All right been here before for a reach-in on the video or now we're gonna go for their walk-in freezer That's not a real smart idea either. Oh frozen up sweet All right, let's get started this video is brought to you in part by TrueTech tools quality tools essential support All right, so we're gonna have to get a ladder and see if we can get up there and get this thing melted out All right, so we found the controller and the condenser that's dirty says DFO there on that controller, so maybe it's got a failed defrost See the side glasses fool appears to be It's like it's towards the dry mark this got that electronic stuff on there which Could be failing and not a whole lot of room between that ceiling in there Let's find out why it's not we do for Austin. Is it a heater or is it a relay? Is it the controller is the termination switch is that the suction transducer? What's the cause of it? looking for some clues here if you look at the Water in a pan that makes you think it's probably trying to defrost Otherwise, how would you get water in there? So that makes me wonder if the compressor's sticking on which makes me think control there may not be sensing Temperature correctly Set for negative five defrost now and it's sticking on That's what I think's going on then brushes coil off to things kind of dirty pretty decent Maybe not Coming over here to the other side. We've got 14 psi Not sure what it says on the other side if it's just a duplicate or what this is A limited on space, but man it really makes it a retreat to work on Yeah, it was in defrost Look at this I can feel the heat on it and you can see where it's melted the coil or melted the ice off So it's melted it, but the fans not shutting off you can see water over there The fans never shut down so it's almost like a total failure on the defrost point. Yeah Yeah, that's melding as soon as it hits it So let's find out the contact or sticking or what's going on. We're gonna have to melt this Look at that. I just bumped it and the fans shut off So just a snap disc Maybe it was making not making So we can see right here the compressor and the fan are right here on this controller Doesn't show a relay here on this We've got two wires that come out of here Come over to There which goes into this box This one might just control section only It seems as if it has set points C and cut in 20 psi Cut out this is heaven So all this is here is a pressure control. This one doesn't do anything So the other one's going to do all the work Wait to answer and I need to be I want to have him killed breaker this time Get red and black and blue, which only have black and red there Looks to me though. This little controller here must control the compressor That would make sense Yep, right here's compressor So the relay is built into this thing So they got this fancy Fancy little device there to shut the compressor down. So you end up buying a whole new controller. We're not gonna have this So what you can do you can put a low pressure switch on there And we can make it kick on a kick off the low pressure switch, which is a whole lot more resilient than this little thing I've done that before and had to come back and switch it out later The relay there looks like it's going to defrost heaters. That's more along the lines of what we got going on there Um, that was pressure only this one's going to control that control right there is your temperature control Comes down in those two wires there Can't see it. That looks like compressor So this is the one that's sticking That little gizmo there. That's also your defrost clock too.  All right, so it's taking some ingenuity here, but what we're gonna do I've unhooked the compressor wire coming out of the controller Hand to hook the evaporator fans from the motor or from the controller We're going to run this to a two-pole two-pole contactor.  It should work Now what but obviously the thermostat's not working so I could wire one of those in But it only has to work for a day or two until we get the other part And then we can reverse it back the way it was. So that's what we're going to do There's no room up here So I'm not really going to show you how I did it plus it's really not something I recommend Unless you really know what you're doing What I ended up doing is I got a 230 volt coil contactor two pole Took the two poles, two power lines off the controller there One's the fan on one side, the compressor's on the other side Brought it through there That's not going to work Okay, so what I ended up doing was for the coil voltage Which is 230 volts on the contactor there it's on the normally open and common side of the relay With the high voltage So when a switch is open you should have the potential of 230 volts When it closes it's going to collapse that which then will break power to the contactor Coil so it's going to be powered Shut allowing the power to go through like it was before the relay was in there and then when the Relay is energized that open switch which has potential on both sides of the switch It's going to become one solid wire so to speak for demonstration or example purposes And that's going to cause this to then break power to the coil and then break power high voltage to that compressor Kind of confusing if you don't think about it But yeah, it's pretty simple Um got it mounted in here. It's going to be inside the box. So we don't have to worry about it I'm getting shorted out or anything like that Um, this is temporary just for a day or two until we get the part So now we're going to melt that coil or I end up melting that ice and make it a warm in there And then I'm going to defrost I'm going to test it out first make sure it works So we can see the fans running there And the fans are running in there Let's put this thing into a defrost and see if they shut down Making sure nothing's going to short out everything's insulated Let's hit the defrost button Look at that compressor shut off Not bad for an amateur youtuber Good deal and kind of see Some steam here and there Yeah, so you get that back side That heater's got to melt all the way through it. So what I'm going to do I'm going to let this thing do its natural thing And then we'll get the pump sprayer out Get most of the work done for me. You can see the water's already accumulating I don't want to pump more water into that Then we already got because then we're going to overflow We're going to let it do just bare bone minimums.  Yep, good. I'm gonna peel this off There's your defrost termination limit switch over there Fans feel good That's good This little gizmo here is made for scraping Gaskets and stuff like that.  It's definitely thicker at the bottom We'll melt the rest of it off before it just kicked out That's a great. Let's go ahead and turn the breaker off Just like I worried about I got water everywhere.  Otherwise it's going to freeze in between the ceiling and leak down 38 area it's dropping I took that top shelf off through it up here. They don't need to block in the exit of the uh, the way we're coming out Okay, what I want to do because it didn't bring on the compressor right away just brought in the evaporator I'm going to throw it into another defrost and see if it kicks out normal And if the compressor will start back up because the last thing I want to know is Hour from now or two four hours, whatever That this thing doesn't run like it's supposed to let's try one more time Yep, it did it Shouldn't run for very long. We see where we get the wires and stuff I'll kind of it's well below the top of that Nothing's going to get into it and it might put the cover over it'll be all safe Good enough to get them by otherwise. What do you do?  We've got two of them and they're both used up Get these pans out of here now Think our dripping's all good for now A little bit back here in the back. Oh, good grief All right, so kicks out of defrost Contactor pulls in which means this should be getting power, but it's not Don't know the system reason that I don't know if I should just wire it hot and all the time or not I mean when I turn the power off and back on again It came right on so I don't know if there's a delay in the compressor, but not in the evaporator that seems pretty Pretty fishy There should be a delay even in the fan, but obviously it's not coming on right I did match them up left and right to the right one far as I know Yep, there it goes All right good. They must be uh, I don't know. There must be a delay there. The very first one's the fan That comes down goes to there and goes to that. So that's the fan. That's correct. The compressor's number two. Number two comes down That then goes down to there So there is a time delay in this thing here Um, because this not only does it come out of here But then it also comes to this and this is the low pressure cut out Which I think is all it's doing is low pressure cutting out it's not I don't know why you'd even need The low pressure cut out honestly because it doesn't have a solenoid to pump down So it's a point why not just have a low pressure switch I mean other than just monitoring the second pressure, which It's just one more thing to go wrong Side glass is full Which is nice Got that pan down low enough that the water should boil off Well, we're gonna watch this for a little bit make sure it's down to temperature We'll put those panels back up there and we might call today All right guys, we are back. Looky what I got. Got me a little Dixel here. Little Dixel control. That's right So let's get this back in there and see if this thing works. Let's see how well my remedy worked at getting the Coil from freezing up again Cool Looks like it must have worked Look at that Looks all clean to me Cookies are frozen. Yay, let's get this thing changed. Okay walk-in freezer. Hmm There's no solenoid to pump it down. So don't really matter whether you just turn it off or not You see we've got the water and the pan there So it did melt it out like it should What we're going to do is we're still going to utilize this contactor to kill the compressor So the controller's going to control the contactor like you should have been done to begin with Similar to how they're doing the defrost relay there for the heaters that way it lasts longer All right, so we've got The orange wire coming off what it would be the compressor right there That wire is coming over here and going to my contactor's coil The opposite side of power going in there is coming off of the terminal strip over here That's going to the other side of my coil Then the power for the compressor is getting its power from the same place the controller's getting there from Passing through the contactor going then on down to the compressor Basically, it's just an isolation It's going to take instead of the amperage going through the little lightweight contacts inside the controller They are going to go through They're just going to control the coil voltage, which is still 240 volt But there's no amperage behind it. It's just going to control the contactor And we got everything ran through a little loopy-doop there I wish I've got to get this other one up here and through one of the Islets here and then we'll mount this thing inside this box about the cover back on and everything will be good I did hook the fan back up to the original spot The fans are not ready for a whole lot as you can see right there maximum current on this Thing is 16 amps 5 amps for the fan Which leaves you what about 11 amps for the compressor That's why I don't like that rated load amps is 8 I mean, yeah, it's Minimum circuitry 11. So I mean it's a smaller compressor, but still it's going to make it last longer. It's Cheap insurance. There's a short in the compressor. It's just compressors with your poles down how long ago I think two years ago This is going to take care of any shorts. It's going to burn up the 20 some dollar contactor versus several hundred dollars Controller we've got our mounted down there in the bottom With your screws all the wires are clean and clear away from All the metal everything's ran through the Islets everything's back to the same We're gonna mark in here what we did on the Let's go ahead. It's kind of hard to see here, but so number one here Was power going to the controller. So opposite of that would be two that is going to be What comes down goes over to the coil The one coil gets powered off the side of the compressor So that's your coil. It's really in there's your normally open switch. That's the isolation contactor. There you go Simple as that Most people don't figure that out without the wiring The one had just bit it just to be safe in case of somebody that doesn't have as much experience Got the cover on I'm gonna leave them a note here I'm gonna leave this other controller here. It's good enough to get them by if this one would take a complete crap What I did how I did it And then on the other side it's got the instructions on programing it which I gotta double check to make sure all that stuff's correct That's who's running All right, she's running With your defrost terminated like it should and throw all this back inside the bag And we'll wrap this thing up


