happening in Lake Victoria, in Uganda and Tanzania, where pressure by the government, as well as banks and in private investment, have turned what was once an artisanal fishery into a largely commercial enterprise, where the local fishers are no longer in charge of the resource, or in charge of the operation. And the countries are doing this because, it turns out, that, fish exportation to Europe now provides the greatest source of international revenue, for both Tanzania and Uganda, that is exceeding revenues from coffee and tourism. And the, the thing that I'm doing research on, right now, which is really counterproductive, is, the fishery is bringing more money into those two countries than the fishery ever has. But at the same time poverty is increasing in the fisher communities, as well as increasing malnutrition. >> Mm-hm >> Because, when it was an artisanal fishery, people were able to bring home part of the catch for their families. >> Right >> Now, to pay off loans and meet bank obligations or whatnot, or just working for people, they can bring none of it home, even the bycatch, because it's sold to the pet industry for food. >> So if this has going on for such a long time, the destruction of, of, public, or common resources, I, I suppose one could make the argument that, that it's, it's part of what humans do. In other words, that, get back to the is it inexorable, that it's, it's just going to happen. People see forests and they cut them down. They, you know, this is, they, they, they see resources and they try to, you know, there's a logic of depletion, and this gets back to Garrett Hardin, I suppose. That it's, it's, it, it's not just as a conspiracy of bad companies, it's the way people are in con, when confronted with common resources. I have a feeling you don't see it that way. But what's, what's wrong with that picture [LAUGH]? >> I would resist that view. I hope it's not true, it might be true simply because, I have particularly looked at agriculture or forests and a little bit fisheries. >> Mm-hmm. >> Because of where I did my first field work on this, on, on the Bay of Bengal. And there were these artisanal fisher, fisher people when I first went there in 1975. They were eating, they were doing exactly what you described. And now, I mean, very quickly, it happened. they, they got impoverished, bad nutrition, because everything is being sold. >> Exactly. On the market, and by these trawlers and it's, of course, depleting the shoals of fish. >> Yes. >> And it's happening in Karala, Karala, I don't know, but I'd read about, but in [INAUDIBLE], you know, [UNKNOWN], it's happening. >> Mm-hm. >> But agriculture, to my, my view, of course, I don't, I don't study evolution. So maybe I should, pay more attention. But my horizon is much shorter. And what I have witnessed, or what I've learned, about agriculture forestry fisheries, is that once you bring in the market system and the nation state, that's where the trouble begins. >> Mm-hm. >> And that in all these fields, I mean, they have been very well studied. >> Yes. >> You know, how the, the forests were preserved. How agriculture in the Gangetic Plain was. >> Mm-hm, that's right. >> Extremely sustainable for millenia. >> Yes. The fisheries the same. They've been doing that for millenia, as far as we know. >> Right. >> And all of a sudden, very quickly, in a matter of a few years. It just goes to hell and you have all these problems. So that's, that's my horizon and my understanding and, of course, you know, the, the, the, plenty of people have written about this. I mention James Scott, but there, you know, there are others. And being an anthropologist, I mean, you know, we, we look at the idea, I mean, Hardin's is, is, is, his case has to do with open access, free access, which never exists in a non-modern collectivities. >> Right. >> Never. And, what, in particular, I have focused on is the, that in all these non-modern collectivities, the non-human, be it the forest, the soil, the sea, the fish, the animals, the plants, a part of the collectivity, the commons, are human, non-human, and this commonality is, is concrete-ized and made powerful through beings. >> Mm-hm. >> That such as spirits, deities, ghosts, demons, et cetera. That embody that entanglement of the human and the nonhuman and make very strict rules that people respect, because otherwise, you have the the spirits, or the deities, on your back. And people respect all that, you know. And then, of course, things happen. >> Yes. >> And that falls apart. But, if you, if, if, if one takes, let's say, from well, I, I shouldn't speak like that. But certainly, you know, what happened with the British and the forest, and agriculture, has been a disaster. I mean, the Green Revolution has been not only an ecological disaster, but a social disaster. Total social disaster. >> In, in what sense? >> In India. To make the green revolution work, you need much more input. You need irrigation. >> Mm-hm. >> You need you know, certain economies of scales. >> Yes. >> Inputs agrochemicals, pesticides. So you've had great development of dams and irrigation, in Punjab, let us say. Well, that has lead, ecologically, to the salizin, salinization of a huge amount of land. >> Yes. >> Huge amount of land. And then, socially, the, the, the small farmers was bought out by the big farmer who had the cash to expand and make economies of scale, and and what has been happening in India for the last two decades, is an epidemic of suicide, of farmers. Because they get so indebted for all these inputs. And, you know, there's such a push from the government extension agent to buy the hybrid and genetically modified. >> Mm hm. >> And then they have to buy. And, and, of course, there's no regeneration. >> Right. >> You know? They are suicide seeds. That got invented in Iowa in the 1920s. [LAUGH] And that's the heart of the green revolution. And you know, that goes against practice of