Peter Coffin is a comedian who has produced many satirical songs and videos… Read Full Bio ↴Peter Coffin is a comedian who has produced many satirical songs and videos, often spoofs of major pop artists' work. He is a self-described 'YouTube personality'. He joined in January 17, 2006 and reached the status of "#92 - Most Subscribed (All Time) - Comedians" as of June 2010.

His wife may also be a doll.

Masturbate
Peter Coffin Lyrics

We have lyrics for 'Masturbate' by these artists:

Blegh It's fall again Do you have your eye on anyone in…
GWAR Anton Reemcob: My dear ladies and genteel men, allow me…
Intestinal Disgorge If you're not going to fuck me Then you're gonna watch…
Outlaw Woke up, it’s a blue balls day I think I’m gonna…
Princess Vitarah Come baby let me ride your face Come baby let me…

We have lyrics for these tracks by Peter Coffin:

Infinite And the Songbird sings... (It's Infinite) This is for the v…
Infinite (BioShock Rap) And the Songbird sings... (It's Infinite) This is for the v…

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

TRACKS

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Rasmp

1y↑2

1/2 (seems like 2/2 is caught in a spam filter, probably due to excessive length)

Hey Peter! It’s been a few years, sorry for being annoying on twitter, the platform breeds toxic snappy remarks, so here is a longer response. I read your book here over the weekend as i have been interested in Thomas Malthus (and his consequences for the human race) for the past year. As i’ve said, i think these are mainly to do with his conception of growth, which i think permeates modern capitalism, made extremely apparent by neoliberal austerity politics.

The past decade has seen a large amount of very good literature on Malthus, a main example being “Malthus - An Untimely Prophet” by Robert Mayhew. It is a phenomonal piece of intellectual history that goes through Malthus and how people have responded to his infamous essay ever since it was released, i can highly recommend it. It is this book which Kallis mainly cites for his argument for Malthus as a growth oriented capitalist. Im honestly disappointed at how quickly you just threw the notion aside, because if you look through the sources from his book, i find that they’re all extremely well argued. Having read through the original 1798 essay twice now, i find it hard to conclude that Malthus was not a Liberal Capitalist, with all the good and bad (mostly bad) that brings.

Malthus doesn’t make sense as a “feudalist”. His theories don’t make sense as a proponent of platonic stationary state. No matter what Marx might have said. His views are inherently progress oriented, however in a more negative light than his contemporaries like Rousseau and Godwin. Perfectibility is the main difference between the two sides here, Rousseau and Godwin see the human condition as perfectible. For Godwin, who Malthus was responding to in his essay, part of this perfectibility LITERALLY meant that he thought humanity had the capabilities to stop or slow down the birth rate. Malthus disagreed heavily. He thought that it was in human nature to grow as long as there was enough food to welcome this growth. He also thought this was a good thing as he explains in chapter 7 when he states that:

“the happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon its poverty or its riches, upon its youth or its age, upon its being thinly or fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing, upon the degree in which the yearly increase of food approaches to the yearly increase of an unrestricted population.”

Malthus conclusion wasn’t that we were headed for a disaster, he never predicts a famine. From the presumption that population grows exponentially if unrestricted, he concludes that SOMETHING MUST BE RESTRICTING IT. This thing is positive checks. The disaster to Malthus IS A CONSTANT of human history. Population has ALWAYS been restricted by access to food. By increasing food supply, which he thinks can be improved indefinitely as he states in chapter 2 when he states that “No limits whatever are placed to the productions of the earth; they may increase for ever and be greater than any assignable quantity.” We can increase the human population. What is meant by the whole “linear vs exponential growth” thing is simply that human population is tied to food.

Malthus disagrees that humans are perfectible, he sees the human condition as one where scarcity is inevitable. But he does this BECAUSE he sees exponential population growth as not only inevitable, but good. This is also where we find his liberalism, as he explains in chapter 18 of the original 1798 essay, it is exactly because of this imperfectibility that Malthus sees society progressing. It is because humanity is always on the brink of starvation, that humanity pushes itself to get out of it. This is the malthusian trap. Were doomed to scarcity because of our unlimited desire to grow the population. But as you explain yourself in the essay, he’s wrong! It IS in human nature and cultural evolution to evolve past the need of having an exponential amount of children as you point out in the book aswell. This is the main point of Kallis’.

I think this is also where we get why Marx read Malthus as pro-aristocracy. Malthus was explicitly pro class-distinction, his contemporary french revolution liberals were all high and mighty with their “liberty equality and fraternity”, but as we all well know, capitalism just lead to new class distinctions. In this regard i would say Malthus was just being more honest. If growth requires scarcity as Malthus believes, it requires that a majority of the population remain in scarcity so that they pursue work, but it also requires a rich elite to create purchase and circulation. Writing it out like that, it seems pretty obvious to me that the same logic applies to the relation between bourgeois and proletariat. The proletariat has to remain in scarcity and poverty to strive for work, the bourgeois has to live in luxury, wealth and power to drive production.