Welcome to the 2016 NCHA Great American Insurance Group Summer Spectacular. We just had the first final of the event, the John Deere division of the five and six year old, and that was taken out by Grant Simon on Elite Cat, who scored a very solid 222. Congratulations to you, Grant. Thank you. Thank you. So, how does it feel to be the first champion off the block? It's amazing. I was hoping it would work out that way, having two shots at it, and, you know, it was excellent. Very good. Yeah, great effort to get to into the final. Who, you know, coming into it, who would you put your money on? Well, the mare's just been so solid. The other horse is a, like, I think a lot better horse, but he's had a lot of fast runs, and I've only had him for a month, so that other mare I've had for a couple of months and got to show her a bunch and really got comfortable with her, and she's got comfortable with me, so. Okay. So, she lived up to her name tonight, Elite Cat, because, you know, in a class of your own, you won by some three points or so. Yep. Yep. Take us through your run. Well, just being second in the draw, got to cut the cows that we wanted. They settled really soft, and then the first horse, they stung up a little bit, so we cut the softer end of what we liked, and they were excellent. Got them cut clean, got them cut good, and that mare was just really smart and going, hitting them stops and getting comfortable in the ground, so that draw helped more than anything. Okay. And there was seven in the final tonight. Is it easier or harder when there's less cows?  Well, that's good. You can get a good quick list, and I didn't mind it at all. Okay. So, you've had this horse for a few months. Tell us a little bit about her, why you like her. Well, she's just a very smart, strong mare. She was excellent as soon as I got her. I just changed a few little things with her just to get a little bit more comfortable for me and my feet, how I use them, and got to show a bunch. Jerry, let me go. I went to Hamilton and showed at Silverado. We had a five-day show before this, and I showed her twice, and she was really, really good the second day, and I didn't show her again. Gave her a few days off, and let her get comfortable, and yeah, I marked an 18 and a half in the first go.  I thought I could have marked a little bit more, but yeah, it was really good to get up into this deal and get a good draw and get it done. Now, this is not your first final here in the Will Rogers. Tell us a little bit about your cutting history. It's been a while. When I was at Slate River, I won the... I think it was the Superstakes Limited in like 05, and I made a couple of Ferturity Finals right then. I made a couple of Semifinals at the Ferturity, and I've made a few Limited Finals. I think I was... I may have been reserved on a horse when we were at McDavid's on Sport, and then I was reserved at the Ferturity and the Limited on Little Jackson Cat, and that was the last really, really good run I had in this pen other than tonight, so... So, you're now working for yourself under Jerry... for Jerry Durant, I should say. It sounds like we're going to see a lot more of you now. Yeah, hopefully, I've got a really good string, got an excellent bunch of three-year-olds that everyone else that rode them has done a terrific job on, and we're going to hit a bunch of the small Ferturities and try to finish this mare out. She's six, so try to hit a few of them small Ferturities and try to do good in the five and six-year-olds and get her earnings up a little bit. She's a full sister to one of Jerry Durant's really good brood mares, a mare called Swisscat. So, he's always really loved her and wanted to see her do good, at the last end of a six-year-old year and I think she'll be a good McCurry horse next year. Perfect, thanks for joining us. Thank you.


Cardo Chambers is rocking to Hanamantan and Miley Cyrus. We have so much to celebrate, we're starting by talking about cricket. Open-up Brandon King slammed an unbeaten 82 to lead the West Indies to a 10-week victory over England in their second T20 International, played at the National Cricket Stadium in Grenada earlier today. King was supported by Skipper Rovman Powell, who contributed 50 from 28 balls, as the West Indies compiled 176 for 7 from their 20 overs. The English threatened to overhaul the Windy's total, with Sam Curran leading the charge with 50 from 32 deliveries. Curran was supported by opener Phil Salter, 25, and Wiljax, 24. Alzari Joseph was the most successful Windy's bowler, returning figures of 3 for 39. Meanwhile, there was a wicket-a-piece for Jason Holder and left-arm spinner Gouda Kesh Moji. So team, a lot to celebrate, a lot to be happy about. Ricardo, you were walking to lunch with the app on your phone looking at the match, you know? That's to tell you how intriguing it was. You know, your lunch had to take us back seat for the match, or the match had to come with you to lunch.  We win. Well, Mariah, you said so much just now, but let me just deal with the part having to do with the West Indies and another excellent performance from the Caribbean side, really impressed with what they have delivered in the last two matches. And today, again, another complete performance with the bat. Yes, they were in trouble at 48 for 4 at one stage, but that's the depth I was talking about. And this is a large part of why Lansing, Mariah, I feel that we have a potential World Cup-winning batting lineup because there is so much depth there. And the bat, as far as I'm concerned, all the way down to number 11, the 80-round partnership between Brandon King and the captain, Robyn Powell, was quite important. Still getting a half-century, King getting 82, Andrea Broso with a couple of sixes at the back end as well, sending the West Indies over 170, and then in the field, they were good again. Yes. Shimmer and Hitmar, he isn't scoring a lot of runs at the moment, but he's been brilliant catching. And just the way the entire team came together, and Gooda Keshmote brought into the team today to replace Ramaria Shepard, one for nine from his four overs, stifling the England batsmen within the first 10 overs, and that made a massive difference to the outcome of this game. So again, another really good all-round performance. And Brandon King said it at the end of the match in the post-game interview when he said, today it was me because I was the one who got us started. And it was important for me to push on, but on another day, it will be another player. And that's why Lance and Mariah, I am personally so excited about this T20 setup. Yeah. I think it feels really good. And that statement, Ricardo, seals it all, because we are getting to the point and match after match. We are becoming confident that any player, any Wendy's batter, can step up at a particular point and get the job done for the team. I think that's very important because for quite some time, we would say once particular players were dismissed, the match was over. I feel a bit confident. I feel a bit reassured now that, although we lose, let's just say top four, we still have a chance to walk away with a match. Yeah. Well, to accentuate the point that you've both made, I think most people watching this show know that Nicholas Puran and Shimon Hetmair among my favorite batsmen in World Cricket, not just West Indies Cricket. I like these players a lot. And they haven't done anything in the series yet. And the West Indies batting is performing. So it speaks to the fact that there are different batting strengths in the lineup. So, you know, if some of the key players fail, there are others that can step in. I want to make the point as well that in both games that we've seen so far, there were key moments in the games that could decide it. Because in both matches, England were in positions that they could win the games. And we hear people talk in international sport about getting the key moments right. And that is what the West Indies have been able to do so far in this series, getting the key moments right. Because I know when England reflect on these two lost matches, they're going to tell themselves that they were in a position to get victories. And I say that to emphasize the fact that this series is not over. The West Indies are leading 2-0, but it's a five-matt series. And based on what we have seen in the series so far, even though the West Indies have won, we know they have a record of inconsistency. So I'm not writing off England at all. What I want to point out, though, is that the West Indies have gotten these key moments right. And in critical moments in the match where it's in a balance and England are in strong positions, the West Indies have, on both occasions so far, taken away the advantage from England and won the match. So the match is. So I like that about the performances so far and I just wanted to see them continue. Yeah. And you made that point, Lance. So at 4-4-54 today, for example, that was a key moment. When the West Indies had lost four wickets for about 8-12 runs and you needed to consolidate, and that's what you got from Robyn, Paul, the captain, and Brandon King going on to make 8-2. Another key moment in today's game was the penultimate overball by Jason Holder. When England needed 31, I think it was, and he conceded just three runs and got a wicket. Had that gone the other way, with a struggling Andre Rosso Tobol, the final over, then a 10-run victory for the West Indies could easily have been a defeat and you're looking at 1-1. So you are right. Those moments are so key in all of cricket, but especially in T-20 cricket, when you don't have a lot of time to reborn from big mistakes. Yes. And we saw that today, and you're right. We saw that in the first T-20 as well. Yeah. And I want to make the point as well that Gura Kishimoto's bowling today, 1-9 with an economy rate of 2.25, the best economy rate of the series so far, by far speaks volumes as to how they gane his bowl today, because Azar will get the plaudits because he took three wickets. But in T-20 cricket, economy rate is very important. And Moti, with 1-9 or four overs, was tremendous today. And his role in the victory today was just as far as I'm concerned, as important as anyone else. And I think these victories are so important for the West Indies moving forward, because as I say, for quite some time, we've been on the losing end team. And again, we have to remember, this is not the full strength England team, but it doesn't matter, because we've been up against teams that we would expect to do worse than us, and we've lost, and we've lost very embarrassingly. So for me, I think the team is getting more and more confident as well, win by win. And it's so important as we try to go up against bigger teams. Yeah. I don't know how much different, personal-wise, this England T-20 side will get. I mean, definitely from the standpoint of improving as individual players, that could still happen. But you have to give a lot of credit to the West Indies. And we also have to give a lot of credit to the captain, Rovman Powell, and the way he has led this side. Let's not forget now, it's not just this series we're talking about. But remember, under his captaincy, West Indies won in South Africa, that T-20 series. And then they won against India in the Caribbean. And here they are now on the cusp of a third T-20 series victory under the captaincy of Rovman Powell. And when you look again at his individual performances, he's averaging 50 with a bat since taking over this side. And you have to give him a lot of credit, the way he has led this team, the decisions that he's taken out in the middle. At the end of the first game, I think he said, Lance and Mariah, that listen, when I'm out there batting, I am not a captain. I try to take that pressure off myself. Today, after the victory, he also said that as the captain, there is added pressure that I recognize that in moments I have to step up. And he's been brilliant leading this T-20 setup. And I just don't think we can have these conversations about this T-20 side doing well without injecting how important Rovman Powell has been. Yeah, and to emphasize the point, Ricardo, it comes after his difficulties in the ODIs, because he lost the ODI vice captaincy and his place in the side and his place in the team. So his career coming into this series had a bit of a stutter because of his ejection or his omission from the ODI setup. And personally, as a professional sports person, he would have had to deal with that. And to rebound in this way as captain of the T-20 team in the way that he has, I think, shows character. Yeah, and we have to also speak about Darren Sammy team, his captaincy and just... Sorry, his coaching, his coaching. It's natural to see captaincy. It's his captaincy that propelled him to this position. So we understand the point you're making. It's so important because I just remember when he was, you know, put in this position as coach, he spoke about just having patience with him and, you know, giving him the opportunity, giving him the time, and time is so important to get through to these players, you know, having these... speaking about having meetings, you know, getting everything in order. And for me, I think he really deserves also