsessions palettes that she's come out with. The only thing really negative that I have to say about it is I feel like there's so much glitter in this palette that you're going to get a glitter bomb all over the eye, which I typically do not have a problem with. But because there are five shades packed with glitter, you can't use all of them on the eyelid at once. You kind of have to pick your glitter for the day. I would like a little bit more variety in here as far as having just some regular shimmers and then a couple of glitters because I feel like that would add more variety to the looks and you could create more looks that way and layer the shadows in different ways. But that's nothing major. That's just the way that I would improve it. But I definitely recommend this one. So here is the final Jaguar look. I did notice that it looked a little bit patchy here. I don't know what that's all about, but the look is absolutely stunning and I still really like this palette. I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with this one. For this next tutorial, we are going to take a look at Wild Chameleon. You can see this is the ship of the packaging. It has red packaging and then you open it up and this is the color story. So this is going to be the one for you warm lovers. And here you're getting five mattes. So there's more than the Jaguar palette and then you're getting four shimmer shades. Now this one is interesting because the Jaguar I felt like was so glitter packed. This one you just have mostly metallic shades. I mean, you can pick up maybe the tiniest flux of glitter but it definitely is not like the Jaguar palette. So if you thought that that palette was too glittery, this one has different textures here. So I said that this one felt a little bit more dry in the Jaguar palette. This one is definitely drier than the other three shimmers but it does feel creamier than in the Jaguar palette because it's not a glitter based shadow and here are the swatches as you can see what swatched questionably was the red shade right here but that's typically a harder formula to formulate. The shade right here which is one of those tie dye shades I had to go over twice. You can see it's a little bit more subdued. It said third shade down but the rest felt really creamy. They felt really nice. I don't know you guys these feel really good to me. Let's see how they apply but I really like this pop of purple here and so far so good with the swatches the texture feels good. But again we're gonna have to see how it works on the eyelids so quickly let me apply my Too Faced. That's the wrong eye. My Too Faced shadow insurance. I don't know what direction I want to go in today. Gonna start off with this peachy orange shade right here. I'm gonna use this in the inner half of my crease. You can see we have some nice pigment showing up. Love it. Next we're gonna take the yellow shade in the center. This is definitely a yellow orange. Wow, very pigmented. Definitely have the opacity showing here. So pretty. We're gonna take this burnt orange shade right here. Actually let me get a smaller crease brush. I'm patting this as you can see kind of in the outer part of the lash line and blending it in. I love how these shades all look different because sometimes I feel like with a bad formula they'll all kind of blend out to look the same. These are holding their own in the color which is a really good sign that you can see the three colors that I applied. I'm actually taking this shade right here again. I'm gonna blend this out along the lower lash line because that's gonna be kind of like an under layer. Next we're taking the maroon shade. This is a shade that I was a little bit worried about. So let's see. Just gonna bring it along the entire lower lash line. We wanted that yellow to peek through but this is gonna be the main guy down here. I mean it's applying well in smaller quantities. It's not like I'm putting it on a very big surface area right now. It's not pigment pack like I was hoping. I feel like it has potential to be maybe a little bit patchy if you apply it on a larger surface area. But if you work slow and steady I don't think it's gonna give you any problems. I'm actually because I need to know I'm gonna ruin what I just did. Just to see. This is why we do this. This is the review. No, I mean it's still working good. You can see I have a really good blend happening. Okay, so the matte so far really nice. I'm not gonna use this one today. We're gonna keep it really warm. We're gonna use the tie-dye shade because this one didn't feel the greatest. I'm gonna pop this in the middle of the lid. I like it. I mean the proof is in the pudding people. Showing up really pretty. I do recommend using a finger. Wow, okay cool. And now I'm gonna use this gold shade. This one like I said felt a little bit dry and she's applying really really nice. Gonna put it on a brush. See if I can get just really in this inner corner here. I like how there's very very fine reflex putting a little bit of the red shade on this brush. As much as I want to use the purple I'm not going to because I really just love how overall warm this is. So we're gonna use the orange shade. Pop this right in the inner corner of the lower lash line. Oh wow, I barely dipped in here. This one is extremely creamy. And then one more at it. I said I wasn't gonna use this but we're gonna use this because I want more depth right in this outer corner. Ooh, honestly you guys even though I like this color story of the Jaguar better, I like this palette better. Believe it or not, it's just it's not overwhelmed with glitter and I feel like it's easier to get a cohesive eye look with this. Okay, anyways, I'm gonna do liner and lashes and you will see the final look. And I really love this look. You guys know cool tones are more my thing