Rasmp

2/2 (i originally posted this with the first comment, seems like it was caught in a spam filter though. Attempting to repost again)

I remember that you cited the “instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor…” quote in your previous video on overpopulation as well. Thing is, that it is taken entirely out of context. If you read in extension of the previous chapter, it becomes extremely obvious that the quote was written sarcastically. As Malthus explains many times in his updated versions of the essay, and as you say yourself also in the video, he recommends that people marry older, so that they have fewer children. What he describes in that paragraph is what he thinks would happen if people continued having children at even younger ages. You reading this paragraph as Malthus being a proponent of ephebophilia literally couldn’t be further from the truth, that is exactly what he opposed with the paragraph! As you say yourself, the demographic transition happened, we no longer have as many kids as we did. Were also having children later in life. In a way, we kind of live in the world Malthus hoped for in that regard then, no? Well, Malthus hoped to regulate population growth so that it went along with the production of the earth, his goal was that limiting population growth a little through negative checks would stop the worst of poverty, but as explained previously, he never intended to stop population growth entirely. He regarded a growing population as a happy one, him wanting to lower the birthrate by making people have children later was his attempt at whiggist paternalism. If he discovered that we in modern society had stopped producing children at the rate we did, he would probably be disgusted at our decadent lifestyles. Because we chose to have fewer children, we live in more luxury. We chose to escape the malthusian trap, by stopping population growth. He would hate us exactly because we chose luxury and abundance over further population growth.

You don’t really get in on Malthus’ opposition to the poor laws either, which is quite an omission because i find that its another good explainer as to why Malthus was a liberal capitalist. Malthus opposed the poor laws out of fear that it would lead to welfarism, and surplus population as you describe in the book. Because Malthus thought that population growth, when conditions were right, tended towards the exponential, it was important in his eyes for the well being of society that everyone contributes to increasing food production accordingly as to prevent serious poverty. He opposed the poor laws out of fear of them making people idle instead of working on the betterment of society. This is the same logic you hear today from modern day liberals and conservatives when they say that you have to contribute to society through work to enjoy its benefits. It is the logic of austerity. Malthus also opposed the poor laws since they tied people to the land. Basically, you could only get aid if you lived in the same parish you grew up in. This discouraged the movement of labor. I don't feel like i have to explain how anti-feudalist that argument is, in breaking up old feudal societies. There is this quote often attributed to Malthus from a letter he wrote to Ricardo in relation to conditions in Ireland which goes:

“The land in Ireland is infinitely more peopled than in England, and to give full effect to the natural resources of the country, a great part of the population should be swept from the soil”

this is meant to convey how genocidal he was. It is often used as an example of how Malthus influenced the english response to the irish potato famine. But what is often omitted is that following “swept from the soil” he follows “swept from the soil into large manufacturing and commercial Towns”. Its another explicit call for industrialisation and manufacturing. There is a reason Dickens parodies Malthus by making Scrooge want to send poor people to the work house rather than the farm! I think A Christmas Carol is wonderful in how its a clear call for a departure from the hatred of abundance. There is more to life than just working forever to increase wealth and food production, which Scrooge comes to learn. But is this not also a call for decreasing work, production and generally enjoying life more? I’m not gonna call Dickens a degrowther, but within a Christmas Carol, and his enjoyment of abundance (which mind you was a mid 19th century abundance) i can definitely see some parallels to degrowth literature.

Just to get in on that quickly, im not very well read on degrowth literature, but from what i’ve seen i find most of it fairly innocuous. Its an extremely vague term that a lot of people have claimed for various different political projects, some very problematic. I’ll stick to Marxism and its more developed conceptual apparatus, though i do think a lot of what especially Hickel writes (who i find the most serious of degrowth authors) is pretty clear. The rich, as you also say in your video, consume extremely inefficiently, with their private jets, gold encrusted sushi, and ownership over terrible polluting industry. I think Hickels concept of “socially necessary production” is easily defensible, when it is simply put in the context of requiring economic planning of production for use, rather than profit. Capitalism is extremely inefficient, planned obsolescence, overproduction, all these reasons. It is correct in my opinion to say, that we could get A LOT more out of current emission levels, if we simply produced more rationally. I also think that its fair to say that some changes in life might result from this planning. In a rationally planned economy, less people would own cars and more would use public transport for instance. I do think some growth is necessary for the third world to catch up (nuclear can definetly help there if we can find the government funding for it), but thinking of producing within limits of emissions, is a good way of illustrating to layfolk how unequal emissions are. If growth is unlimited and emissions aren't a problem, it is not a problem that a small minority of capitalists are responsible for an ever increasing level of emissons. If there are limits to emissions, it becomes very clear who is responsible. Thinking within this limit, makes the irrationality of capitalism even clearer. I think there are good ideas in degrowth literature, though it painfully lacks a good marxist vocabulary as to not fall into obscurantism and is also described by its proponents as a deliberate provocation, so i don't stand by the label.

I could say that we live in a world of population degrowth if i really wanted to ruffle some feathers, instead i’ll say, that it seems pretty clear to me that women when given the choice, don’t want to exist to solely birth babies. You can argue that this is because we coerce women into the workforce rather than into taking care of the family, but that sounds a bit too much like conservative logic for me. If that was the case we would also see higher birthrates in countries with less aggressive job markets, but we don’t. Women everywhere choose career and interests over having many children. And is this not ok? Is it not fine that population is stagnating?