commendation because, you know, we talk about all the players, we talk about all the people that we see. But Darren Sammy and his coaching staff as well, they need a lot of recognition because whatever they would have said to this team, whatever plan they have, is clearly working and that's so important to recognise. Yeah, I don't want to be controversial on this matter, but for me, I actually want to see... I actually want to give the team more time on the Darren Sammy's leadership before I make a determination as to whether, as coach, he is working. And somebody will say, then how come are you giving commendations to Robyn Powell, who is the captain? Well, Powell was the T20 captain before Darren Sammy took over this team and had success before Darren Sammy came into the setup. Mind you, there are a lot of good things that I am seeing, but I still want to see that, not just in the T20 format, but in the 50-over format where Darren Sammy is the coach as well over a longer period of time. And the plans being put in place and executed consistently before I say, yes, that is definitely the Darren Sammy effect. Yeah, but why do you say that? I understand the point that Mariah is making because Darren Sammy, as an international cricketer, has always been an underdog. When he rose to the level of captaincy of the West Indies team, I don't think he had the backing of many Caribbean cricket fans. Less than 10%. And he was able to ride that wave of pressure with success. And conversely, his coaching assignment or his coaching appointment was also not embraced by a lot of Caribbean people. And he has been able to make a good start, certainly with the T20s, the ODIs, had a bit of a rocky start. But I think as a person, Darren Sammy needs to take a lot of credit because he has been a fighter and someone who has battled against the odds at every step of his career. And if I were in his position, I would feel proud of what I've been able to do. Yes. Well, sure. And he should feel proud, Lance and Mariah. He really should feel proud. But I'm just saying a little bit more time to understand if a lot of what we are seeing is really the Darren Sammy effect. And I don't think that we can necessarily make that determination. But completely understand the point that yourself and Mariah are making. So much more cricket for us to discuss on the Sportsmax zone. Not today, though. The second T20 international will be on Saturday and show you, watch it. You can go to the Ross Channel on the Sportsmax app. I tell you, there's everything on the Sportsmax app. You just need to go and download it today from the Google Play or the App Store. We'll go back with more on today's Sportsmax zone.


So, if you've ever used any kind of serious document formatting service like LaTeX, or Groff, or Pandoc, or something else like that, you probably know that they all have ways of automatically formatting references for you, which is very convenient. Here, for example, is my master's thesis. None of this bibliography I wrote, it's all automatically compiled as well as all of the citations in text. So that's a very nice capability, but of course, in order to do that, you have to have a properly formatted bibliography file, which sometimes can feel like just as much effort. I'll go ahead and open up mine, but it basically looks something like this. You list out all your references. Once you have them in there, you never have to worry about them. You can just automatically call them and it just works. But it might be, I know when I initially started keeping a bibliography file, it seemed sort of daunting to put all the references I have into this file and how to organize it the right way. So, I want to talk about some of the ways where you can basically do this automatically. You don't have to worry about it. I know a lot of people use Zotero or these other kind of applications, but I want to talk about how to do it in the command line without having really to do that much at all. So, I'll go ahead and say, originally when I first started keeping a LaTeX bibliography file, I basically just had Vim shortcuts so that I could edit it quickly. So I had a shortcut to, you know, I want to put in an article so it automatically formats all the stuff that I need for an article and I can just type that in relatively easily. And that actually, for when I first started this out, I think that's pretty much what I did and it was pretty easy to, you know, have everything in place. But especially when I moved on to more scientific articles that had like 80 authors and like extremely long titles, it was just sort of a pain to do that or if you have to include the abstract or something like that. Now, a while ago I found a video, I think I pulled it up over here, I found this video by Connor McDaniel, which is, you may have seen it, it's pretty cool. It talks about some other stuff that I'm not going to touch on. He talks about Vim Pandoc and stuff like that. But one little interesting thing that he had is he had little functions that can access this website, crossref.org, because crossref.org, in case you don't know, basically every academic article has some kind of digital DOI, what is it, digital object identifier or something like that, doesn't matter what it stands for.  It has an API where you can look them up and get the metadata for free. So let me show you how that works. Now, you can check his video out for how he does it. He uses some bash functions, but I had to make it a little simpler just so I do yet less effort. So I have this little script called git bib, and it is on my GitHub, so you can check it out. So basically what this does is, well actually I'll show you what he does manually, and I just sort of have the script do it for me by default. Now, I keep all my articles in my, oops, in my sci folder, which I got a whole lot of them in here, I guess. In fact, I have, let's see, oops, I meant to do this, oh, over 400 of them. So I got a good bit. So if I, one of the things that Connor did in this video is that if you have poplar installed, which is like basically PDF tools, you have things like PDF info. So I can run PDF info on one of these files here. So I'll say PDF info on Woodley 15 or something like that. And it actually, let me just, so you can see this, and it actually will output all of this information, and part of that is actually the DOI. So I can grep out, so what I do, this is just what I do in the script. First off, it runs PDF info on whatever file you give it, and it tries to grep out the DOI. So it'll just grep only the DOI, and so it gets that. And this is from that Connor's video. Basically you can just plug the DOI into this URL, and it's going to search for that on the website, okay, on this website. So I'll just show you how that looks. So if I set this to DOI, and then I'm going to, I guess, copy this over, run that, and it actually outputs the DOI to the terminal. So it just CURLs that, and that's all you need to do. So there are two ways I have to get the DOI. So it tries PDF to info, but not every single file has that. I mean that's only if the person who made your PDF put the metadata on there. Now on a lot of scholarly sources, scholarly repositories, they will do that. But occasionally there are some where you don't have that, but you are lucky enough to be able to PDF to text the entire text. And then you can just grep out any of the metadata. Actually let me just show you what that looks like, I'm going to get rid of this. So you can do something like this, so let's say PDF to text. And then I'll say another one of these Woodley ones. And if I do that, actually you have to manually say dash for standard output. But it'll output all of that, and you can grep out only the DOI. And so yeah, so that outputs that as well. So what my script does, it basically tries to get the DOI from PDF info, if it can't do that it tries to get it from PDF to text, if it can't get it from either it exits. But either way it's going to plug that into this command here, and it's going to search crossraft.org, so it's going to give you whatever your reference is. Additionally if you can't do either of those, like if it's just failing and returning nothing because there just is no DOI, if you happen to have it, you know, pasted from some, copied from somewhere else, you can just give it to this script manually as the first argument and it'll work. So hypothetically if I don't have, so if I just run git bibb, the script on Woodley 2010, it'll give me that, or if I run it on 2015, it'll give me that. Let's see if there's some other ones. So it pretty much works, but on this one there doesn't happen to be a way of doing it either, but if I just had the DOI I can manually give it in right here, whatever it is, you know. So anyway, aside from that, actually using this script was pretty convenient when I was moving from doing everything manually, or if I wanted to redo old citations. Now I should say, I didn't say it explicitly, but since I'm just outputting it to the standard output, it's assumed that I'm going to actually send this standard output to my bibliography file. And my bibliography file I just have as an environmental variable, just capital bibb, and that's just for convenience. So it'll just output that and if I want to add it to my bibliography, I just say that. And that's all I have to do.  If you just want to use this script for your own purposes and get all of the citations you already have articles for, you can just, you know, just run a little bash loop or something. So for x and all the PDFs, do git bib of x and then done. So it'll actually run through all the PDFs in attempt to get, so it's now just printing out all of the bibliographical information for all of my articles. Now if I wanted to, I could just output all of this to my bibb file or something. But it's a little more complicated because obviously you may see there are a couple errors, but I just ran a loop like this once and changed the errors that happened to pop up and I don't have to deal with it again. But whenever I download a new article, I'll usually run git bib on it and then, you know, output that to the bibliography file. Now additionally, actually let me open up my profile file because I'm on home. Because I actually, as I said, I set bibb to my bibliography, my law tech bibliography. But additionally, since I use grof a lot nowadays, I do have refer set as well. Now refer is just what, I mean you can check the refer manual, it's just grof's equivalent of bib law tech or whatever, but the refer variable is just going to be whatever you use for your default database, which is going to be this file otherwise. So if I open up my refer file, it really is the same kind of thing as the bib file, it's just in a different format. But the thing about it is while you can get, so crossref.org, you can get law tech or bib law tech formatted stuff, but you can't get grof formatted stuff, it's just a little too old school, but I did make a little script. So let's say, let's see, where am I? So I'm going to run bibb again on one of those articles I ran it on again. So it'll output that, but I actually have a little script that is, what is it, bibb to refer? And if I run that, it'll actually reformat it in refer. And if you want to see what that is, that is literally just a said script. So it literally just replaces whatever pattern matching is in your law tech formulas into your refer format or whatever. Now of course, this isn't really complete. I don't really use this that often. I think it's on my GitHub, but if it isn't, honestly, it's just a little said script where you replace the title in law tech's format with grof's format. And that's literally all you have to do. Of course, there are a couple little bugs and stuff. I mean, a couple of things that don't convert, but I don't really use this that often. But I just say so because, you know, people have asked me how I get grof references and this is how. So I'm trying to think of what else. Aside from that, I encourage you to check out this original video. Obviously, it touches on a little different stuff. He talks about like Vim Pandalk and some other stuff like that. But I will say in real life, when I'm, let's say, I'm just going to open up an article or something here. Let's see. What is it? Yeah. So if I open up a document, I will say additionally, I don't have any autocomplete stuff for my references or stuff like that. But I do have a Vim binding so that it automatically opens up my bib file. So if I just press leader B, it'll open up my bib file and I can manually see, okay, which one do I need? Which one don't I? Or if I need to make some kind of changes, I can do them here. But anyway, that's pretty much about it. So again, the goal behind it is just like minimizing the amount of work that I have to do when I'm getting references or articles. So the bib file is on my GitHub, you can get that. And basically, I just process every article I download with that, put it in my references and then I really don't have to worry about it until when I have to cite it. And it's not that difficult. So anyway, that's about it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask and we'll see you guys next time.