but this is really stunning. I feel like the quality on this chameleon palette is really top-notch. It's even better than the Jaguar. I love how each shade really holds its own. They don't blend together in both the mattes and the shimmers. Really like this one. Last tutorial today we are doing the Wild Python. This was definitely the most out there palette that came out in this launch. And here's what the colors look like. So we have four shimmers and then five mattes. Now, this one has more similar formulations to the Jaguar palette in that there aren't true foiled metallics in here. You can see they're very, very glittery. So this again contains the glittery formulations. I noticed that in this one, the shadows definitely seemed less creamy. The mattes still as creamy. I'm talking the shimmers. They seemed a little bit more sheer and more glittery and more about the effect that they would give rather than the opacity that they give. They definitely have color on my hand here. So it's not going to be sheer, sheer, but it's not packed with a punch like the one in the chameleon palette. So my application suggestion and that's what I did with this eye is to focus on the mattes and then layer the corresponding shimmers on top. And I'm going to show you what I mean by that. So you can see we have some more neutral tones down here. For this look, I did put the neutral tones on the bottom. I think if I wasn't so worried about playing with the colors and showing you how they would look on the eye and how they apply, I definitely match up here down here to create a really fun look. I just want to show you. So I started off with this neon shade and the reason that I chose this palette to do the full two eye looks is because it matches my shirt. This is from H&M, by the way. So that's why we decided to do two eyes with this one. Using a small blending brush and we're going into the neon shade. And Hoodie's come out with some neon colors in the past and they weren't very good with her neon obsessions palette. The shade has decent pigment to it. I don't have a white base down or anything and you can see the shadow. So I am blending it in the inner part of my crease and then I'm also patting it with that blending brush onto the lid. Like I said, the shimmers a little bit on the sheer side. So I want the base to be the matte shade using the same brush. We're going into this turquoise shade right here. This shade really impressed me, you guys. It is so pigmented. I'm packing it on with a blending brush and do you see the opacity that I'm getting from it? And again, what's impressing me about these shades is that they don't blend away and they don't blend into each other. They continue to hold their own. I would probably need to touch up the neon shade because that's the nature of neons, but they're just working so good. Can you tell I'm impressed by these? Very, very impressed. Using a pencil brush, I'm going into this peach shade right here and I'm running this across the entire lower lash line. You can see it has so much opacity as well. And this was probably the hardest part about the look. I'm going into this brown shade and this brown shade has a lot of pigment and I wanted to add some definition. So I patted it right out here. See how pigmented that is? Then I also blended it in the outer corner of my lower lash line. So just like this. It looks messy or you know, it'll pull together. So I blended into the peach fine, but it definitely is a task. I'm warning you now to blend the blue into the brown. You just don't go next to each other on the color wheel. I knew it was going to be difficult. So if you're a beginner to blending eyeshadows or maybe blending eyeshadows isn't your forte, just be careful about blending these two shades together. It's doable. I did it, but it took some extra time. So just be aware of that. I think, you know, if it was truly to be a cokey sip, easy look, I would do a navy instead of a brown. So you can see those two are not, that did not happen on this eye. That's weird. It got a little bit patchy here. All of that happened. I'm going to take some more of the turquoise and see if we can fix that. I'm not too offended by that. Just because in color theory, these two colors should not be mixed together. I was just trying to make it work.  We don't need neutral pops. All right, you guys, this is where the magic happens. Glitter barf is about to commence taking this shade right here. This is going to be the inner corner. You see, it's not a crazy color. It's a little bit more in the sheer side, but it's perfect. You don't need to be crazy pigmented because you have the mats to really add that background there. Taking my finger, we're going in with the green and this is going right on top of that neon shade. Look at that. Glittery goodness. This shade, I was worried about how it swatched because it's that first shade. It seemed really, really sheer, but if you use a finger and if it's not on bare skin, it definitely holds its own. Then I'm going to go into this shade, which if you didn't know, this is like the new formula from Huda Beauty. It's nice, but I don't think it's super special. Just kind of fill in that area. Now, I will say you can't really tell too much of difference between these two shades. You would be able to, I think, if they didn't have the same background color, but this one definitely leans a little bit more green, whereas this one is more of a true blue in case you wanted to know the differences. That's the look. This is all I did. I really love how colorful and fun this one is. So I'm going to do liner and lashes and I will show you the final look. So this is the final look with lashes. It's so pretty, you guys. I definitely got some glitter fallout, so just be aware of that. But oh my gosh. I mean, this palette is going to create the