BREATHE (E)

0:20Salut, c 'est John de Glasgow en Écosse, et vous écoutez un épisode spécial des archives d 'Akimbo.

0:31Il turns out that air, while it's invisible, if you're lucky, isn't made of what most people think it's made of. 78 % of the air we breathe is nitrogen. Nitrogen is basically the most boring of all gases. It's invisible, colorless, odorless, and it doesn't like to link up with anything. It's pretty inert. What does it mean to be 78 %? Well, think about the 100-yard dash, the length of a football field. 78 % means that the first 78 paces, almost all of it, is nitrogen, a gas that does basically nothing. Oxygen, the star of air The one we think of when we're thinking about breathing Is only 21 % Of the 100 yards That make up air We are incredibly sensitive To the amount of oxygen in the air That we are breathing If you go a mile high to Boulder, Colorado And try to run a mile It's much more difficult Et yet, l 'oxygène de l 'oxygène, que haut, va de 21 % à 18%.

1:54C 'est une 3 ou de la 100 % différent. OK, donc pourquoi ça importe ? C 'est parce qu 'on va à l 'oxygène, on a l 'argon, qui est un système de l 'oxygène, aussi un gas, un peu plus 1 % de l 'air que nous breathe. Et puis, en 4th place, si on ne pas compte, en 4th place est carbon dioxide, le premier que nous avons parlé dans le news pour les 20 ans. Carbon dioxide, qui je pense que c 'est un grand de l 'air que nous breathe, parce que les gens de l 'air et les choses. Carbon dioxide est l 'équivalent de 1 inch de l 'air que nous parlons. about. It's just 0.03 % of air. We are incredibly sensitive to this.

2:49One inch out of 100 yards is enough to change the dynamics of the environment. Why does this matter? It matters for a couple reasons, and we need to talk about the sun. If it weren't for the sun, we'd all be dead. The sun radiates energy on the Earth every single day. The biggest difference between the Earth and Mercury or Pluto is the fact that we are an appropriate distance from the Sun, getting just the right amount of energy to be able to sustain life. And how do we do that? Well, the first thing that happens is l 'atmosphère intermédia entre nous et le sun. On le moon, il y a vraiment chaud et vraiment, vraiment chaud parce qu 'il n 'y a pas de l 'atmosphère.

3:48Mais sur l 'Earth, l 'atmosphère slows down le heating et le cooling et nous permet de vivre en confort. Le autre chose l 'atmosphère fait, c 'est créer un système. et le système fonctionne comme ça. L 'eau, prendre un petit bit de carbone de l 'eau que est dans l 'air, mettre à l 'eau le sun, et en utilisant photosynthesis, on va sortir de l 'eau de l 'eau de l 'eau de l 'eau et breathe out l 'eau. L 'eau est utilisée par nous pour respirer, pour respirer, et à nous garder nous vivons. Nous nous respirons de carbone, de l 'adresse de carbone de notre système de l 'oxygène et de l 'eau de l 'eau, et de l 'eau.

4:44Et c 'est le raison que je pensais qu 'il y avait tellement de carbone d 'oxygène à commencer par. Parce que les gens sont en train de respirer de carbone d 'oxygène de l 'eau toute la même chose. Si vous ne croyez pas, si vous ne croyez pas, take un papier bag et d 'eau, je ne sais pas, 30 fois, vous allez mourir. Parce que c 'est trop de carbone dioxide and not enough oxygen. Okay, none of this is in dispute. All of this is clear and easily measured. This tiny little bit of carbon that's in the air has a fascinating effect on what happens to sunlight, to heat, and it's this. That little tiny bit of carbon creates a barrier that keeps the heat from escaping the Earth.

5:33Asteroids don't have this. The moon doesn't have this. They're hot when they're hot. They're cold when they're cold. But that barrier works like a blanket, like a greenhouse, keeping the heat in so that it doesn't escape into space. That last little bit, remember, we're talking about one inch out of a hundred yards changes the way the heat interacts with our atmosphere. Also, beyond dispute. So here's what's been happening. For a million years, plants have been turning carbon dioxide into plants, into tree trunks, into ivy and kudzu and all the plants that we see around us. et au long terme, après un mois ou un siècle, les plantes se sont ennuyent.