I find anti-natalism extremely pessimistic and nihilistic, but is pro-natalism not equally so? Should the goal not be to further human freedom? If people want children, thats fine with me, if they don’t thats also fine. It seems like wealthy, abundant people don’t like large families though. Once a society growths wealthy, growth, both economic and in population slows down. My theory is because we take the lesson of Scrooge to heart, that endless striving is not a way to live, we want to enjoy the fruits of our labour instead of just labouring forever for the sake of labouring. This is inherently a slowing down of production, though. It is freeing the poor from the work houses. Any socialist society you’ve imagined i hope is one where this slowing down continues, where people get to work less and less and enjoy free time.

Some might respond to this saying "ok, Malthus is misinterpreted, but so what? He is widely understood as arguing for population control, and he is used in this regard by the powers that be. So how does it matter?"

My argument here would be that, as i have hinted to throughout this excessively long comment, that understanding how Malthus understood growth, is important to understanding how contemporary liberals do too. "We can't give people welfare, it'll make them lazy which will hurt the economy" is the same logic for both Malthus and neoliberals. Under capitalism we will always remain in scarcity, because there will never be enough. Even if you support a pro-growth form of socialism, which i am sympathetic to, i think it is good to understand this fact. Malthus's conception of growth, ties people to the economy, because if they refuse to serve it, their lives go into ruins. Were socialists, not because we "want to free capitalism from its productive limits", as i've seen some magacommunist types argue on the internet. The goal isnt to free capitalism, but to free people. Humans don't exist to serve the economy, the economy should serve us. The lesson we should learn from A Christmas Carol is that endless striving is inhuman. We should enjoy the fruits of the economy we built.

This became quite long. I hope it was constructive. Take care.

Benjamin the Rogue

@Sargon Of ACAB The natives weren't genocided. When you genocide a people, you don't keep their names for the land and their stories, adopt words from their language or sports, nor marry into them. More Americans married natives than killed them. So that's a myth you're pushing.

Colonialism? What's the issue with that? Groups of humans have been traveling and colonizing parts of the planet since we first left the cradle we came from. In North America the natives were constantly moving and fighting each other for land before anyone else showed up.

Slavery? Like every other group on the planet until the United States took part in ending it with huge quantities of blood? What other nations fought a bloody war against itself to end slavery as an institution other than the US?

Imperialism? Like the Soviet Union? Why didn't Imperialism work for the Soviet Union but it did for the US?

Seems like you have a lot of rationalizations that don't hold up to inspection.

Sargon Of ACAB

@Benjamin the Rogue @Benjamin the Rogue genocide is any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. All of these happened to the native population.

Settler colonialism is a structure that perpetuates the elimination of Indigenous people and cultures to replace them with a settler society. to suggest a continuity between warring tribes and settler colonialism, or to use arguments of "native savagery" to justify colonial exploitation, is disingenuous at best.

England, France, Spain, and The Netherlands all abolished chattel slavery before the US did. And you do realize that the necessity of a civil war to end slavery does not speak well of the moral character of this nation, right? And that war happened because of the contradictions between slavery in the south, and the increasingly industrialized north. It's not as if the north was morally opposed to it.

Because the USSR was not imperialist. Lenin defined imperialism as the following:

1) The concentration of production and capital developed to such a high stage that it created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.

2) The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a “financial oligarchy.”

3) The export of capital, which has become extremely important, as distinguished from the export of commodities.

4) The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world among themselves.

5) The territorial division of the whole world among the greatest capitalist powers is completed

To quote Fidel Castro: "if the USSR was imperialist then where are it's private monopolies? Where is its participation in multi-national corporations? What industries, what mines, what petroleum deposits does it own in the underdeveloped world? What worker is exploited in Asia, Africa or Latin America by Soviet capital?"

Imperialism, in the Marxist sense of the word that Marxists like Peter or I use the term, is inherently capitalistic. It is the most developed stage of capitalism. The USSR could not be imperialist, because it was not capitalist. And if you want to argue that it was, then not only are you shooting yourself in the foot by ascribing to your opponent the quality you seek to defend, but doing so in vain, as the material forces in the USSR had not developed to the stage of imperialism.

And if you want to use the liberal definition of imperialism, then it, like liberty, authority, et al, is utterly devoid of useful meaning

Paul Stanway

1y↑1

$345 per kwh? Where's the link for that figure? I've checked the website and can't find it anywhere.

Anyway, extropolating the highest number you can find and scaling that up to a global population is a flagrant abuse of statistics that denies the existence of economies of scale and the myriad of cheaper ways that you can store potential energy for electricity conversion. Using extremely dodgy cherrypicked data like that undermines the rest of your argument and makes you sound like a fossil fuel shill.

In reality, the cost of hydroelectric power varies from 5 to 10 cents per kwh. That is 3000-6000 times cheaper than your figure. Typical longevity after building the hydroelectric plant is 40+ years. Storage in batteries is unnecessary because you can use water pumps to store potential gravitational energy that can be converted at any time of day or night. With tidal power you don't even have to use any storage at all. You plonk it in the sea, and you use the gravitational force of the earth and the moon to push and pull water through a turbine, which generates electricity 24 / 7 at virtually zero cost. Scale that up, and it covers coastal regions, which is where most of humanity lives.