farmers, millenarian practice, of saving seeds and creating, of course, a market. So, with, you know, having to buy all these imports, they can't make it. >> So that sustainable and, and meshing that you first described is, is, is disruptive, disrupted by these market and political forces. >> Exactly. >> And then those get called natural. Then the only way, the, the, the, the way it has to be. But in fact, what, what researchers have shown in, in many of these contexts is, no, there are other modes of sustainability. >> There are other modes. >> That were working, prior to their disruption. >> Absolutely. >> And that sounds like you've studied. >> Right. >> Similar kinds of patterns. >> Yeah. Let, let me just put a point on what Frederique had said, and then I'll frame things in a way that, maybe, disagrees a little bit, or takes a slightly different point of view. But in India, for example, for the last five to ten years, India has been growing an excess, excess food. And yet, the rate of malnutrition and people who starve to death is huge, in the multiple millions of people per year. >> Like your fishery example, before. >> Exactly, it's the same thing. So more money's coming from agriculture, but yet, starvation and malnutrition increase because of both distribution and because people are too poor to buy the food that they once grew themselves. So, let me look at your question about, is, about whether it's human or not. >> Mm-hm. >> And how we relate to the commons, and I'll first start with that quote from Karl Marx that said nature is nothing if not for the bounty of man. And so, we have this philosophy, but people have looked at it for a very long time. Lots of work has shown that the original aboriginal peoples who inhabited Australia ov, over 14,000 years ago, took a continent that had mature forest with large animals, and burned it to the ground. The desert outback that we see today is due to the fact that these people denuded that entire landscape and turned it through a positive feedback loop into a very, very large, dry desert or arid area. >> Yeah. >> If we think about, I, I would like to think, in a thesis that I'm working on, and, and it certainly supports the examples that Frederique has brought up, but, but then puts a limitation on them. Is that, I think people live sustainably, we can find examples of sustainable living, with the landscape, where productivity exceeds the number of people living there. So in the Gangetic plain and through the Ganges, until the number of people were so large, and certainly before the commercialization. >> Yeah. >> The number of fish being produced by natural processes exceeded the demand on those items. But let's, now, go to the high areas of, of Bolivia and at the edge of Peru, to the Altiplano, which, of course, was also a high deciduous forrest until 1,500 years ago when, Chip Stanish at UCLA demonstrated that, the people cut, cut this down and it led to this very dry plain. But the farming around Lake Titicaca by Mayan and other Incan ancestors shows, very well, that what the people did was, they farmed in a way that was unsustainable, increased salinization of the soils, through there, and then moved. And what happened was is, all these people were moving around the lake, destroying the areas that they had lived in, and when they came in close proximity, these big wars started. Again, the work of Chip Stanish and, and others. [BLANK_AUDIO] And so, the whole point is, I think that there's lots of examples of people having unsustainable practices. I think part of being human is like, actually, every other organism on the planet; everything modifies its environment. And I think, this takes the guilt off of us. What we're doing today is actually happening at a faster rate because of current technology. But as technologies have progressed through human time, the rate of modification of these landscapes, diminution of common resources, has just accelerated. >> But, let me make sure I understand one thing because, about population growth, I mean eh, that was Hardin's big word right? In other words that, sure, everything would be okay except that the demand by humans is going to exceed the planet's capacity because, because there's just more of us. And, in your examples, that's seems like you say, because when population was lower, it was okay. But once population, is it population that puts the pressure on, on humans to go from these more sustainable practices to things that are, are going to be, in the long run, counterproductive? >> Well I think it, that's a, it's a combination of things. The, the examples in olden times, when populations were lower, is just that people had unsustainable practices but there was, there were a lot of resources to move into. >> You know, just go to the next one over there [LAUGH]. >> So, just go to the, just go to the next one, and, and either it recovers or didn't. So in, in, around, Titicaca, it hasn't recovered, but in places like the Amazon, you can go everywhere and anthropologists and ethnobotanists have determined that peop, what we see today, even in the most, in quotes, pristine form, has been modified by ancient humans. >> They've, they've lived everywhere. But it recovered in some sort of a way. But what happens now is that, A, we're running out of space. B, the amount of pressure on common resources, soils, water, food to feed a larger population is exacerbated by state demands for international trade for making profits. So to take more out of the resource than just sustenance or maintaining it. Because if you think about the modern articles of incorporation with investors, it's to maximize the profits. >> Right. >> Or, to the return to an investor. And that says nothing about perpetuity or sus, sustainability. >> Well this gets, gets back to your first example, right? >> Exactly. >> Right. >> Where you had the confluence of state forces and commercial, or corporate