Scarcity for us is always a relationship. It's not a mere fact of nature or a mere moment in time. So it's always a relationship between how we understand nature and how we understand desires or what's moving the economy. But there were a number of people in particular in England but throughout Europe who really thought of nature as capable of infinite expansion. It could go on exponentially. And here we are kind of in have a kind of double helix of infinities. So infinite desires and infinite nature. At any given moment, the world is still scarce. There's not enough to satisfy everyone but nature continues to move with desires in a direction of infinite or indefinite progress. The current planetary emergency is forcing us to confront the unsustainability of cornucopianism and having to embrace a different way of being in the world, a different way of thinking about desire and nature. And we call that planetary scarcity. If all we have to do is decarbonize the economy, perhaps there might be some technical solution but to also, at the same time, avoid a fixed mass extinction, which means setting aside land, which means possibly retreating or at least trying to repair what be damaged, it's a monumental challenge. Hello everyone and welcome to the Circular Metables and Podcast, the bi-weekly meeting where we have in-depth discussions with researchers, policymakers and practitioners to better understand the metabolism of our societies or in other terms, their resource use and pollution emissions and how to reduce the environmental impact in a systemic, socially just and context-specific way. I'm your host, Aristide from Metabolism of Cities and today we're gonna go in-depth in a topic that we hear more and more. The topic is scarcity. We live in a period of polycrisis where carbon emissions and inequalities are abundant, whereas future natural and material resources are scarce. Yet it is not the first time our societies are facing serious environmental and injustices challenges. And the notion of scarcity has always been central to debate between word views or two opposing camps. We're gonna name them here two opposing camps which are cornucopians and finitarians. To better understand how our current understanding of the relationship between the economy and nature has been forged over the centuries, we should start looking at the past to guide us through this historical understanding and odyssey of scarcity and this relationship between economy and nature. I have the pleasure to invite Frederick Arbrichton Johnson, who is associate professor of British history at the University of Chicago and Carl Benefield, who is a professor of history at Barnard College. Together, they recently published their book called Scarcity, a history from the origins of capitalism to the climate crisis. With all that being said, welcome, Frederick. Welcome, Carl. Thanks for being on the podcast. Thanks so much, Aristide, thank you. Great, fantastic. Perhaps the easiest way to move is to just ask you, how did you become interested first in history? Because this is just a vast field and more specifically on, well, how did you get from history to this notion of scarcity? But perhaps, Frederick, let's start with you. You are interested if I'm not mistaken in British history, what is so interesting in British history? Well, Carl and I are both British historians, I should begin by saying. British history, especially in the period between 1600 and 1900, marks several of the great thresholds in not just European history, but global history, including, of course, a topic that Carl is a specialist in, a financial revolution of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, as well as the Scottish Enlightenment with Adam Smith and his colleagues. And, of course, also the beginnings of socialism, Robert Owen, for example, and industrialization. And then, of course, towards the middle of the 19th century, the hegemony of the British Empire, free trade imperialism, Pax Britannica. So you cover a lot of ground when you work in British history, yeah. Yeah, I wouldn't have thought that actually it covers all of the challenges of between colonialism and resource use and the notion of progress. But then, Carl, you're also interested if I understand correctly in intellectual and political history how ideologies are made if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, so I came out of economics. And the reason why I was drawn into economics is because I was interested in questions of poverty and equality and power. And I found fairly quickly that I was quite frustrated with the way that economists speak about these terms. And I spent my graduate school days trying to understand how economics, neoclassical economics emerged as an ideology, as a way of thinking about the world, as a way of approaching the world, whereas some questions are allowed to be asked, but other questions are kind of muted or silenced by the paradigm. And even back then, I felt like one of the assumptions that economists make that really shapes their worldview is this notion of perennial scarcity. And a scarcity that really has nothing to do with riches or poverty, it has nothing to do with whether there are enough environmental resources or not, it's just a blanket statement, a blanket assumption that's grounded in the idea of humans having insatiable desires for more and more consumption. And that commodities are fungible, one commodity can almost magically be transformed to another through the market. And if you have insatiable desires and the world is fungible, then we want more of everything all the time. And maybe that's an accurate description of how humans function within capitalism. But back then I was interested in the problems of applying that way of thinking to history when that was not the prevailing kind of modus operandi of most people and also to apply it to less developed areas of the world where that is not something that's been internalized. So that's really where the interest in economic, it's an ideological construct comes from for me. Yeah, that's fascinating indeed. And yeah, I was very of course pleased to read the book because indeed scarcity is, well, is a word view that is used by different people. We're gonna get to that, but how did you collaborate? What was the decision that you said, okay, let's make this book. Why was this missing? Or did you say this is just an opportunity to collaborate? Why this book? Is it just to do the yang to Pierre Charbonne's yin of abundance, we should make a scarcity or? But it's, so our first book, Freddie's book on the Scottish Enlightenment and mine on the English financial revolutions, both of them are bringing together a history of political economy with the history of science. So in these books, we're making more local interventions in the way that people think about science and economy, nature and economy. And we were both speculating as to what our next project would be. I had the idea of writing a book on, a more popular book on the history of scarcity and Fredrick had the idea of writing a more popular book on the history of abundance and cornucopianism. And we're both Swedes, both working on British history. We spend time in Sweden on occasion and on one of these walks, we're sitting there looking out of this beautiful part of Stockholm and we realized we're writing the same book at just a slightly different point of view. And it was just this kind of fortuitous circumstance where our skillset really complemented each other perfectly. So where I have some weaknesses, Fredrick has real expertise and strength and vice versa. So it really fit nicely as an intellectual puzzle. And then we started sketching ideas and things came together extremely smoothly and we felt like there's more and more of a reason to give a kind of long-duray analysis of different worldviews and different ways of thinking about scarcity. And it felt to us that it was more and more pertinent to historicize something in order to break through the way that neoclassical scarcity has become normalized and legitimized. It's funny because indeed, I mean, we will go through this two-headed approach which is the, well, the affluence or the abundance approach and then the finitarian approach. And you have different subcategories in each of them and some actually intermingle or composite. But within the book, you also have more tales of context about how life was in some parts of the world and how these worldviews arrived and felt very much when you mentioned long-duray, I could very much imagine like Brodell or someone like this explaining what the life was in the 16th century in England or something like that. So I felt that, well, not only you spent time into writing about ideas, but also about, well, for me, it felt like reading about the life back in different contexts somehow. Was that something important for you or was that kind of out of an accident or yeah? Not at all. Since I started training as an historian, I've been inspired by the Annals School, by Brodell and other great historians of the recent past always to think about ideas and intellectual developments in their material context, in their social and political context. It's not easy, but I think the payoff is great. And I should say, without being needlessly antagonistic, I think there are schools of intellectual history that are much more narrowly focused on minute developments in influence, intellectual influence, the exchanges between different thinkers. We don't, of course, we've learned an enormous amount from that more narrowly situated intellectual history. In fact, we could never have written this book without it. But I think Carl and I both are completely agreed that in order to understand then, as Carl was saying, denaturalize the neoclassical idea of scarcity, we have to situate that idea in its context. It's a very absurd and strange idea. Too often it's left as a self-evident reality. And the same goes for growth itself. We live in a world made of growth, or at least within capitalism, we live in a world of growth. But of course, if you step into other cultures or into the past, that is not so. But it seems, I think Carl will agree with me that whatever cornucopia andism is, it's not simply a kind of figment of the imagination of a few individual thinkers. It's also a great material and social movement. Sometimes the thinkers are running ahead of the material movement and they're visionaries. And we'll talk about that in a moment, right? They're anticipating a future that's not really, that's still speculative. But then comes the moment later on when thinkers and material processes are more in sync and we get a hegemonic worldview born out of that moment. Yeah, this is a fascinating, the fact of, well, apologies for me, it's new, but perhaps for you it's evident, but the fact of how scholars and ideologies are either proceeding, reinforcing, or even locking us into these material and economic realities, as you mentioned. Yeah, I mean, I can just add to what Frederick just said. What we're trying to think in this book pretty broadly what the context is. So we think about the kind of environmental context of these various ideologies, but also the social and the political context that all has a role to play. We fundamentally also as intellectual historians believe that ideas really matter. And that ideas shape how we understand the world.  