Dear viewer, these subtitles were generated by a machine via the service YouTube and therefore are (very) buggy. If you are capable, please help us to create good quality subtitles: https://c3subtitles.de/talk/1931 Thanks!
[Music]
stream
Bok the osine is now it is our age in
which we humans have become the
prominant geological factor it's an age
with serial different maybe independent
environmental
crisis and theer is an PhD
microbiologist and computer scientist
and will take a closer look for us and
pick all these crisis apart for us are
these crisises actually Ty together how
much impact does each of those crisises
have what does what do some of the
solutions look like and which of those
have no solution so without further Ado
which of those crisises are just
problematic only catastrophic and which
are just
apocalyptic hey everybody good to have
you I'm Tio and I'm pre-recording this
talk uh from our book where I'm doing my
PhD as a bioinformatician and I'm
working on the Ecology of microbes in
Lakes as I'm pre-recording this I'm
really looking forward to the conference
that we're having right now when you're
watching this or that we had when you're
watching this after the fact I'm really
looking forward to the conference and I
really want to thank the organizers for
putting together something under this
Banner where we can talk about all the
problems we are facing facing with the
environmental
crisis um so if you see any jump Cuts
here that's because I cut out some of
the errors I made during the recording
of it my talk will be about problems and
solving problems but not really in the
way that you might think about and um
you might be disappointed when you think
that I'm really giving you some
solutions um it will be not really
scientific as in hard science Natural
Science and it will not be really
political in a sense of what can we do
politically but it still will be both of
them and also I will cut some Corners I
will make some arguments leave out some
details uh which you will see I think um
just to make my argument so to start let
me tell you that when I started to study
I studied biology and only after quite a
while I started to get into contact with
computer science and programmers and I
was very uh interested it was really
strange to see how programmers talk
about problems a little bit differently
so I think that like regular people they
think about problems as something that
you can just solve and then it's gone
and then you don't have to worry about
it
anymore but programmers I found when you
bring them a problem and I think I'm
talking about algorithmics people here
they don't really think okay now how can
we solve this what's the answer to the
problem that you POs to me but they
rather think can we solve this in
limited time is this binomial so the
question is rather you give me a problem
can I give you an answer for every
possible set of inputs uh in reasonable
time
and then they go through it they
formalize the problem they maybe
simplify it in some places they find
bugs in their thinking or in their code
and they might sometimes be surprised so
so the nicest pieces of algorithms are
full of interesting
surprises and then maybe they start to
work on something that regular people
would call a solution but sometimes it's
fun enough to be theore ically possible
to solve the
problem and then solving problems also
meant something different
so you when you solve problems for
programmers again I
overgeneralize it's like chess you know
that there is a program that is able to
play chess better than a human but still
you play chess like it's solved but it's
not solved as in solved solved so maybe
let's make that distinction between
solved as in chess and solved solved as
for regular
people and then there is this other
class of problems which are not solved
yet question mark and usually uh
programmer solve it by finding a way of
mapping parts of problems on to solve
problems and this way then the problem
is
solved so the main thing for this
conference which I'm very happy that a
conference like this happens uh right
now especially is that we really have to
solve the environmental crisis and I
don't know whether the environmental
crisis is the right term um it's really
hard for me to think about what the
right term for this might be but you
know we have all of these different
issues or
problems uh which come together to one
big whole which for now I would call
environmental crisis so what I suggest
for this talk is that we go through some
of these details of the environmental
crisis and take this idea of solving
problems from a programmer's point of
view and uh apply it very aggressively
and let's see where it gets us so as a
first example let's take climate change
and I really don't need to go into any
of the details you know everything about
it I think because it's really um a
topic that we talk a lot about and you
know also this uh figure that is the
warning Stripes that shows you how the
medium temperature is rising very
strongly in the last few
decades if we think about now what the
problem is with climate change then we
might formalize it like this we need to
minimize the Delta of temperature the
increase of of U medium
temperature uh of the whole earth so
there should be no more uh climate
change in terms of
temperature and then we can uh take this
problem and think about it go to some
scientists ask them climate scientists
for example what uh ask them what they
can say about it and they will say look