The answer to "not everybody lives near the Hoover dam" is to build more Hoover dams, surely? And if you aren't near a flowing water source within hundreds of miles, well, you've probably got bigger fish to fry. Perhaps in those rare cases of cities in the middle of deserts, there may be an argument for using solar panels and batteries instead. Unfortunately, because of climate change, which presumably you deny, these cities will probably have to be evacuated in the coming decades anyway.

In summary, renewable energy is not the same as degrowth. They are completely different things.

EDIT: the degrowth stuff in the first hour is awesomely done though.

All comments from YouTube:

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑54

Is humanity the virus... or the cure?

RJ Ramrod

1y↑6

the second one

edit: totally called it

Mercurian Brachistochrone Trajectories .Ltd.

1y↑1

Awesome work ! I strongly suggest to you to discover the amazing channel of Issac Arthur to discover just how much more room humanity has to grow and flourish,especially his earlier videos are pure internet gems. You;ll thank me later

RhizometricReality

1y↑1

@Mercurian Brachistochrone Trajectories .Ltd. would love to see peter n Isaac chat, they would probably have good constructive dialogue

RhizometricReality

1y↑2

Earth could have a trillion people, as a treat

6 More Replies...

1Dime

1y↑8

This was very good. I miss these kind of videos. No drama no bs. Just a good solid Marxist materialist analysis

Very Important Documentaries

44w↑2

Thank you!

jose gonzalez

1y↑25

This was a freaking masterpiece 👏

Mike Roy

yup

Very Important Documentaries

44w↑1

Thank you both!

Tyler

1y↑1

What an absolutely amazing video! Educational, entertaining, Eye opening. An absolute masterpiece. 10/10

Brook Hines

1y↑15

holy crap this was amazing. “of course they think there’s too many people…WE OUT-NUMBER THEM” [gonna have this tattoo’d on my forearm.

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑4

thank you! send me a photo on Twitter or discord!

Biodegradable

1y↑12

Thanks for the early Christmas present, Peter! This is your best doco yet. :^)

LordCartman

1y↑10

I love your book, it made me laugh many times especially the always sunny references because those references went over so many people's heads (most people I know think Mac is the dumb one in that episode). But he, as you, make great points about not science itself but the almost dogmatic belief in science which leads many people to actually buttfuck the scientific method and chant what they think benefits them, or in rare cases actually benefits them. But sunny references aside, I really dig your last few books. They are short but packed with material, they somehow are great for people completely outside the twitter sphere but those inside the twitter sphere still get much out of them. Like your book about cancel culture, my best friend liked it very much. Took him about the halfway point for him to get what you as the writer actually want to adress but even him never using twitter in his life he understood the arguments. Which is funny because I often read criticisms of your CC book that it is only celebrated by those with twitter brain.
Anyway, I look forward to the many docs and books you will publish. Also huge compliment for your usage of pop songs and using them to further strengthen your message. May I ask if you recorded the instrumentals all by yourself? The sound quality is really good, no clipping, no unnecessary distortion and it packs a punch, sounds like a solid audio production

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑2

Thank you! Yes, I created this cover of Gimme More from the ground up. I don't think anyone has done a decent rock cover of it. I did not record the music for the Disturbed "Land of Confusion" cover in this doc, but I did get stems for a karaoke version and mixed it myself.

Waba Koen

1y↑17

Great documentary! Best one of the year, that’s for sure.

Kremig Mitsahne

1y↑28

The book is fantastic and this trailer looks fcking amazing! Can't wait to watch the whole thing!

Peter Coffin

1y↑5

super excited for you to see it having read the book! you'll have to tell me how they compare later

Kremig Mitsahne

1y↑3

@Peter Coffin that's what I'll do! :)

Kyle

1y↑12

Goddammit Peter you're so good at these.

loveless131

1y↑5

Thanks for more talking points for when I try to explain this to people for the millionth time. The whole concept of degrowth has always seemed nuts to me. Infinite growth might not be possible, but we sure as hell have a ton of options to live pretty damn great lives without killing off people or leaving someone else in poverty.

Catherine Crosby

1y↑4

It's crazy how well edited and researched this stuff is and how little views it gets.

Nicholas Lynch

1y↑5

This is excellent, smart, funny, insightful, clearly explains how degrowth is bullshit and deserves a good watch. Well done, Peter!

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑1

thank you!

Evelien Heerens

1y↑9

More pointedly, Plato's definition of justice, was that everyone knew their place and minded their own business.

Meaning that the slaves wouldn't mouth off opinions about things outside of the thing that was their expertise, namely being barely human and doing menial labor. And yes, philosophers should rule the world of course.

Pepper Coyote

1y↑7

Jeeze it took friggin 3 different very specific Youtube searches to get to this.