6:33Et quand ils se sont ennuyent, ils se sont ennuyent dans le terrain. Sous-tout, ils se sont ennuyent, donc leur carbone ennuyent dans le air. Et parfois ils ne sont pas. Sous-tout, ils se sont ennuyent, un élément ennuyent, ennuyent dans la vie, ennuyent dans la vie, ennuyent dans l 'eau. One of the first cogent reports on how the greenhouse effect works was written by M.B. Glaser in 1982. He wrote, Atmospheric monitoring programs show the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased about 8 % over the last 25 years and now stands at about 340 parts per million. Je voudrais donner ce qui montre que Mitgl lebarde du au mer 430.

7:26Elle a increased maintenant plus vite. Re своей an номero. Ces deux apparitions weltvitzent à nese 맞아요 plus à neuf prochaines années-os, pelos Danish? La fraîche est угolée de lier ax pas vers��는 des plus haigées Contributors Jumping ahead to 1988 R.P. Jacobs and his team wrote Man-made carbon dioxide Released into and accumulated In the atmosphere Is believed to warm the earth Through the so-called greenhouse effect The gas acts Like the transparent walls of a greenhouse And traps heat in the atmosphere That would normally Be radiated back into space Mainly due to fossil fuel burning and deforestation, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased some 15 % in the present century to a level of about 340 parts per million.

8:30Now, here's an interesting aside. MB Glazer was working at the time for Exxon, now called ExxonMobil, and R.P. Jacobs and his team worked at Shell. C 'est possible que greenhouse gases come from lots of places. Volcanoes, the ocean respirating, changes in the way forests are grown. It doesn't matter. So creatures come and creatures go. Species become extinct and new species are started. But that is not much consolation to people who live now, who have children and grandchildren, to people who can see 50 years into the future. So back Maradeu -傑geur at the Shell Oil Company. These changes could be larger than any that have occurred over the last 12 ,000 years.

9:48Such relatively fast and dramatic changes would impact on the human environment, future living standards, and food supplies, and could have major social, economic, and political consequences. This was written in 1988 at Shell Oil. So now we get to the human nature part of this story. It's 1988. Some of the best-funded, most-informed, and smartest scientists working in the field, the ones who know the most about fossil fuels, have written nearly definitive reports long before there's a crisis in public, outlining to their bosses the problem to come. And what do their bosses do? Les bossés à Shell, à Exxon, à beaucoup de la top 100 fossil fuel companies, ils regardent à l 'éducation et ils réalisent que 50%, en fait, plus de 50 % de tout le carbone élevé par les humains depuis la révolution industrielle, a été élevé par juste 100 entreprises.

11:03Ils aussi se sont que les stock market, les investissements, les gens qui sont seeking profits ne sont pas excités par un changement de changement dans leur industrie. Les gens ne vont pas travailler dans leur industrie comme leaders et ne vont investir dans leur industrie parce qu 'ils sont seeking un changement et rapid. change. They do it because the story they tell themselves is about the utility of doing this industrial work, of showing up to do what they did yesterday, but more efficiently and more profitably. So the leaders of these companies decide to make this a political issue because Parce que les règles de marketing un politique issue sont sur les tribaux, sont sur la posture concernant la status quo et qui est en train de se faire, qui est en train de se faire, qui est en train de se faire, et qui est en train de se faire.

12:05Par de tapant dans les tribaux de valeurs, sur les choses comme la politique, regulation, they are able to turn a scientific issue into a political one. And then it gets rolled out to the rest of humanity. People are not good at talking about the future. We're not good at thinking about dying. We have very little ability to imagine what the world was like 150 et nous spendons pas de temps à l 'économie de penser à la vie de l 'économie dans 150 ans. Nous sommes capable de mettre énormément d 'efforts de effort dans les derniers moments. Nous spendons une partie de notre budget de l 'économie de l 'économie de l 'économie de l 'économie dans les années ou deux de leur vie.

13:01Et presque rien de notre budget staying in shape, changing the diets of people so that they won't have a horrible last few years of life. Because we're humans and because the culture, the marketing industrial complex, is rewarded for the short term. Social media has made it even worse because now the short term has gone from what's happening on Friday to what's happening in six seconds. que l 'écoute un podcast sans avoir de l 'email est considéré un trium. Et donc, la nature shows up que la nature que ne veut pas pas de percentages, que ne veut pas pas comprendre la probabilité, que ne veut pas parler de la vie de la vie en 20 ans et add à la vie la instinct toward la politique de qui va et qui va et qui va et qui va et qui va et qui va et qui va point out la fact que les gens en pauvres pays souvent vivent near the ocean, et que les gens qui ont le plus de voix en cette conversation sont les qui sont les plus impactés.