prettiest looks out of all of them if you're into color. I wish I carried that down, but really love this look. We are going to get into some swatch comparisons. I'm not going to swatch everything. I'm only going to swatch the palettes that I feel are very close, but I pulled out all of my Huda Beauty palettes and I'm just going to show you the ones that I think could be interpreted as close. So we're going to start off with the palettes that I found could be arguably compared to the Jaguar palette. So we're going to start off with the khaki haze obsessions and these two are definitely not similar at all. I'm not going to swatch compare these. You can see the khaki just leans more generally warm. So those are not the same. I also pulled out the chocolate brown obsessions. Again, this one I felt looked a little bit more neutral, but now compared to the Jaguar, they're definitely not the same at all. This one looks almost red compared to the Jaguar. And the last one that actually is quite close when you look at them side by side, this is from the very first obsessions launch. This is the smoky obsessions. They are on the cooler side. The pan that you see missing in the smoky is a black. Yeah, this one also has a black. So I did do some swatch comparisons for you. This is the Jaguar. These are the shades from the smoky obsessions that I thought were close. The black is missing, but there would be a black. So I would say there's only like four close shades, but in all honesty, while the vibe is similar, this one definitely is more gray and it has some different pops. So as far as originality, this one does not match up with anything from the hood align. Next up, I wanted to show you the similar palettes to the wild chameleon. So I'm going to show you one that I thought was pretty close. This is the toe pass obsessions. Obviously it doesn't have very many red tones and it doesn't have that pop of purple. But it has about six similar shades out of the nine. So here is the wild chameleon. Here is the toe pass obsessions. So in terms of the warm tones, if that's what you're after and you have the toe pass obsessions, you can see they're quite close. It just doesn't have those red pops and the purple pops. These ones aren't as close, but I just wanted to compare in case you were curious. I have the rubies obsessions. So this one has those red and purple tones, but really I don't think they're very comparable. There's maybe about three similar shades between the two, but definitely I would say different enough to justify both. The last one that is close to chameleon is the carmel brown obsessions. Obviously doesn't have that pop of purple there, but these are quite close. There's about five shades that were worth comparing. Obviously here's chameleon. Here is the carmel obsessions. So just food for thought. You can make your best decision based on this. Last comparisons for what I have. This is the python palette. I just wanted to show it with the neons obsessions. These are not close at all. You only have the two neon shades, but in case you were curious, they're not the same and the formula of this one is so much better. And then the other one that I thought had about four to five similar shades was the emerald obsessions palette. I didn't swatch the entire palettes, but I swatch the close ones. So right here's the python palette. And then here is the emerald obsessions. So this shade I thought is like a perfect mixture between these two from the emerald obsessions, but there's about four similar shades in case you were curious. So yeah. All in all, I have to say you guys, this was definitely a successful launch from Huda. I haven't been as impressed with the obsessions palettes since the nude obsessions. I think across the board, these pretty much have very good quality. The only duds, I would say there's one in the Jaguar palette right here, but it really isn't that bad. And I do think the Jaguar palette is a little bit too glittery. I would like some more shimmers as opposed to five full blown glitters, but the color story is just amazing. I mean, the wild python, even though the shimmers are more sheer, it kind of works with this palette. And the chameleon arguably to me has the best quality of the three. I don't know if I can rank them because I like the different things like with the python, I like how fun the color story is and how you can get this really vibrant look from this little palette. The Jaguar palette, I just, I love coute neutrals. So I impartial to this and the glittery shades. Even though I said this has too much glitter, I still love the glitter. And the wild chameleon, while this isn't my color story, I love the quality on this. This one definitely has the most solid quality. So creamy. So creamy. Oh, okay. But if I had to choose, I think the pop, no. The python's probably my favorite because I just, I love how vibrant my eyelids are right now. I think it's so pretty. Chameleon comes in a closed second because the quality is so good. And then Jaguar, because it's not perfect, but I still really like it. Like I mean, they're like one, two, three, like super, super close together. There's not a big gap between which I prefer. So anyways, if you can't tell, I really like these palettes. I do recommend them if you are interested in any of the color stories. If you don't have anything that's too similar to them already. And I don't think these are as good say as her full blown big palettes. But as far as the obsessions go, these are good. These are, these are good ones. I can give you the thumbs up for these. So there we have it. That's all I have for today's review. I hope you guys enjoyed it. If you aren't subscribed to my channel already, I would love it if you would consider taking the time to do so. And I will see you all in the next one. Bye guys. Have a good one.