Always appreciate the effort and good faith you put into your videos/books. Comment for algorithmic enhancement!

jiggykramer

1y↑6

Great video! It’s missing only one thing: Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity by Williams Ophuls. Ophuls popularized degrowth as we know it and sites the Republic and Malthus to justify it, as well as talking about the need to return to “virtue” and admitting that his argument is reactionary in nature. He also begins the reissue by saying that a sign of hope is that Mexicans are having less kids.

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑4

wow I need to check that out

Christian Northern NJ

1y↑4

Flawless. Extremely detailed and presented in a way that is simple enough to share with non-Marxist fam and friends but not oversimplified / insulting. Witty, humorous, and entertaining. I can't say enough good things about this one. I've watched it 4 times now. Astounding work, Peter, please keep it up.

Human??

1y↑8

Excellent work! Possibly my favorite so far! : )

Nebelmann

1y↑5

Sehr gut! Very well done, an impressive piece of educational art! Bravo monsieur !

Catherine Crosby

That was amazing. Your best one yet. Thanks for making this stuff so we can learn and show others

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑1

I appreciate that!

Neo Marshkga

1y↑2

Awesome video, i needed a perspective on this that helped me articulate why this position of degrowth rubs mew the wrong way, i can understand digging the aesthetics of personally deciding to use less, or be more eco friendly if you can do so, but the enforcement of this through policy what actually generates, under a class society, is making the ones who cant afford enough, to be able to afford even less.

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑2

thank you! This is something that obviously also bugs me lol

Flyingcarpetguy

1y↑5

This is like you got an AI to write a college essay on Hickel in the style of a 9/11 Truther documentary

Christian Northern NJ

1y↑1

@Emily still waiting on the response essay proving him wrong. Of course they won't come. Bc he's got Hickles number. Hickles's fascist fanbois making clever comments won't change that fact.

1 More Replies...

LGzz

1y↑1

Brilliant elaboration! The algorithm needs to get you more views 🦅
Keep it up fam 😃

Very Important Documentaries

Glad you think so!

Capybara

1y↑2

One of the greatest YT videos I ever watched. Amazing documentary.

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑2

thank you!

Nathaniel Stephenson

1y↑5

I'm feeling oddly optimistic after watching this. We pretty much don't have to change anything, just carry on as is and everything will work out, more or less.

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑10

That's not completely true, but optimism is key. We need to believe in ourselves as people and get together.

Nathaniel Stephenson

@Very Important Documentaries I'm having a re-watch right now to see if I get something else the second time around. I've made the argument before that any formal or informal plan that successfully decreases the world population must, at it's core, be rooted in eugenics. I'm with you there. There is some limit for the number of humans on earth (schwartzchild radius comes to mind), but if we're never going to reach whatever that number is, no worries.

As far as energy goes, I have no problem with nuclear (albeit a preference for fast neutron breeders) but if there are no workable solutions for intermittent renewables and burning fossil fuels is fine, I don't see an issue.

I don't like how our system operates. I don't like the inequality, I don't like the distribution of power. The system sucks, but I don't see any existential threats to humanity as a whole from staying the course. I guess that's what I meant by optimistic and things working out, more or less.

I'll have to re-watch the interview as well, I might be forming my view from something discussed there.

Evelyn Ashe

1y↑3

It's insane how heavily censored this is. Even searching "Less Sucks Peter Coffin" shows other results with fewer views first.

BigHenFor

1y↑3

An excellent breakdown of what they plan for us. Let's hope we wake up to that reality.

BigEco

its maybe worth mentioning that mango trees grow up to 100 feet or more and we haven't even scratched the surface of truly abundant food production

Rex Bartuzik

1y↑2

UCLA professor Robert Brenner in his analysis of Malthus that he never considered the technology of the Agricultural Revolution.

Seamus Warren

1y↑3

We need to find a way to gather the Ruling Class in one place - one line - behind a guillotine.

Olzhas T

1y↑2

Update: degrowth actually is a wider European movement with many separate groups. As such, they all share some values but work by themselves. Inexistence of a unified international body representing all degrowth movements is a known issue for them.
So if you look up other influencers and researchers, you might see that, indeed, they don't usually talk about class relations. Do they support socialism? No, they (should) start from eco-socialism and aim further.

Olzhas T

@Emily that's the point

Ersatz Erik

51w

I'm not fully convinced, but I'm maybe 75% there. The Genesis references are what did it for me.

clv

1y↑2

A slightly more personal acquaintance with numbers will show Malthus's bastardization of dependent variables. I don't believe I've ever seen a more obvious statistical paradox.

isgonrain

1y↑5

Ooh, looking forward to questioning some of my long-held assumptions/beliefs...

Mellifluo G

I really love the Umberto Eco reference 🤣

Waba Koen

42w↑2

Still epic. Sad it got so few views.

snackfoods

1y↑2

This was very good!

AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3

1y↑7

Fantastic documentary. I love seeing well-produced stuff like this that actually challenges capitalism properly. Keep it up.

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑2

thank you!

Libertyjack1

Masterful! Thank you, Peter!

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑1

Many thanks!

Zain Mudassir

51w

Very good doc 👍

The Spinning Top Club

1y↑3

Genius and funny documentary!

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑1

really appreciate it!

Terry

1y↑3

This is amazing!