So you need ideas to kind of make sense of it all. And those ideas become very powerful in the way that we shape our behavior, shape the way we interact with others, how we talk about this reality with others. And if we continue down that line of how ideas shape us, you know, it also shapes how we vote. It shapes what kind of loss we pass. It shapes how we educate our children. So the worldview is shaped by these ideas. And, you know, after a certain point, these worldviews become really kind of self-fulfilling prophecies. They start to shape the way the world actually looks. So we create worlds, you know, on the basis of our ideas. Now, there's, and in our book, we try to make this clear. There's never just one dominant worldview or one dominant ideology. You know, ideologies come and go, but they never quite disappear. They're kind of, you know, as Frederick likes to put it, they're kind of nestled in the social fabric of society, right? So there's, but there's a sense here in our work that we really believe that these ideas are powerful and therefore necessary to be well understood in order. And in particular, now that we seem to be in need of, you know, a new way of thinking about the economy, nature and nexus. Yeah. Yeah. Before we continue on this, because I think it's important to kind of see also how, well, these two camps actually always, always, that's a question I would like to ask you, whether they always existed, co-existed, or were actually always clashing, but how or when did the term or the notion of scarcity emerged? Because I can imagine in, since the Neolithic, you know, it was difficult, it was tough to actually live. We needed a lot of labor to just satisfy primal needs. And so scarcity might have been always there, but when did it enter the mindset and the word view that this is a notion somehow that we mobilize and we talk about? Even if it wasn't the term scarcity, right? To answer that question, it's important to keep in mind the way that we've structured this book, that scarcity for us is always a relationship. It's not a mere fact of nature or a mere moment in time. So it's always a relationship between how we understand nature and how we understand desires or what's moving the economy, right? What's the impetus? So if we go back to Marshall Solence and Stone Age Economics, he talks about, you know, affluence and prosperity in a world that is very limited. But because desires are limited, the sense of scarcity is not overwhelming, is not present. So also where we begin the story in the 16th century, we use this concept called nearest Italian scarcity, which is also kind of in some ways trying to capture a much longer, agrarian Christian worldview. Here we talk about a nature that doesn't change much over time and it's not liable or amenable to much technological improvement or it's not flexible, it's not pliable, it's not malleable. You can't all of a sudden just start making more of it. It produces a fixed amount and that amount is in some ways also dictated by spiritual forces and perceived to be dictated by the deity. So in order for human societies to create a balance with that notion of nature, it was extremely important to curtail and limit people's desires. And that was done through some tree loss, but it was most importantly done through religion. The condemnation of, for example, of the seven deadly sins. A lot of those are about, you know, making sure that we don't want too much that we don't covet too much and that we're not envious of others who have more. And was also an idea of a geometric equality where everyone had what was needed for them to fulfill their role in society. So obviously it was not, you know, everyone didn't have the same because kings and nobility and priests needed more than the peasants, but everyone had just enough and the right moderation of what was needed. So in that world, you know, nature's fixed, but so are desires. So it's a balance of limitation. So that's a particular type of scarcity condition. And so what broke this cycle into, well, entering, when did abundance then enter the game and then made this bicephal schizophrenic understanding or society? Of course, it's possible to find moments of conspicuous consumption, especially in courtly settings in elite from the beginning of the first state, the first agrarian societies. But if you're looking for a broader movement if you like consumer society rather than courtly consumption, then it's pretty clear that the 17th century is a major threshold. And so if you're looking at the material forces, you know, long distance trade, the discovery of the new world, rival empires, interconnections between Asia, between Asian luxury consumption and European luxury consumption. So in some ways, the doors are opening. If you were just looking at the material side of things, there are doors opening in the 17th century. And again, that's not to deny that there's an earlier history to excess and abundance, but it never on such a large scale and never in a global setting is our argument, yeah? Just one very important caveat with the story we're telling here. Our categories are not, for the most part, they're not actors category. They are construct that we're imposing on the path. So when we talk about intellectual movement, we are, if you like, we are suggesting names and unities that would be recognizable to people in the past. If you told people in the 1690s, there's a new movement of thought, and we think this is a cornucopia moment, they might actually agree with us. But the point is that we are imposing, for the sake of clarity, analytical clarity, we are imposing a set of constructs, okay? So let me just add to what Fred has said there. So that kind of moment in which the consumption goods are just exploding and not just the elites have access to it, but also a little bit lower in the amongst the middling source, that was captured by people like Barbon and Mandeville, who basically said that it's these infinite desires, that they're unavoidable and they're actually good for society because they're driving the economy, right? And then the other aspect of this, so empire as Fred was saying, and international trade, hugely important, but also magic, alchemy. And we talk a lot in the book about this new movement in the 17th century of using alchemy as a worldview amongst scientists or proto-scientists who saw and understood nature differently. All of a sudden nature became this kind of treasure trove or treasure chest that God had given to humanity and all humanity needed to do was to decipher the source code of the universe. And the way to do that was through experimental and empirical science. We know that as, you know, we associate that with Francis Bacon and his, you know, vision for scientific project for progress, sorry, but there were a number of people in particular in England, but throughout Europe who really thought of nature as capable of infinite expansion, right? It could go on exponentially. And here we are kind of in, have a kind of double helix of infinities, right? So infinite desires and infinite nature. At any given moment, the world is still scarce, right? There's not enough to satisfy everyone, but nature continues to move with desires in the direction of infinite or indefinite progress. So that really is, you know, huge watershed. This, and opens up the possibility of cornucopia and thinking. And, you know, as Fredicus pointed out elsewhere as well, you know, this is a really transformative moment in world history in which what would have been perceived as a fairly absurd idea of infinite growth and infinite desires and infinite nature. All of a sudden, you know, and it doesn't become dominant right away. There's an immediate backlash, but the ideas are there and they will be picked up later on. And, you know, they of course, given a different shape, but that's the kind of origins of this kind of cornucopian worldview. Just one addition. The word cornucopia enters into English in the late 16th century, early 17th century. It's in the translation of the Bible, King James's Bible. It's also in a memorandum written by Francis Bacon to King James about the colonization of Ireland. And it shows up again in the writings of these Baconian scientists and alchemists that Carl was talking about. One of them publishes a work called cornucopia. So we use, again, our categories, not an actor's category strictly, it brings together two different sets of ideas about nature and desire, but it would have been recognizable to the people in the 17th century. Yeah. Yeah, that's fantastic. I love this because I remember, for instance, well, of course, we use the term of metabolism and Marxist metabolism as well. And just the term metabolism was just 20 years before Marx uses it. So the fact that new terms exist are also the zeitgeist of the era and kind of embody a number of notions that were ripe to be understood by people and to be mobilized for political endeavors, scientific endeavors, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, when reading about Bacon, and it's quite fascinating because a number of today's capitalism can be seen in his writings. So in terms of how science and progress are gonna make us, well, come out of a misery or ingenuity or the fact that nature is feminine and technicality is more masculine and we need to dominate somehow nature. But at the very same time, or well, not at the very same time, but beforehand there was also Thomas Moore with Utopia as well, which brought a completely 180 degree different story. And both had, when you mentioned the opening of trade, it also kind of underlines the importance of merchants and how they were seen in this entire story and how even, well, religion was kind of, there was this dichotomy with Luther and merchants as well. So we also see how some new reconfiguration of society kind of very splits into two camps and these two camps grow very strongly. And I don't know, do they vocally offend each other or do they coexist in isolation? How does that work in the past? I'll start, I mean, that's a very, very good question and a fascinating question. There's always been, since Aristotle, this kind of uneasy relationship to money and money making. Money is supposed to be a mediator of exchange, of use value, but if someone starts to use money for accumulation purposes, it upset the kind of carefully calibrated power balance in society. So when merchants are becoming more and more prominent, there's a real fear that they are going to upset the harmony of the body politic, right? And they're by many seen as a kind of cancerous growth who pursues infinite gain for gains sake and that that is really undermining justice and morality in society. So Thomas Moore, for example, thinks of the merchants as being the driving force behind the enclosures in England whereby the land was turned from a common property into one in which you graced sheep in order to produce wool for Flanders or Northern Italy because the British produce a high quality wool, but how those enclosures then led to the eviction of the general population, their birthright of access to land was eliminated, creating massive amount of poverty and massive amount of suffering and instability. So Moore and others were saying that this is in fact a new condition of scarcity whereby some people always want more because they're engaged in infinite accumulation whereas others, the poor always want more because they don't have anything at all. So they're locked in this kind of constant desire for more and more for very different reasons. So, you know, and there's a long, so we call that enclosure scarcity. There's a long tradition of that kind of thinking that goes up to our period. So that never really goes away. There's a very interesting relationship to how these new Baconians, how they understood that kind of scarcity vis-a-vis the one that they were talking about and for them, they were proponents of private property and enclosures, but they