we have all of these models we have all
of this data we can easily tell you that
the at the core of the problem there is
CO2 and equivalence of CO2 so that's CO2
e and then the problem is
solved of course then the work begins
and that's the work that we're in right
now as a society or in this conference
to figure out how to minimize co2e but
let's say as a naive scientist for me
this problem is solved and I really
don't understand why it's not solved
solved
yet there is a second example that's
very close to this uh and actually
something that we have solved solved
more or less and that's the ozone
depletion here we can formalize
it like minimize the reduction of ozone
in the ozone layer and again going to
scientists and so on we found out that
you have to minimize the emissions of
certain chemicals um into the atmosphere
and that way the ozone depletion was
solved solved again more or less but
let's say it's solved solved if we now
take a third
example let's take species extinctions
so you know that um in the last decades
more and more species go extinct and
this is um getting closer and closer to
a level where ecosystems will collapse
if we don't do anything about it there
are a lot of problems involved in this
and I don't want to go into those
details but but I want to think about
how to formalize
this and again as a starting point we
might say okay we need to minimize the
number of extinctions to an minimum
level best case Zero no more species
should go extinct because of uh
anthropogenic impact so if you take this
and go to scientists with this
ecologists and so on they will not be
able to give you uh a good model for
that because it's really hard um
ecosystems are complex systems and there
is not just one system like the climate
system that's one global system but
there are many different ecosystems all
over the place and it's hard and it's
really no surprise then to see that
there are a lot of reasons different
reasons for extinctions that don't
overlap some of them do and you could go
at them but it's not as easy as climate
change so if we encounter a problem like
this in programming one of the things we
might think about is do we think about
the problem in the wrong way do we need
to zoom in maybe do we need to zoom out
and the bigger picture is called
anthropos and as the geological period
where humans or Humanity or we have
changed the face of the Earth to such a
degree that is causing significant
changes we are approaching a lot of
tipping points in all of the
environmental systems that are out there
also the anthropos scene has started
only around 1950 because that's where we
see in all of these variables that are
here in these great acceleration graphs
a strong increase hockey stick like in
many different variables both on a
societal site or anthropogenic side as
well as in the Earth Systems and it
really looks like a switch got flipped
and all the Dynamics are different and
that's what the anthropos is in essence
is that the Earth system has entered
into a new Dynamic which does not bod
well actually for us how can we think
about this in the terms that we know
before as problems and when you try to
think about what we should minimize in
anthropos scene we will not find
something to
do and we can really think a lot about
it and many people have done and some of
them have come up with good ideas some
of them have come up with bad ideas uh
some of them actually have thought about
the anopa scene as a problem and their
solution is to just fly away and uh live
on mars or something like
that so maybe what we need to do here is
to abandon the idea that this is a
problem and to think about it
differently so I want to suggest a
different class of problem or issue or
something um and all of this
nomenclature is a little bit problematic
so let's call the other thing that is
not a problem a
catastrophe and let's define it like
this so problems on the one hand can be
solved and then they go away that's like
problem solution everything's fine and
by that they are external They Don't
Really belong to you in in any a form of
identity catastrophes on the other hand
they don't go away you have to learn to
live with this new situation that came
about with catastrophe and in this way
they are internal to you in a
sense this leads to something that will
come up later that for catastroph
problem solving might be and I would
argue is a dark
pattern so by catastrophe I mean
something more or less specific and I
cannot really Define it more than that
so I will give you some examples and
then hopefully uh you can understand
what I mean so for example let's say you
lose a leg or an arm in any sort of uh
accident losing an arm or a leg is not
really a problem you cannot Solve IT of
of course you can get some sort of
mechanical technological replacement but
it will not solve the problem you still
have lost your arm or your leg you will
even with this uh help you will have to
learn how to live with your new
situation so this is a catastrophe but
catastrophes the the name sounds really
apocalyptic so another example would be
maybe falling in love and like the big
way
um of not being able to sleep not being
able to eat and so on um something that
really changes everything and it doesn't
go away easily in some movies you know
uh there are these situations where a
character comes up and says you know I
have fallen in love what can I do and
the other person says yeah just wait it
will go away but this is not how to