Carlos Faro

1y↑7

Thank you Peter.

Waba Koen

1y↑4

Still a great documentary

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑1

Thank you!

galexie__

I don't think I'm ready for this one. I. Might need to read a book or two and come back

SparkPoi

1y↑7

Oh nice :)
I've been waiting for a new one. Looking forward to this!

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑2

excited for you to see it!

Johan Bendiksen

1y↑3

Hell of a video, Peter!

Very Important Documentaries

thank you!

Pepper Coyote

1y↑3

I’m moving to the country to start a peach-based economy.

Thought Raindrops

1y↑3

Nicely done!

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑2

thank you!

Ted Ratcliffe

I think resource scarcity really is a problem. Check out the work of Simon Michaux he has lots of great papers that talk about world mineral reserves.

Jacob Maxey

1y↑7

Very excited, can't wait

Rasmp

1y↑2

Rasmp

1 More Replies...

Adam Coronado

1y↑1

I love that this version of Plato looks straight out of Street Fighter IV

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑1

😂

One Human History

1y↑1

I can’t believe Bill Maher unironically quoted Malthus

bruh

1y↑1

Looking forward to watching this after work

Kuudere-Kun

1y↑2

"Maybe he meant a different Greece then Plato" as someone who also like to see Plato as the source of everythign I now oppose, I feel it's important to point out how Plato was in conflict the mainstream society of contmepary Athens which was in fact true Direct Democracy, still a problematic one with ti's SLavery and Patriarchy but more Democratic then any Modern Western Liberal Democracy.

It was mainly durring the Second Century AD that Platonism overtook Stoicism as the dominant Philpshy of the Greek World. The Stoics were Communists and pretty cool, they are quite oftne misudnerstood.

Kuudere-Kun

@NormanKeena I'm not idelaing any past, I just took an opurtunity to discus some history I tend to find interesting. I agree with this documentary over all there's no need for anyone to be so hostile about my comment.

The Swoletariat

1y↑1

But other than that... and Spanky Tankie's appearance... This is fantastic stuff. Great work

Tomas

No reason not to associate with Maupin

1 More Replies...

Jonny Blaze

1y↑4

Very good documentary

Very Important Documentaries

🙏

Willi

I have an other explanation for the eugenics train of thought, those people lived of selling books, because they needed to get money to survive because of the "contract law" that requires "purchasing power" which means artificial scarcity as the foundation of the entire money/market religion, which just amplifies the artificial scarcity caused by property, which is the same foundation of the money/market religion that requires the contract law, it is all the foundation of the money/market religion no matter how you call it, capitalism, socialism, communism, whatever-money/market-based-ism, so they were just rationalizing their own unproductivity like the same parasites today who do absolutely nothing but people are paying them for the product of their own work and those people this people call "unproductive" are actually unprofitable, they have to much dignity or something primitive and human unworthy like that and rather choose to live a very basic life or even to die before being slaves.

Caleb Maupin Videos

1y↑11

TREMENDOUS FILM!

Shoné Sanchez

1y↑4

Damn, this was good

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑1

thank you!

Gabby Edgar

1y↑3

Excited to waych! Havent seen or heard from u in a while content-wise

kage 「影」

1y↑4

WOOOO LET'S GOOOOOO!!!! GROWTH GANG ALL DAY

Justin Gurley

1y↑3

Woo, I do get a new years present. Thank you!

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑2

Happy new year! lol

Tony1987

1y↑2

Great work

LordSummerisle73

50w

I love humans! We should all have children!

california_foolz

1y↑2

This needed more fart sound fx! 9/10👍

Tex AJP

1y↑9

Looking forward to this, for people interested in resisting the Malthusian depopulation agenda, also check out Caleb Maupin CPI, and the Lyndon LaRouche organization

Io Klarstrup

Isn't Lyndon LaRouche the one with the

Seamus Warren

1y↑3

Nuclear fusion is good.

Fission is better - and always thirty years away. 🧐

emen3y

1y↑2

just amazing !

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑2

Ben w

1y↑8

This guy spittin

ZoneofA

1y↑2

That was quite interesting.

shodanxx

55:10 thank you for not saying "and this what we in the bizz, call foreshadowing"

Maks imilijan

1y↑1

Very good video comrade.

Anthony Martin-Davis

1y↑2

May we grow to consume the very stars themselves!

bruh

1y↑3

dyson spheres for all

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑4

agree

Kameron Donaldson

48w

predation. consolidation. the inferior specimens serve as a buffer to protect their superiors from the superior specimens of other countries as well as to funnel their tax revenue to the same superiors of their own country. growth of the resource pile hoarded by the individuals at the top. ideally the population of inferiors would not be subject to degrowth but rather in stable flux and safely ignored.

JoHoward

1y↑2

Watched twice already in the first six hours

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑2

nice, thank you

Dominick Prive

1y↑7

I'm very excited, I'm a strong supporter of Degrowth and don't believe it's correct in being characterized as neo-malthusianism.