thought that by scientifically organizing the production and making use of new science in agriculture that they could expand the amount of goods and necessities and luxuries coming from the land on such a scale that, you know, everyone would be well-fed. The issues of poverty that so heavily weighed on England in the 17th century would be lifted. And here, you know, we should also add a kind of, you know, they're also millenarians, so they're deeply Protestant, right? So they believed that there was a kingdom of heaven on earth that would last for a thousand years in which abundance was possible, not even possible. It would materialize. So, you know, and that's a very different idea of Protestantism from the one we're accustomed to hearing from Weber, for example. Yeah. Maybe I could add one more thing to that, which is if you're looking at Francis Bacon himself, Carl is absolutely right. He is aware of this commercialization. He's aware of the enclosures. And he writes one of his most interesting books, seldom read, is the history of the reign of King Henry VII, which is a kind of very early, precocious description of the commercialization of England and the role of the state in that. But it's important to see that Bacon himself was not a merchant and that some of his inspiration comes from very different. There's no, what I'm saying is he's not simply some kind of mechanical reflection of a new mercantile mentality. He takes inspiration from natural philosophy, from alchemy. And in some sense, his imagination is theological. What I mean by that is when he thinks about human power and the possibility of mastering nature, he is actually drawing on the theological imagination. He asked, how is it that humans could rekindle how could humans rekindle the powers they had as their birthright with Adam in Eden, in the Garden of Eden. How can we re-conquer the tree of knowledge and the tree of life? So it's really a kind of breathtakingly, again, it's a religiously inspired project, the breathtaking ambition to imitate God, to acquire the divine knowledge of nature, what he calls the science of light. Can I just add one more thing to that? You mentioned the kind of gendered aspect as well. Francis Bacon has been seen very much as someone who wants to develop knowledge and knowledge is power and power leads to conquest. And it was very much the conquest of mother nature. And it was very much perceived as a kind of, in Bacon's terms, of a violent process. And Caroline Merchant and others have pointed out that the discourse here is a very patriarchy, violent discourse. What needs to be added to that as a nuance, I mean, and that's certainly a correct interpretation there's certainly that gave rise to a mechanical worldview as well, where nature will be subdued by machines and, you know, fours, but amongst the heart Libyans, these, you know, the disciples of Bacon who very much thought within the alchemical framework, alchemy was very much about trying to find nature's own attraction, trying to find different materials and energies that are attracted to each other. And the iconography and metaphors used in their discussion was always one of kind of masculine and feminine energies combining, giving birth to new materials, new powers. So it was a much more, much smoother and much less violent imagery of humans operating on nature, not contorting it, but really accelerating nature's own processes and making those natural teleologies come alive faster and thereby benefiting humanity, you know, more urgently than they otherwise would have. It's incredible how we can translate these challenges with today, such as how people were, well, we're scared of merchants today, this might be finance, what you just mentioned about, you know, the theological elements of nature with eugenics or whatever. So there is always this same kind of reappropriation or recontextualization of the same elements. But before we dive into this, perhaps we can just more clearly redefine these two categories and their subcategories because I think they hold a lot of richness to them. Perhaps we can start with the Finterian one and then, so you have six subcategories, the Neo-Iristotelian, the Utopian, Malthusian, Romantic, Socialist and Planetary. So they all come with, we have some desires that we need to keep at bay and we live within something of scarcity. What is the real difference as we go through the ages? I mean, of course, there's a kind of historical difference, but what are some other differences in these six subcategories? Yeah, so very important again to notice that these categories are all our categories. We have named them and constructed them to make the past a little more easily to grasp. So cornucopia, and if I can just contrast it with Finterian, cornucopia then is the word for a worldview or a whole family of worldviews oriented towards infinite desire and the mastery of nature. Finterian is the word for a whole family of worldviews and the word for a whole family of worldviews and Finterian is on the one hand, the worldview that precede cornucopianism, the 16th century neo-Aristotelian worldview that Carl described earlier. So a kind of orderly, static universe dominated by the idea of a great chain of being with a Christian prescriptive morality of curbing desire. In the 17th century, these early cornucopians, defenders of infinite desire and the mastery of nature, basically explode the idea of the finite universe and finite desires and endorse a more dynamic worldview. But they're not, they're still a minority. They're not a dominant current in society. And it won't be until the 19th century and the industrial revolution of the 19th century that cornucopian worldviews become really dominant. So we'll come back to that, but that's very important to understand the kind of the larger flow. Finitarian worldviews are opposing oppositional worldviews after the 17th century. They're never dominant again after neo-Aristotelianism. They're always the worldview of the heretic, of the utopian, of the dissident, of the socialist. Yeah, so now we are to kind of complete the arc, we end the book with a suggestion that the current planetary emergency is forcing us to confront the unsustainability of cornucopianism and having to embrace a different way of being in the world, a different way of thinking about desire and nature. And we call that planetary scarcity. Maybe just add one thing to that and maybe stop me if I'm getting ahead of myself. But one aspect in these in these phenetarian perspectives is there's a sense in a number of them that with time, humanity can actually transform itself to the point where their passions and pleasures and what they strive for changes. So amongst the Enlightenment philosophers, for example, in particular David Hume, there's a sense that as societies improve in advance that our minds will also become more refined and more sophisticated and we will therefore become less interested in mere consumption that will develop to the point where we take more pleasure in a poem or a conversation or a reading than consuming a new suit. And that therefore that will kind of easen or soften these infinite desires that Mandeville talked about. And with economic growth, that there's a possibility that there is material prosperity so that the absolute needs will have been met so that yes, there will still be a kind of scarcity tension between infinite desires and infinite nature, but it will be marginalized a bit. It won't be as felt as intensely. And similar ways, even if we talk about someone like Keynes who predicted that scarcity would be a thing of the past by the time we get to 2030. So we have seven more years. He used the term that John Stuart Mill and others used as well. They talked about the art of living where we develop as a society different type of passions, different types of interests that are not about consumption, that are not about resource use, intensive resource use. It's about forging a different culture of sorts. And that if that becomes the preoccupation of people, then we're no longer operating like Homo economicus constantly wanting more, constantly wanting the new fashion, constantly thinking of ourself first and foremost as consumers. Yes, of course we would consume, we would use natural resources, but it wouldn't be the primary kind of, our primary motivation. I think you could contrast that version of finitarianism. That's like a high end or high equilibrium finitarianism with a different, the romantic idea of scarcity, which is really about idealizing agrarian society and idealizing nature. And so rather than moving through commercial society to a kind of release or a sublimation of desire, we stay put at an earlier stage of development and we embrace the simplicity of desire, the finite forms of desire in that particular stage and we find meaning, not in human consumption of material goods, but in the experience of nature, in the experience of beauty. So you see how that's, so you can begin to see how within the family tree of finitarian scarcity, there's quite a bit of space and rooms for different variations. And that's something we see all the way back to Thomas Moore's utopia. There's a romanticist element there and he says at one point, for example, in utopia, no one desires more and more gold because why would you covet gold and silver when you get the sun and the moon that are infinitely more beautiful than gold and silver? Yeah, it's so funny to see how indeed you mentioned dissident and romantic as well, kind of the finitarian approach, whereas the other ones, cornucopia might be more optimistic and future-driven. So I think there's also a notion of, do they live in the present or in the future and also where do they draw richness from? What is the source of feeling accomplished somehow? And these are very different. I mean, if we look at Enlightened Scarcity, as you mentioned it, with the romantic one, the capitalist versus the socialist, they're really looking at value very differently, right? We should probably talk about socialism, shouldn't we? Yes. That's a particularly interesting variation on these things and we argue that in some ways socialism is a hybrid between the finitarian and cornucopian. One very important thing to recognize with socialism is that when it emerges with people like Robert Owen in the early 19th century, it really draws strength from the technological developments around Owen quite sincerely believes that universal abundance and affluence is now possible, that not just machinery in the manufacturing sector, but also food production will be revolutionized. So that we will live from now on, if we can just figure out an equitable social arrangement, we will live in a post-scarcity world where everyone's desires will be fulfilled. So that's the early, if you like, the utopian stage of socialism. Now, let Karl describe what happens next. Well, I mean, so there's also Fourier, right, who talks about people's pleasure profile and that there's certainly one out of 12 of those has to do with the consumption of goods, right? But then there are all these other pleasures, right? And very complicated psychological mechanisms that give us, that promotes well-being. And we should organize society in a way that takes the entire pleasure profile into account, not just the one that's about consumption and accumulation. So in Fourier's mind, it's a real reaction to what had become in the 19th century kind of middle-class values and middle-class ideas of success. And once we get to Marx, Marx, I mean, there are a hundred ways of thinking about Marx, of course, but the way that we characterize Marx is thinking about the driving force behind capitalism