handle love it is not a problem it
cannot be solved it is a catastrophe you
have to learn to live with this uh
change but it's of course not
apocalyptic and falling in love not
always means the end of the world maybe
if we want to have a motto of how to
cope with catastrophes it is this title
of a Donna herway book staying with the
trouble not run away with it stay with
the trouble live with the trouble accept
the trouble as a new form of identity
maybe sadly the book is not really about
this uh this is not a bad book but it's
really not about this but I really like
the title and I had to include it
here so as I said I think problems might
be a dark pattern and we tend to focus
on problems instead of catastrophes so
for example in the political discourse
we're talking a lot about climate change
we're not talking too much about either
uh species Extinction
which we are talking about but still not
that that much and we're really not
talking enough about the anthropos scene
so why is that the case and I have two
ideas that I want to present to you and
you can disagree with me and you can
come up with your own ideas but I think
there is something here um why problems
are so attractive to us and I think one
is uh narratives so you know for example
in Godzilla film and I think they're
really a good example here you have a
problem and that is a monster arrives
either Godzilla or some other Kaiju uh
that just shows up and destroys
everything and this is a problem and
solving the problem is to make this go
away
or wait until it goes away or support
the right Kaiju so that all of them go
away and then the problem is
solved however in all of these movies
there are countless catastrophes people
lose their homes people lose their loved
ones but the movie is not about them and
the movie cannot be about them because
the movie has to end and by the end of
the movie the problem has to be
solved that's one of the uh most
unrealistic things about movies in
general they end uh the real life does
not really end with the end of the
problem but a movie does end
right after the problem is solved so
maybe we should think about how to have
narratives that don't end when the
problem is solved and I know that for
example in in Old scripture and so on
there are many narratives that just
don't end when the problem is solved but
these narratives stick with you and um
you take them with you in your life
maybe this is one of the reasons why we
like problems so much because they make
really entertaining narratives but I
think there is a second reason and that
is with problems you can sell stuff that
solves the problems so um Solutions as a
service coding Solutions whatever
Solutions if someone has a problem you
can sell them an app that will solve
their problem or you can try and sell
them I don't know blockchain that will
solve their pandemic or something like
that as long as someone has a problem
you can sell them stuff that will solve
that it's much harder to sell something
that helps people to live with their
catastrophes I know there are also
things like that there are actually apps
that do that but um it's easier to sell
Solutions uh as a
service so the troper scene is not a
problem but a catastrophe it is a
catastrophe in which Humanity or humans
or us have become a natural power uh a
natural disaster you might say but it is
here and it is here to stay so how to
live with it now would be the
question and sadly I cannot really tell
you how to do that but we should not
fall into the Trap of being Souls
something that will just make the antrop
go
away and I think very broadly
speaking there are two sides to this the
one is the Techno Optimist solutionist
site that will just uh require us some
new techniques some new progress and
this new progress this new machine will
then make everything fine this will not
be possible for the anop scene the
propine will require us to change as
Humanity as humans um to adopt to a way
of living in accordance with this
catastrophe but the other way of
mistreating this catastrophe is to be
too optimistic in a sense of well we can
still go back of being techno
pessimist of um saying that we should
just try and go back to a way of living
um before the entr tropos scene and then
everything will be fine no this is a
catastrophe this will stay here we have
to learn to live with it we have to deal
with it and this excludes both of these
ways of mistreating a catastrophe like a
problem we now have to think about this
and this is a political uh job and also
Al a job for almost all disciplines of
Science of thinking about how we can do
that in this way the anthropos scine is
really really scary for me as a
scientist as a biologist or as a
programmer or whatever because as a
scientists I really like to have all the
disciplines clean separated to know what
I am studying and someone else is
studying something else um but here
everything comes together and we need to
combine the views of Earth Earth system
scientists geologists biologists uh
climate scientists what have you with
political scientists sociologists and so
on and so on we need to think about
narratives we need to think about how we
think about
ourselves so I know that I might
disappoint you here but the only thing I
have left for you are some
thesis and the main thing is that we
have to learn to live
with the anthropos in the anthropos
without destroying everything we have to
come to a place where humanity and our
environment is able to live on