But honestly I'm just excited to hear Peter talk about something other than Cancel Culture. I don't disagree with Peter about Cancel Culture, in fact I find their analysis insightful, but boy has this channel felt one note for a while now

Peter Coffin

1y↑4

We'll see if I can get you lol

Dominick Prive

1y↑2

@Peter Coffin seriously though, huge fan of your work, and love what you're doing, you turned me into anti-capitalism and I'm glad everytime I see there's a new VID

Dominick Prive

Onto*😂

Edwin Gonzalez

My thoughts exactly!

Christian Northern NJ

1y↑1

What's the movie you show at 8:50 (where they make child bearing illegal)?

Bryan Conrad

1y↑1

I found the TTS quote readings difficult to follow, especially the non-english accented ones. I'm sure it was meant to break up the long stretches of one narrator speaking but I think it would benefit from having (human) guest readers if possible.

Aside from that, I found this very compelling and appreciated the comprehensive detail, as a shitlib progressive myself.

MostlyLoveOfMusic

1y↑5

The problem is that we are currently producing far too much food, ~30% of it is going to waste, and agriculture has overtaken natural habitats, which is why we have a biodiversity crisis and species extinctions

Ron Swanson Stalinist

1y↑2

read the opening quote again.

MostlyLoveOfMusic

1y↑2

@Ron Swanson Stalinist you disagree that we produce too much food globally? the problem is that it doesn't go to the people who need it, and 30% of it ends up in landfill

Ron Swanson Stalinist

1y↑4

@MostlyLoveOfMusic did you read the opening quote or even watch the documentary?

MostlyLoveOfMusic

@Ron Swanson Stalinist do you have a specific question or statement to make? or are you just going to dangle a carrot in front of my nose?

3 More Replies...

Vague Hope

1y↑4

If Nature is Unjust, Change Nature

jungletechnoMK

Stop trying to play God!

Sargon Of ACAB

1y↑1

Unironic support for Dreamcast superiority

Dmitry Isc

1y↑4

It's based. 3 hours of one!

Drewsel

For someone obsessed with degrowth you sure are an expert on one.

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑1

Yes. When you make an evidence-based argument it helps to research things. I have done so for years. Have you?

shodanxx

2:30 Interesting, I haven't read the book but a less polite come back would be that sure, they would rather die than go to a workhouse, but at the same time, they would eat Scrooge Mcduck for his tasty meat rather than die. That should have given the rotten old fart some pause.
But also, if we're talking about "the poor should just croak, for the good of humanity" well, I hope we're going to talk about suicide, because it does seem quite a few people who don't have to the heart for (what is the -cide for killing rich people ? wealthicide ? Why isn't there a word for that ? Did the rich steal that too ?) , well they do have the heart to self-exterminate after society has told them they're not worth existing. Kind of like damaged ants to fight the ants who try to rescue them and instead try to crawl to the ant cesspit themselves to die and decompose.

Racheal Briley

1y↑1

Tis the season for TIMOTHY CRATCHIT’S SOCIALIST MANIFESTO

Very Important Documentaries

lol

HAL NOVEMILA

1y↑1

The principles of Eugenics are scientifically sound, it is undeniable that it is possible to select "favorable" traits by applying artificial pressure over the gene pool... I think that you failed to demonstrate that Eugenics is inherently immoral, rather you just pointed out that some immoral people adopted those principles into their own ideology.

Aspen's Channel

1y↑2

Who are you to choose what is genetically good or bad?

HAL NOVEMILA

1y↑1

@Aspen's Channel I'm no one, personally I would select for those traits that, generally speaking, are universally accepted as "good" such such as intelligence, but of course those traits would have to be determined either by democratic consensus or scientific committee... If you find the idea far fetched you'll be surprised to know that some principles of Eugenics are already employed by many countries in genetic diseases prevention, we just do not call it Eugenics due to the negative stigma associated with the word, I do not think that it is that much of a stretch to start using this tool not only to suppress "undesirable" traits but also to promote the diffusion of "favourable" ones, especially when used in conjunction with gene editing... We could create a whole new generation of humans that are smarter, healthier and stronger, a generation not marred by the genetic diseases and imperfections that were ingrained into us by nature... If only we were willing to go down that road.

ratelslangen

1y↑11

Ayy he's back

Peter Coffin

1y↑3

aaaaaay

Mercurian Brachistochrone Trajectories .Ltd.

Exceptional work !
BRAVO !!! will share it with others.
A couple notifications though.
Your treatment of renewables is very unjust and in a way makes the same flawed assumptions you accuse malthusians of making.
Solar and wind are intermittent of course and to make good use of them we do need storage either batteries or pumped hydro. Solar and wind unsubsidized ARE RIGHT NOW cheaper than coal in most of the world. This wasn't true a decade ago. Storage is relatively expensive right now but prices are falling rapidly.
Your example of needing a whole years worth of battery storage for everything that consumes electricity is wrong and dishonest. You need maybe at most 12 hours of storage and definately not for every application. You wanna go with nuclear, i have no problem with that. None. But lies are not needed.

Mb321

Solid documentary but biiiiig oof on bringing Maupin into this. I’m sure SOMEONE had a quote that would have fit in that spot just as well.