not being the general populations desire for more and more consumption, not even the capitalist class desire for more and more consumption, but rather that it's the capitalist class quest, never ending quest for more and more power. And power comes in the form of reproduction of class relations. So in Marx's worldview, scarcity is very much about power, about the capitalist class trying to impose work, which is the primary form of imposition of power and social control. And the workers trying to find ways to protect time and energy for their own projects, not necessarily consumption, but just freedom and praxis. The clash here that's creating the feeling of scarcity is very much grounded in power and it's a destructive form of power that in the future society needs to be lifted, needs to be transcended, that dialectic needs to be ruptured. And this, I mean, socialism has suffered this in the 20th century even today that doesn't find its foot holding anymore because before it was just a notion of equality, but not through scarcity necessarily, it was more productivity and we need to actually put everyone to work and everybody will have enough, but the idea was not to limit the desires necessarily, it was that everybody has the same share and today's socialism is struggling to find a place in this planetary scarcity where we need to redistribute, but we need to redistribute within planetary scarcity. And I think this incremental or iterative redefinition is very interesting for both currents, right? I mean, one of the aspects here that we don't actually talk much about in the book, but the Cold War plays a really important role both in the West obviously and in terms of shaping the scarcity notion in the West and shaping the scarcity notion in the East. And the idea of economic growth is not just about consumption, it's also about the state and it's about military development and it's about geopolitics. And again, if you come back to Marx's point of view if the governing dynamic is a power battle, power is always relative, so that means that it's infinite, it can continue forever, that dynamic. So I think what happens in Eastern Europe is that there's an idea of infinite nature and the application of technology to nature to produce as much as possible, but there's also a kind of infinite desire, not necessarily for consumption, but for engrandizement and power. And so that is another kind of cornucopian idea. It's not what Marx and Fourier and Owen envision, a world in which the desires wouldn't necessarily be curtailed but reorganized and redirected. We have followed the debate about Marx's ecology closely while thinking about social scarcity. And I think we land on the side of the skeptics. There are great, great arguments by John Bellamy Foster and others about the nascent ecological thinking in Marx, but on the whole, we tend to side with the people who see in Marx fundamentally a critique of social relations, as Carl has been saying, but not all that much thought about ecology. It's entirely possible Marxian theory could be amended with ecological perspectives. We don't deny that, but Marx himself, it seems to us, he is in some sense quite happy with the idea of the mastery of nature. And even his borrowings from soil chemistry, Liebig and others, imagine the soil as a kind of factory that can be scientifically managed. So that explains perhaps a little bit, the cornucopian current, the strong cornucopian and Promethean current in 20th century socialism. For this, I love history. I have to admit, because I spoke with Jason Moore, for instance, on the podcast as well, the recent book of Gohei Saito as well. And I asked to Jason, like, how does a historian function? Because how do you propose a theory? Because it's a recollection of past ingredients that you realign and then propose something, right? And he said, well, you propose and you just wait for counter arguments. There's nothing, I mean, you know, that's the validity or not of a certain theory is you, you of course need to assemble or have a constellation of facts and then propose a certain theory and then it gets dismissed or approved or something like that. And this, I would love to hear you in the same room as him and others and see what this discussion would feel like. We should turn now to the sort of the end of the book and this great battle that we see between neoclassical scarcity and planetary scarcity. That's really where we end up. So that's what we should talk about next, but maybe we should emphasize from the beginning that we don't, just like Jason, we're still waiting for the answer. We're not offering a recipe for a socialist world revolution or a neoliberal technical fix. We're just clearing a space for new thought and new action by looking to the past. The one thing just to add to that, you know, ideas are, you know, ideas are powerful weapons. They're powerful tools. You know, in some ways it's partly about whether our ideas or theories are true or not, but that's a very tenuous territory to enter into. So when we think about, you know, ideas about the economy, nature and nexus, you know, the way we think about these has a kind of strategic importance. It's not just an ideological importance that kind of like the Aula Minerva sets flight at dusk to survey the battlefield and tells us what it looks like and shapes the understanding of it. Certainly theory does that, but theory also shapes how we enter the future and how we guide ourselves into that future. What institutions we emphasize, what rules and laws that we implement. And that's why it's so important that we develop new ideas. And I think Jason Morris is one of the foremost most dynamic thinkers in trying to push us in a different direction, theoretically, intellectually and ideologically. And I think what we are hoping to do with this book is to provide a kind of smorgasbord of different approaches that can then be used by, you know, social theorists and others as they approach the future.  I mean, these are, you know, this is not just about ideology. This is much more serious, right? This is why we wrote this book because we, you know, the way that we understand and what we hear from climate scientists is that this is not just about liking capitalism or not liking capitalism or liking technology or not liking technology. These are, you know, this is a serious moment in history and I think we need the past to inform our future thinking about this. Frederick, you wanted to discuss the, well, neoclassical versus planetary scarcity, perhaps that would be a good moment, no? Yeah, yeah. I'll let Carl, Carl will help me with the intellectual side of this, but I'll just turn to the material for a moment because I think that really explains what's happening. So on the one hand, the industrial revolution and European imperialism reached new heights in the 19th century. And of course, fossil fuel, cheap energy from coal into steam-powered production and steam shipping really unshackled capitalism and turned it into a global force, a world-changing force. It's not a coincidence. This is exactly the moment where we leave behind the natural variability of the Holocene and we move into a new climate, which of course, you could call that the Anthropocene or you could call it the Capitalocene, doesn't really matter to us, but we've entered into a moment of anthropogenic climate change because of this world-changing transformation of capitalism and empire in the 19th century. So that's really underpinning the intellectual changes that we'll talk about next. First of all, the rise of marginalist economics and neoclassical economics and then planetary scarcity. Carl, do you wanna walk us through the intellectual side of that? Yeah, I mean, so what we talk about in the book is that there's kind of a weird moment when marginalism and neoclassical economics emerges. This is a moment as Fredic was describing when for the first time we actually have a cornucopia of commodities and we're able to tame or subjugate nature and make it produce this extraordinary amount of material wealth and the Crystal Palace exhibition in 1851 is, we use that as a kind of a watershed moment where people are congregating hundreds of thousands of people to Hyde Park to witness this industrial marvel, what this new steam engine powered economy, what it can produce. So it's abundance and the world is now integrated in a globalized network through steam shipping. It's really an extraordinary moment of abundance and economic growth and the economists at this point decide to focus on the marginal choice, the infinitesimal choice, choices on the margin, narrowing it down really on each firm and each consumer what they want at the particular juncture. So it does away with the global picture and just focuses on the nitty gritty of firms and consumers. The other aspect here is that the world in the 19th century is of course also becoming much more politicized. So there are all these working class movements, socialist movements, communist movements and the economists the way they understand the world is to abstract away from all of that. And they can do that by looking only at the minutia of consumer and profit maximizing choices. So as we enter into the 20th century, we have this very peculiar emphasis on the marginal, the small change, right? And scarcity when the world is changing on a scale and rapidity that the world had never seen before, right? So that is shaping a particular worldview that abstracts away from certain things and highlights other things. And the key here was really to make the most out of resources as possible to promote as much consumer welfare as possible. That's the fundamental logic of neoclassical economics. Also embedded in that, even though the neoclassical framework is a static framework, it's not dynamic, but the idea amongst Marshall and others was that you string together optimizing decisions by firms and consumers that are also generating the greatest amount of economic growth, right? Later on in the 50s and 60s, neoclassical economics adds a growth theory to this. But even before we argue that maximum resource use and maximum economic growth are the kind of mantras that come out of neoclassical economics. One other dimension of this that's worth emphasizing is that all of this happened, this move to the infantethnomal, it's probably driven at least in part by an eagerness to make economics more mathematical, we should say. But even in the examples in these economic texts, you see the world of the Crystal Palace exhibition, you see discussion of tea, right? A Chinese commodity, and you see an awareness of empire and long distance trade. So it's not that they, they're abstracting away from the world historical process, but they're certainly not, they're not unaware of it, they're not denying it. And this is also the moment when thanks to chemistry and thanks to engineering, to electrification, it becomes possible to think of the world as of European history, world history as a process of substitution, of moving from one frontier to another, from one invention to another. So we have a sense of acceleration and generalized substitutionism, right? Everything is fungible, everything can be replaced. It's very, very, it's an absurd idea, right? Because agriculture and ecology are still at the root of all of this, that the cash crops and the raw materials needed all come from the earth, but economists are led deeper and deeper into this highly idealized idea of nature where human power is taken for granted and ecology, the whole problem of ecology is put aside. And just to add to that quote by Robert Solo, one of the foremost growth theories, and he said in 1974, and I