14:13Ce que vous endz avec est un perfect storm, ironie intentionale, un perfect storm de science et culture et industrie all meeting in a way que vous enziez très difficile pour notre culture, notre humanity à réactiver et respondent appropriately. Parce que ce qui est being asked n 'est pas, «Pleez, recyclere votre plastique bagge ! » Parce que, pour les gens qui le font, c 'est fun et facile. Il fait vous sentir bien entre 4.02 et 4.04 quand vous vous êtes revenu de la marché. C 'est facile, mais c 'est pas vraiment important. Ce qui est important est de comprendre que 100 entreprises Les technologies sont responsables pour plus de la half de cette shift.

15:03Ce qui est important de réaliser est que technologie de l 'économie avec suffisant de recherche et de développement peut changer de façon à changer de la partie par million de carbone dans notre atmosphère, mais de la qualité de notre vie. Si vous avez été en train de l 'électricité, vous savez que non seulement est une voiture, c 'est un bon, c 'est un bon, It feels like the future. But that's a hard sell because our culture is organized around the idea that the easiest thing to sell, the easiest thing to talk about is how do we keep it the way it is? How do we avoid the uncertain leap into the future?

15:48Salto mortale. And the second thing that's easy to do in our culture is to divide us, is to help us argue with each other, to push the other away, to say, you are not on my team, you just said something I don't believe in, and go away. And so, we have a media system that profits from division, that the reason we have breaking news is because there are people whose job it is to make money from breaking news. So even if there isn't breaking news, they'll invent some, because that crisis of the moment gets our attention, Our attention makes them money And then they can get more attention But it's really hard To create breaking news about something That's going to happen in 20 years Or 12 years Or even 5 years And so each of us is a participant In this cycle This cycle where Some people are going to show up And figure out a dynamic That gets a critical mass Of energy behind it so that we can do something about this problem.

16:56Because if we don't, it's simply going to be the reality of our future. One where we will talk about nothing but the problem that has engulfed us. Because by then, all we will be able to do is use our dwindling resources to remediate the problem, to figure out how to build a dike, to figure out how to move uphill. And it's not going to be fun and it's not going to be easy. So as someone who looks at the culture, as someone who thinks a lot about how ideas spread, here's a textbook example of the right idea not landing, not sticking. It's not global warming. Global is good. Warming is good. There are a lot of people who are in favor of both global and warming.

17:46Now we have atmosphere cancer. Atmosphere. Because it's scientific. It's measured. C 'est facile à test. Et cancer, parce que c 'est un chronique, dégénérative disease. Une que nous ne pouvons pas dénir existe. Mais une que si nous hurons, nous pouvons faire un peu. Pas ne pas faire un peu plus jamais, mais nous pouvons faire un peu plus. Si nous pouvons faire un opportunité. Et si nous construire un lien, si nous construire un narratif, si nous pousser les organisations à faire un peu plus le right, thing, not just the urgent thing, but the thing that's actually productive. Because change is the fuel of capitalism.

18:28It's these disruptive changes, the ones the market leaders always don't want, that lead to the next breakthrough, to the next opportunity, to the next chance to make things better by making better things. What we've learned in our increasingly marketed to industrialized consumer-driven culture around the world, what we've learned is that forward motion comes from things that make people feel good in the short run. That forward motion comes from when we can get behind something that connects us, that makes us feel alive, that opens the door de possibilité, que nous ne sommes pas que bon à long terme d 'emergens, mais notre culture est organisé à l 'inverse de l 'idée que quand les gens se sont prêts et se disent, «Follow me » avec un plan pour un futur, plus et plus de nous sommes en train de se argue about it, our innate desire to put off the inevitable death at the end of the road and instead say people like us do things like this.

19:47And what it means to be people like us is that we are going to be thoughtful about what is obvious and clear. And what it means to be people like us to do something like this is that we've got to be in sync about what something like this is. Because politicizing things so that we can benefit 100 CEOs, I think we have a better opportunity than that. We have the opportunity to see what is actually happening and to open the door for the kind of innovation that's helped make things better all along. Hey Seth, it's Maria. Hey Seth, my name's Kyle. Greetings Seth. This is Stephen out in Madison, Wisconsin.