uh in this catastrophical
world one thing that we need to do
towards this goal is to
identify as many sub problems of the
catastrophe as possible and also solve
them and also solve solve them them
again it's not really understandable why
climate change is not something that is
being solved solved right now but still
so many things are holding us back but
then on the other hand we should not
turn catastrophes into problems we
should not mistreat catastrophes we have
also have to identify catastrophes as
such and uh act towards them as such
another of my uh thesis is that for a
Humane anthropos scene we need to create
a Humane Humanity this is a point where
uh social issues and Environ
environmental issues um overlap and we
cannot um live with the environment in a
way that does not turn this catastrophe
into an apocalypse if we mistreat uh
Humanity like we do now
and I think that this has something to
do with
capitalism but I just want to leave it
like that it would need a really deep
dialectical Marxist analysis to do that
in the context of the anthropos scene
and I cannot do it here in this talk and
I cannot do it as a
biologist and with that I want to
introduce you to n RBA who discussed
with me through all of these details and
who was instrumental to this talk
without him this would not have happened
if you want this uh analysis of
capitalism in the context of anop maybe
you should uh talk to him on Twitter or
something like
that and
then I want to thank you I want to
really give a big thanks to the
organizers uh who set up this conference
and I'm really happy now to take your
questions and actually it's not really
now right it's in a week I'm
pre-recording this so I don't know uh
but if you have any more questions after
this uh write me on Twitter or something
and see
you yeah thank you theor thank you for
this nice
talk thank you theor for this nice talk
um yeah should we go to Q&A right the
way so there are a few questions in the
pad from the
audience and the first question I want
to POs to
you
uh what is the difference between the
anopen age and other Ages which are
named after what humans
did
um so I don't really know what the
question ask means so maybe he or she
refers to like cultural ages but this is
a geological age so this is like the
Jurassic or the perm or something like
that which is not a
not all of the other geological or
rather geological ages are defined by
geology so what you need to do is you go
need to go out and uh find a place of
Earth where you can really see uh in the
in the like order of soils or of ground
uh you you need to see a certain strata
a certain place where something changes
significantly so for example at the end
of the age of the dinosaurs there was a
change in the geological um age because
a giant meteorite hit Earth and uh you
could see that all over the all over the
Earth and similarly now we can see in
geology changes
um that
are made by humans and the one thing
that um science seems to focus in on is
um um nuclear how do you say that could
you help me like a nuclear the nuclear
age or the nuclear no
it's no what you can see the ground is
that there is yeah you can see the the
effects of nuclear testing and nuclear
bombs around 1950 and this is something
you can measure and will be able to
measure in centuries to come so in
contrast to for example the Bronze Age
where you can say look some people there
have uh found something new this is
really connected to the Earth as a
planet and also it's uh Global so
cultural ages uh happen at different
time places of Earth differently so some
groups of people go through the Bronze
Age for example quicker than
others so I I assume this also answers
the question why the anop scene starts
in 1950 because it's due to the uh
measurement of of global of nuclear
tesem so so actually there is a huge
amount of discussion about this and
there are like four different places
where the osine could start it could
start with people um uh starting
agriculture like way back it could start
uh with the beginning of the
industrialization this would be n uh
1850 or something it could start with
um when
Europeans started to
um spread in North America because there
are also some geological things
happening there but uh 1950 because of
the Atomic Testing and of these
um great acceleration graphs that I
showed in my in my talk this is the date
where all of the evidence comes together
so it's really not uh driven by
discussion but scientists looking at the
data and
saying really being surprised that new
Epoch has begun around 1950 which is
strange I mean my grandma was alive in
the last one
[Music]
right H I think the audio is gone can
you
check ah yeah that's better so yeah I
can I can just imagine as a scientist
you just look at these graphs you need
to you see to want to check out the the
are and you you're like oh my God this
it's
1950 and and we did that we did that and
and we just put our fingers on Mother
Earth and left the
mark and usually as a natural scientist
so to say um or exact science or
whatever you don't really think
about humans right I mean as a biologist
as a microbiologist
I really care nothing about humans and I
really don't think about what humans or
what I do to my study object there is
always a a distinction between me as a
researcher and my study object and this
just breaks down in the osine which is
even
mindboggling yes it's like the the
subject is being influenced by the
measurements um but we are measuring
ourselves