quote here, the world can in effect get along without natural resources. So exhaustion is just an event, not a catastrophe. That is, Frederick, just before you mentioned about economists and I had exactly the same thought of thinking, it's funny how when you mentioned infinitesimal, well, this probably started in the 17th century or the 18th century in science. Chemistry was, let's say, the 19th century, some part in the 18th century as well. And I was trying to remember when these elements in science appeared and therefore how they were reused by a newer science, which were economics, how they were to either to become more of a official science or to be more in par with their contemporary issues, they went and brought concepts from elsewhere to legitimize economics and to make it perhaps more dominant as well in a source of discourse. I think that, yeah, no, that's a fruit well, I think very important way to approach the problem is that there is, on the one hand, there's an invocation of the new energy physics of thermodynamics in marginalist economics, what Phil Mirowski has written about. But there's also a divergence, right? Right at the same moment that ecology is emerging, that evolutionary biology is emerging, we have a kind of disembedding of economic thought from the agrarian base. Now, evolutionary biology will show up in strange places in 20th century economic thought like Hayek. That's for sure, but the mainstream of economic thought is in some sense parting away from the agrarian base. Whereas if you go earlier, if you go to people like Smith, and of course, Malthus and Ricardo, the agrarian base is very much present in how they think about productivity, how they think about the limits, how they think about growth, right? Well, let me just add that. So there's a lot of writing on the classical economics and the emergence of the classical economics and people like Wal-Raw, Jevins and Manger, that, and they're very clear about that in their own writings that they want to turn economics into a science. And the way to do that was to use mathematical language and models. And there's a way to kind of gain scientific legitimacy. We are of the mindset that, we don't dispute that, but there is a clear underlying ideological and strategic interest in their writings as well. And one of the reasons why their paradigm is picked up and popularized is that indeed it is useful as a worldview in shaping society in the interest of certain people in society. So the ideas of marginalism were actually around from the 1840s, 1850s, but they're only really picking up steam in the 1870s and they become popularized in the 1890s. So it's not that it was the only new ideas around, but it was a set of ideas that were useful at that particular moment to certain people. If we're trying to reconverge, you mentioned at the beginning Carl, this double helix going on and off with scarcity and desires. When reading the book, I kind of feel that history repeats itself somehow, that we kind of have cycles, but perhaps there are helixes that we kind of are in the same challenges today. When reading about Moore's Utopia in Bacon's New Atlas, I kind of see the de-gross movement versus the eco-modernist movement word-by-word resurface somehow. When you read and write about these things, what are your feelings about this? Do you, how do you distance yourself from present when you read these past elements? Do you feel that there is a logical sequence until the present? Do you feel that we just are gonna perpetuate this debate for the next centuries? Or what are your feelings when you read about these and write about these? Well, I'll start and let Frederick conclude our thoughts here. It seems to me as though from the late 19th century that there's been such overwhelming belief and confidence in the power of science to enable economic growth so that the dominant debates in the 20th century was not about growth or not growth. It was all predicated on growth and then within that cornucopia worldview, there are of course, radically different and opposing ideas. What we're entering in now is this moment where that cornucopian idea of infinite nature, would be great if we could continue to grow because that's a really simple solution to a lot of economic and social problems and political problems. But we're now in that kind of phase of planetary scarcity where growth is simply impossible and we're pushing up against limits that we can't fix. We have power of a nature but a very limited power. There's so many unintended consequences of what we do in our interventions that we don't know how to fix. And I'll let Fredic pick up on this. Yeah, we end as Carl just suggested with what we call the condition of planetary scarcity, which is a material reality of the planet itself that is a relatively new discovery and that makes it particularly unsettling, right? We have been emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for hundreds of years, but it's only now that the science has come together and conclusively shown us how dangerous this is. The question of course is, what else, what other dangerous consequences are we introducing into the earth system now? Clearly biodiversity loss is a clear and present danger and possibly an even more difficult problem to solve than climate change. If all we have to do was decarbonize the economy, perhaps there might be some technical solution, but to also at the same time, avoid a fixed mass extinction, which means setting aside land, which means possibly retreating or at least trying to repair what be damaged. It's a monumental challenge. Now, planetary scarcity is not Malthusian scarcity. We have a whole chapter devoted to Malthusian scarcity, where we discuss this idea of Malthus and others about the finite stock of land and resources and the problem of resource constraint. Planetary scarcity is the problem not of stock, but of sphinx, of overproducing pollution through overconsumption and straining the capacity of the earth system to absorb all the waste materials of our economy. Those things that we thought were infinite, the ocean and the atmosphere are turning out to be all too finite, right? Right, so that's the condition of planetary scarcity. Climate scientists and ecologists are now warning us about the present, the overflowing of the sink. We have yet to produce social theory, political theory and a new economic that sophisticated enough and powerful enough to meet the moment. So that's what I mean by looking back to the past to clear a space for new thought and new action. We have to tackle the problem of neoclassical scarcity first, to understand where it came from, how it became dominant, understand its flaws before we move ahead to a new kind of economics. And one more point about this. We are basically pragmatists and pluralists about the solution. We agree with the past Chakraborty that although the problem of the earth system is a unitary one, climate change affects the entire planet, albeit in quite unequally, but it's still the earth system is singular, right? It's not multiple things. Humanity is always divided against itself. And that's exactly why we're so interested in the plurality of the past, right? That's why it's worthwhile thinking about all the different versions of scarcity, sanitary and cornucopia and thinking through their limitations. If we were simply advocating for a socialist world revolution, we could have made the book much shorter. It could have been, it could have had three chapters, right? But we suspect whatever future we're looking at will be fragmented, will be divided between different regimes, different ideologies. The question is whether all of them might in some ways become or embrace a more affinitarian view of the world based on the new science. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thanks. This is absolutely great. I think that's, as you mentioned, like the next step forward and where we, we as scientists need to, well, start thinking about, start, well, standing on the shoulders of scarcity to develop new understanding models, but also analytical models and all of this. If people want to further explore the notions of scarcity, do you have any other books or films or novels that you would like to recommend them to, to read or to watch? Sure, sure. I think science fiction is a nice place to turn, to think about the future. I'm a big fan of Kim Stanley Robinson's novels. He's been thinking ahead of the curve. He's really been extraordinarily prescient in imagining the future. And obviously the, one of his most recent books, The Ministry for the Future is a good place to start, right? Which is sort of a near, near future science fiction fable about how the planetary emergency might produce new political and social forms of organization. And it's, you know, it's a surprisingly optimistic take in some ways, perhaps overly. I think he himself thinks he was overly optimistic when he wrote it. But yeah, science fiction might be a nice place to start. Carl, do you have a recommendation? Yeah, so there is one movie that's, it's a documentary of sorts, a kind of poetic documentary, and it's called The Hottest August. It came out in 2019, which is kind of, I mean, it's a very New York-specific experience of climate change. But it is one that brings in both kind of, you know, how this is being felt in the environment. There's a lot of discussion of the aftermath of Sandy Hook, for example. But it also really talks about the way that society is organized. And, you know, it handles both the sort of desire part and the environmental part. And then the other, this book that just recently came out that fits quite nicely with ours is by Gregory Claes, and it's called Utopianism for Dying Planet. Oh, well, yeah. We also, of course, want to mention, you mentioned Pierre Charbonnier in the beginning, our good friend Pierre Charbonnier, whose work is really compliment, really sort of complimentary to our point of view. And I understand Pierre has just signed a contract to write the sequel to Affluence and Freedom. So congratulations to Pierre. Yeah, so I think we're going to wrap this up. We have enough stimulating information to kind of bounce around. And I think not only your book was the necessary stimulation to actually have the discussion, but in any case, I would like to thank you both, Frederick, Carl, for this very nice conversation. I also want to thank all of you if you're still here and you're still watching and listening until the end. I know it's a more of a theoretical and history of ideas and history of life. Well, how people were living back in the day. But I think you will find it very interesting and stimulating to think about our future life. If you want to explore further topics, we mentioned Jason Moore, for instance. We have an episode with him, Neil Brenner. We also had an episode together. So please feel free and have a look at the recommendations that Carl and Frederick gave you as well. Many thanks again, and we will see you all in two weeks for another conversation.


Now, at this point, the young professor of rhetoric has a practical problem. Because of his conversion, he must resign from his job and even end his career because he can no longer in good conscience perform its duties. He has noted throughout the confessions how the rhetorical skills he taught his students would enable most of them to act dishonestly in the public realm as lawyers or political advisors engaging in what he calls deceitful follies and battles in the forum. He saw himself as a salesman in the talking markets, earning a living in a way that ultimately would contribute to the corruption of his students and of the larger society.