20:28Hi Seth, Alicia from Charleston here. Hi Seth, this is Anupam. Hi, this is Caitlin. Hi Seth. Warm greetings Bonjour à tous.

21:04press the appropriate button. We got a bunch of questions on the very same topic, so I picked just one of them. This one from a fellow Buffalonian. Besides learning so much from you, I feel an additional, though perhaps irrational, connection as I also grew up going to the Clearfield Library and eating bocce pizza. Though to be honest, I was never a huge fan of that sauce. My question relates to something you've touched on in a number of ways and places, but still leaves me trying to better understand two seemingly contrasting ideas. To make something that is great, something unique, something that is really worth talking about, it would seem obvious that a person needs to put in the hard work to do it.

21:39Staying narrow but deep in a field perhaps, at least initially. Really focusing on a craft until you are the one and only for whatever it is that you do. At the same time, it is said that how we do the small things is how we do the big things. If I don't believe in making my bed each morning, I can see why some people waste the time each morning to do it. So the obvious conundrum then is we can invariably find ourselves sacrificing some attention to detail et de qualité de ce que nous faisons dans d 'autres areas de notre vie afin que nous fassons à notre craft. Donc, ma question en un nutshell est, tu penses que comment nous faisons les petits choses ou que nous faisons les petits choses ?

22:11Comment nous balancez-nous ? Je veux dire vos thoughts. Merci beaucoup. Le problème de la question de la perfectionisme, de la divergence entre « ship it » « bring work » « to the world » et « dip » « our need » « to create something remarkable » « to be best in the world » La conflit est vraiment clair. mais nous confions parfois je n 'ai jamais dit juste ship parce que juste do it juste ship que signifie go ahead put it out there doesn't matter what I am talking about is merely ship it there's a blog post on my blog tomorrow morning it's not on my blog tomorrow morning because it's perfect it's in my blog tomorrow morning because it's tomorrow morning que si nous commissons, comme Lauren Michaels le dit sur Saturday Night Live, si nous commissons à la fin date et à la fin de temps et nous savons que nous devons notre travail à la fin de temps, notre travail à la fin de temps va être mieux.

23:16Parce que professionnels ship on time, on schedule. Ce que c 'est que nous devons à la fin de temps est de déter le narratif, de stopper nous sommes pas pas parce que nous sommes pas bon enough, mais parce que c 'est facilement de construire lahh played de la société. Le fameux Bob Dylan a recordings de plus de 50 Il oublBLE ou below his average.

24:02A few are the extraordinary ones. If he had waited for the extraordinary albums, they never would have arrived. Merely ship it means that we are on schedule, that we are on track without the narrative to bring our work to the world. So then, how do I answer your problem? Well, here's the question. How long does it take to write a novel? I'll bet, on average, nine months. So it's nine months to write a novel. How long does it take to type a novel? If someone hands you a novel, et vous êtes un typeur, comment tu type-il? À la most, 4 jours. So, what's the difference between 4 jours de typing et 9 jours de writing?

24:49The difference is, you're spending the extra 8 1⁄2 months noodling about, thinking, exploring dead ends, trying things out that don't work. And most of the time, you're stuck, you're trapped, you're worried that it's not good enough. Earl Stanley Gardner was one of the greatest novelists of all time in terms of books sold. He sold hundreds of millions of Perry Mason novels. No one will argue that the Perry Mason novels are the greatest novels ever written. But he wrote a Perry Mason novel in 20 days.

25:42... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... C 'est le draft que les gens read. C 'est-ce que c 'est un genius ? Non, pas à tout. Il juste n 'est pas honte de l 'un. On le « si », on le « holding back » part. Donc, mon argument est que avec focus, nous pouvons mettre effort dans un field. Nous pouvons mettre en un field très précisément, pour le plus de vieux audience, again et encore avec la force, avec la vision, et puis faire le plus de la force, et faire le plus de la force, par getting to the point where doing our work feels a lot more like typing, bringing it to the world without a lot of care or guilt or remorse.

26:29Here, I made this. In this moment, this is my best version of myself. Dropping the narrative, showing up to turn on lights for other people and to do our work the way professionals do. I know it's not easy. It might take 10 years, 20 years, 30 years to become the best heart surgeon in the world. But once you are the best heart surgeon in the world, with a focus on a particular illness and a particular kind of patient in a particular region of the country, there's not a lot of narrative left. You know what you're doing. And the reason you know what you're doing is you have merely shipped the work.

27:08Thanks for listening. We'll see you next time.