now so why why do you think did we
manage to solve the the ozone hole issue
in a relatively short time so after
discovering ftk way and and then Banning
it and uh it's still in the process of
being solved but being better but why
are we struggling to do anything
meaningful about climate change for
decades now so we're talking about for
decades but really it feels like nothing
has has happened nothing
meanful yeah so I don't I don't think
that I'm the best person to ask this
because I don't know I can just imagine
and I think one of the things is that
it's easier to
ban this class of chemicals than to ban
CO2 emissions CO2 emissions play in
almost every um
process and uh carof floring I don't
know how to pronounce them this this
class of chemicals that um causes the
ozone hole that sounds easier to ban on
U uh on a political level but I don't
really know so what you would need to
look into would be of course the
Dynamics like the political Dynamics at
the time so what happened were there
huge demonstrations about this or not
and so on yeah maybe it was an issue one
more of it's an easy problem to solve
just just one problem versus uh a bunch
of problems that make up a catastroph or
or some something that happens
gradually constantly and it's just
background noise to many
people also those processes that create
CO2 emissions they
feel natural
in contrast to this chemical you know
this ugly chemical we shouldn't really
use this chemical that feels artificial
and evil but uh everything almost all
all processes uh produce CO2 and it just
doesn't feel bad it feels like in our
everyday life driving a car doesn't feel
like you're destroying uh Earth but
again I don't know this is
all conject
yeah of course but uh that's what we
here for thinking about it as everybody
should so I think there's another
question and I think it's it's a good
followup um we as humans love to solve
problems so how do we stop starting
catastrophes should we just stink ahead
more or is there some kind of technique
that we should teaching
schol oh can you repeat that this is
really
interesting so yeah so we as humans we
just love to solve problems uh but but
how do we teach ourselves to to stop
starting catastrophes so how how do we
how are
we how how can we be more forward
looking of of the impact we are having
so so at first I don't know I don't know
why I got darker now I don't know what
happened but um I don't know if whether
we as humans are so interested in
solving problems you know um we should
always be very careful when saying
something about Humanity it might just
be that uh I don't I don't want to
assume uh anything but maybe people that
work with computers really like solving
problems
um I can imagine that many people really
hate problems and solving them they just
want to be left alone and that's fine
right but the other part is how do
we uh
make how will we be able to have no
further
catastrophes take place and if we follow
what I said about catastrophes I don't
even know whether that's possible
because that's just
living life is getting into problems and
also into situations which
are
um which are catastrophes in in my sense
so I don't know whether we can really it
sounds too easy to say we can just do
this and this and then we'll never get
into any catastrophes again I think
that's something that we need to take
seriously as part of
living that we will cause catastrophes
in my sense again not apocalypse but
like every day like the problems that
you have with your neighbor or something
like that that just takes place because
you want to I don't
know but surely we can we can do
something to head off problems
or um I mean more humans more technology
gives us a larger level to impact the
world so maybe we also need more Farid
to look what's on the other end of that
lever I mean for I think it needs to be
taught
maybe I mean of course foresight would
be helpful as well as understanding what
uh how the the other functions right for
example you can uh you can have a heavy
a happy life with your neighbor if you
know what he or she or they dislike or
like and then you can manage um but it
will always be managing it will not be
you know printing out a piece of paper
saying dear neighbor I will not get into
your in in problems with you and then
it's solved and of course that means not
only uh that means knowing more about
nature or
whatever um and how that functions but
it always will be you know like this
idea that my freedom end
at that point where I start to inhibit
the freedom of others that's more or
less the thing and this boundary is not
fixed it always needs to be figured out
every day again and I think something
like this there is the point of
catastrophe in this figuring out how far
you can go it will be a process
though it always
is so you said that CO2 is Sol but not
solved solved um which is kind of weird
but what what are the obvious
Solutions so um this is one of the
corners I cut because I don't want to go
into all the things that you can do but
also I think they are just obvious I
think we have like uh Fridays for future
started around two years ago and
everything they say is like true so so
should
obvious and I should not need to uh
repeat it you know I mean obvious it's
obvious you we need to cut or replace
all processes that produce CO2 all of
them and then all the details that
follow that's hard that's like really
hard and all the politics that is
involved is especially hard okay so
pointer to Friday's for futures go look