Bovice ☭

Nothing about Maupin is cringier than the blue-faced Coffin

Olzhas T

1y↑1

As a person who tends towards degrowth, but also has own views, and listened to Less is More, I actually thought that it's obvious that degrowth requires some change in incentives and socioeconomic relations at work such that, in the end, we indeed move to something else than a capitalism.
All in all, if I understood correctly, you view degrowth, as presented by mentioned influencers, as partial, in both senses, and I agree. You do not see the solution to simply downscaling some parts of the economy, but I guess you would not mind it alongside the real change in ownership and class relations?
I accept degrowth as a movement away from exponential growth as 1st priority of civilization. I also include things like giving up some luxuries to restrict ourselves in the rich countries. I don't know how to do that though. But, in this respect, isn't degrowth a movement complementary to anti-capitalism?

Olzhas T

If I guess correctly, than you are not so much against degrowth but rather against the way influencers talk about it, and the way degrowth is partially presented as if to secretly serve status quo? If so, what should be added or changed in degrowth imperative to become wholesome and useful, at least as an idea?

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑6

If you think "real degrowth requires a change in class relations" then real degrowth will never happen. Capitalist-supported degrowth is what will happen. Also, anti-capitalism doesn't mean anything. Feudalism isn't capitalism. Do we want that? I don't.

Olzhas T

@Very Important Documentaries I used the term anti-capitalism because I don't really know what it would be. Also, you did not answer to whether or not you like the idea of post-growth.
Anyway, I wouldn't underestimate evolution of movements; perhaps from knowing the connection between contemporary degrowth movement and the elites would arise another degrowth that inherits but expands on current ideas to account for vested interest

Olzhas T

1y↑2

Actually, it seems as if I'm desperately trying to defend degrowth. That's because I am really concerned about whether changing the capitalistic system of relations and ownership would be enough to stop climate catastrophy after all, and which issues still will have to be raised afterwards.

SereniT03

@Olzhas T I also would have liked to have seen more analysis around the urgency of dealing with climate change. I think many degrowth folks are motivated by that urgency and what it means for the world, materially and existentially.

Waba Koen

1y↑11

Epic!

Peter Coffin

1y↑2

thank you!

Waba Koen

1y↑2

@Peter Coffin :)

Benjamin the Rogue

20:00-23:00 Why are we using Socialist definitions and theory for what Capitalism is? I mean, other than the common mistake of using Free Markets and Capitalism interchangeably? I know Capitalism is originally coined by a Socialist economic theorist, but the idea that one class keeps all of the resources in our current system is pretty flawed. We only have to look at how amazingly resilient the small business industry in the US was after three years of centralized powers doing everything to destroy them and transfer all of the wealth into the hands of a few corporations.

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑6

Free markets suck but that isn't what capitalism is. The contradiction in ownership interest is.

Benjamin the Rogue

@Very Important Documentaries I know, that's why I made a distinction between free markets and Capitalism. Free markets certainly don't suck though. It's what's brought the United States 200 years of prosperity. As it became more and more Capitalistic, in the original Socialists meaning of the term, look how much worse things have gotten. The more we give the managing of the economy to central banks and Federal agencies, we get more and more corruption and waste.

Centralizing power under any system never works. Those at the top are never going to be able to efficiently run an entire economy. Top-down economic decision making has lead to constant collapses of the systems they try to run. No one knows what they need better than the people on the bottom who are going out and getting what they need. They are the ones who generate the demand. This idea that Capitalists control demand through production is completely backwards.

The means of production doesn't generate value. The demand for products and fulfilling that need generates value. Socialists governments fail because they try to take complete control of the economy and decide the value of everything arbitrarily, instead of what everyone needs. It never works.

Sargon Of ACAB

1y↑3

@Benjamin the Rogue colonialism, mass genocide of the native population, slavery, and imperialism are what brought the US it's prosperity.

Benjamin the Rogue

Sargon Of ACAB

8 More Replies...

Paul Stanway

1y↑1

Very Important Documentaries

1y↑4

Comes from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, part of the US Dept. of Energy: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf

tehwilsonator

1y↑1

The argument is not that renewable energy is useless, but that it is not competitive with nuclear (it's not, even in the most optimistic accounting), and that despite that it is pushed by capital as the solution, because capital benefits. That push is ideologically justified by degrowth, they come together, and will for as long as society is ruled by a minority who benefits from that ideology being prevalent

k c

incredible.

Persimmon Pudding

1y↑2

Not a lot of good-faith critique in the comments so here's my gift to you, Merry Christmas. Message is great. The script and editing could do with more editing and tightening up. Too, long (2.5 hrs?!), too verbose. The humor drowns itself out, there's no place for the viewer to land and breathe.

Regarding the opener, veganism is premised on a moral imperative to not exploit and violently torture sentient creatures that feel pain and have emotions. Veganism is not premised on being better for the earth or using less resources or creating less waste. Use the phrase "plant-based" if you want to discredit the environmentalist's diet advice.

The Marx voice actor was less than ideal.

I'll be watching this in 30 minute chunks over the next few days...

PaperLionKid 1

1y↑2

This is also for the algorithm.

Mark Seidler

Where do the "Empty Planet" guys fit in? From the book, " Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline," by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson.

Load More Comments...

More Comments

just now