forces. >> Exactly. >> And my guess is, from what you've said so far Frederique, that for you it's those accelerators or of, of unsustainability, they may be more important than population growth in terms of screwing up this, this, what had been a manageable system. >> I, I, I agree, I mean, as Barry pointed out, in India, so, so now, you have enough food to feed everybody, but you have the same number of people starving. >> Yeah. >> so, it's not the, we do have enough food to feed everybody. >> Mmhmm. >> It's the system and how it distributes them or doesn't distribute it. I mean, inequality is growing everywhere. In the global north, in the global south, in the US. >> Yes. >> I mean, that's what Occupy Wall Street was all about. >> Mm-hm. >> So, I think what we've talked about, so far, has been very helpful in both helping us all see some of the things we know about the commons and, and why we should care about the destruction of the commons. I mean, you've both given very important examples about the, the really poisonous effects that the undermi, that undermining the commons have on communities in different parts of the world. >> With this, the think tank, I'm engaged in writing, for the first time, a book not for an academy class [LAUGH]. >> I see, so what are you writing about? >> Well on, on recreating this pre-Columbian, Amazonian soil of millenarian fertility, that is still fertile today. It hasn't been touched since the inv, the Spanish invasion. So it's really the most sustainable soil in the world. >> Huh. >> And it's, of course, it's totally rewriting the history of the Amazon basin. >> Amazing. >> So I'll tell that story, because it's working. I haven't been tested by scientific means, but the crops are four times. >> The crops are there [LAUGH]. >> Four times the size. >> Wow. >> On degraded land. >> I see. >> That, where the forest would not regrow. And, of course, it's permanent agriculture. Because the local agriculture in Sweden is slash and burn, there, which is bad for many reasons. So, so I want to tell that story. But for the think tank, I'm particularly, I, I would like us, I think Barry mentioned at the beginning, that, you know, so much of our thought, I tend to think of it as modern, sort of, since the, since the 16th, 17th century, that we think of humans, that, that nature is out there. >> Yes. >> It's a given, there it is, and it's a background to our action. That's the mainstream view of history. >> Yes. >> We need to change that. We need to make, to make it graspable and and motivate people. >> Mm-hm. >> We have our being through this constitutive outside, so-called outside. We're part of it. >> Yes. >> And, you know, the water, the soil, the sun, the air, everything, is part of us. And once, and we need to, to communicate this in an effective way. And in a, in a way that moves people. >> Yes. >> I mean, yes, the head is necessary, but not sufficient, in my view [LAUGH]. >> No, I have, it's a very good point. >> We need the head, but if we cannot move people and make them, you know, their kishka, their guts, [LAUGH] it's not going to happen. >> Well, this is the why the, the, the why we should care part, you know, for us too. And, and, and I think that's been a big part of the College of the Environment from the beginning. >> Yeah, I mean, our mission, simply, is to change the world. And, you know, part of the outcomes of this think tank are not only wonderful articles being published by each of the members, as well as a collective book that that is being spearheaded by Professor Gosling who's, sort of, heading up the think tank. But our goal, really, is to bring these issues out and, and what we can do with this worldwide. And I think that there is a lot for indivi, that individuals can do around the world to get involved in this. And one one of it, one of the most important ways, is to work with people who are associated with these common resources. And try to talk with them about their relationship to those resources and to mobilize political pressure for the rights of individuals to have access to those resources in a way that's sustainable. So, for example, we did this with Bolivian fishers by showing them, in fact, that their catch depended on maintenance of the forest along these big river systems. And, and then these Bolivian fishers banded together to actually demonstrate to the government and prevented the lumber companies from deforesting the areas that were affecting these river systems and the reproductive capacity of the fishes that they depend upon. So that was very effective. But the other thing that we need to do, so that's one level where individuals can can work. But another really important level is, we need to find ways, in both our education systems and in, through our elected or unelected leaders, to have discussions at, at different governmental levels to ask the question about, what are, what is the social contract between individuals and the government, and where do these resources lie? And how do we come with a fair distribution of equity? It's true that companies are not going to invent new ways of interacting with these resources, in many ways, in a, in a sense, to protect them. A conundrum, for example, is, if we can grow agriculture in a more effective way in the lands that are already committed to agriculture, then we don't have to destroy other types of natural area to increase the crops. Which just makes the biochar and these black Earth systems so appealing, is because it's done without hydrocarbons and fossil fuels. So, it's, it's cheap, it's not a dependent way. So I think we really need a multi-pronged approach, both at the level of working with the artisanal people to learn to protect their own resources,, and also working with our elected leaders or even un-elected leaders, to start discussing this relationship that the state has in, with people and with the resources upon which the people depend. [BLANK_AUDIO]