at what they're doing go what they're
saying and
yeah and I think this is also
interesting question like um maybe it's
it's uh is representative what what many
people on on the world in the world are
thinking can't we just run away from
this problem I mean what if you do
nothing can we just go to Mars or maybe
it will solve itself or maybe it will
solve Us by making us go
away I mean uh if you look into history
or how you cope with other catastrophes
sometimes it's a good idea to start
worshiping some sort of idol and this
way you can resolve your problem with
with stuff that's a possibility but
um but we have decided to to solve solve
it more or less and we believe that
science is the way to do that and then
politics of course so so that's a
different we cannot really like running
away is like starting to pray to an
idol we the the the catastrophe will
follow us of course I mean that's how
how can you if you can promise me that
we will not do the same to Mars that we
will do to Earth and if you can promise
me that there will not be too much uh
like people dying or people left behind
on Earth or something like that I might
be able to to agree but I don't believe
that yeah maybe we need to uh do the
opposite first because Mars isn't really
habitable so so rather than not
destroying Earth we first would have to
learn how to make another planet
habitable which is yeah maybe a good
exercise and from a technical point of
view this might look like the same
problem
right yes absolutely but is it
I don't know I really
don't I mean I I guess people might
argue that uh if we can ever bring back
a planet back to life like Mars then we
can easily destroy ours and and reverse
it
somewh but the problem of course is
where are we going to be living in the
meantime because even for Mars it's
going to take uh like hundreds of
thousands of years also that's
uh this view of going to Mars is in a
very
bad way
anthropocentric like oh yes yes it is I
mean we we would need to take some of
these things with us but it's uh it's
the idea that we can go to Mars without
taking almost any everything uh living
here with us I mean we could start
making a list right we would need some
some trees we would need some bushes we
would need the animals that feed on the
trees who would need all of the bacteria
and AA that as a microbiologist I love
so much and I understand that we need
them so
um prepare your big Aquaria full of
living organisms that we take with us to
MTH would be just more economical to
stay here I
guess um a question that just came in um
wouldn't be I'm I'm paraphrasing here
wouldn't it be great if you could
um change the meaning of the ENT scine
into something positive like make it
deserve its name by making the world
better and not destroying our living
space I hope that's that's what the the
uh the person asking the question meant
yeah that's that's a good uh idea I mean
that would be um that would would be
solving the catastrophe you know that
would be uh turning a catastrophe into
something positive by uh staying true to
the name and saying you know humans with
the anthropos you always have the
problem that it sounds like humans are
parasites
are and it's necessary for them to be
like that you know if you have the
anthropos scene as the age of humans of
course humans destroy everything how can
they be otherwise but we know that we
can be
theoretically well be well meaning at
least and uh we can make beautiful
things out of uh dirt and right now we
make dirt out of beautiful things um so
that would be like the the only way of
really going at it of really solving the
um catastrophe is to turn the whole
thing into a
positive let's say like that and then of
course the questions begin what that
entails so what is it that right now
turns us into destroyers of
Earth um and it should not be you know
it would be an easy way out of saying
yeah it's just human nature that's I
don't believe that that's that cannot be
I mean then everything is over and it
has been over from the very beginning
and we we we know that doesn't mean need
to be like that
sorry so so what do you think is holding
us
back um I cannot say too much about it I
really need to think about that uh it
would be too easy for me to just say you
know capitalism suck that's it um but
there is something in us or Among Us or
in the way that we organize ourselves
that goes against our very interest to
survive on this planet and we need good
good analysis what this is and
my feeling would be that it is the idea
of turning everything into Commodities
and buying everything and then uh
turning everything into into waste
products at the
end but again you really should not
quote me on that uh but it it sounds
like a great start I mean we have to
start somewhere we can only solve um
catastrophes lately in so step by step I
guess and um yeah when we start one
thing and see it helps we can stick with
it and then when we see the next uh
thing we could improve we do that and
then we do
that I least yeah it is it is a question
of relation right it's the question of
how to humans Humanity we whatever
relate to the outside environment nature
all these terms need to be defined finer
I guess and um right now this
relationship is defined by material
relations uh relations of
power um so it's something somewhere in
that direction but let's let's talk
about that in I don't know next year
yeah
okay then um yeah we will see each other
again at uh
1520 at the talk rep
[Music]
Adventure