Podcasts about Ehrlich

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,Global population growth is slowing, and it's not showing any signs of recovery. To the environmentalists of the 1970s, this may have seemed like a movement in the right direction. The drawbacks to population decline, however, are severe and numerous, and they're not all obvious.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with economist and demographer Dean Spears about the depopulation trend that is transcending cultural barriers and ushering in a new global reality. We discuss the costs to the economy and human progress, and the inherent value of more people.Spears is an associate professor of economics at Princeton University where he studies demography and development. He is also the founding executive director of r.i.c.e., a nonprofit research organization seeking to uplift children in rural northern India. He is a co-author with Michael Geruso of After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People.In This Episode* Where we're headed (1:32)* Pumping the breaks (5:41)* A pro-parenting culture (12:40)* A place for AI (19:13)* Preaching to the pro-natalist choir (23:40)* Quantity and quality of life (28:48)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Where we're headed (1:32). . . two thirds of people now live in a country where the birth rate is below the two children per two adults level that would stabilize the population.Pethokoukis: Who are you and your co-author trying to persuade and what are you trying to persuade them of? Are you trying to persuade them that global depopulation is a real thing, that it's a problem? Are you trying to persuade them to have more kids? Are you trying to persuade them to support a certain set of pro-child or pro-natalist policies?Spears: We are trying to persuade quite a lot of people of two important things: One is that global depopulation is the most likely future — and what global depopulation means is that every decade, every generation, the world's population will shrink. That's the path that we're on. We're on that path because birth rates are low and falling almost everywhere. It's one thing we're trying to persuade people of, that fact, and we're trying to persuade people to engage with a question of whether global depopulation is a future to welcome or whether we should want something else to happen. Should we let depopulation happen by default or could it be better to stabilize the global population at some appropriate level instead?We fundamentally think that this is a question that a much broader section of society, of policy discourse, of academia should be talking about. We shouldn't just be leaving this discussion to the population scientists, demographic experts, not only to the people who already are worried about, or talking about low birth rates, but this is important enough and unprecedented enough that everybody should be engaging in this question. Whatever your ongoing values or commitments, there's a place for you in this conversation.Is it your impression that the general public is aware of this phenomenon? Or are they still stuck in the '70s thinking that population is running amok and we'll have 30 billion people on this planet like was the scenario in the famous film, Soylent Green? I feel like the people I know are sort of aware that this is happening. I don't know what your experience is.I think it's changing fast. I think more and more people are aware that birth rates are falling. I don't think that people are broadly aware — because when you hear it in the news, you might hear that birth rates in the United States have fallen low or birth rates in South Korea have fallen low. I think what not everybody knows is that two thirds of people now live in a country where the birth rate is below the two children per two adults level that would stabilize the population.I think people don't know that the world's birth rate has fallen from an average around five in 1950 to about 2.3 today, and that it's still falling and that people just haven't engaged with the thought that there's no special reason to expect it to stop and hold it to. But the same processes that have been bringing birth rates down will continue to bring them down, and people don't know that there's no real automatic stabilizer to expect it to come back up. Of the 26 countries that have had the lifetime birth rate fall below 1.9, none of them have had it go back up to two.That's a lot of facts that are not as widely known as they should be, but then the implication of it, that if the world's birth rate goes below two and stays there, we're going to have depopulation generation after generation. I think for a lot of people, they're still in the mindset that depopulation is almost conceptually impossible, that either we're going to have population growth or something else like zero population growth like people might've talked about in the '70s. But the idea that a growth rate of zero is just a number and then that it's not going to stop there, it's going to go negative, I think that's something that a lot of people just haven't thought about.Pumping the breaks (5:41)We wrote this book because we hope that there will be an alternative to depopulation society will choose, but there's no reason to expect or believe that it's going happen automatically.You said there's no automatic stabilizers — at first take, that sounds like we're going to zero. Is there a point where the global population does hit a stability point?No, that's just the thing.So we're going to zero?Well, “there's no automatic stabilizer” isn't the same thing as “we're definitely going to zero.” It could be that society comes together and decides to support parenting, invest more in the next generation, invest more in parents and families, and do more to help people choose to be parents. We wrote this book because we hope that there will be an alternative to depopulation society will choose, but there's no reason to expect or believe that it's going happen automatically. In no country where the birth rate has gone to two has it just magically stopped and held there forever.I think a biologist might say that the desire to reproduce, that's an evolved drive, and even if right now we're choosing to have smaller families, that biological urge doesn't vanish. We've had population, fertility rates, rise and fall throughout history — don't you think that there is some sort of natural stabilizer?We've had fluctuations throughout history, but those fluctuations have been around a pretty long and pretty widely-shared downward trend. Americans might be mostly only now hearing about falling birth rates because the US was sort of anomalous amongst richer countries and having a relatively flat period from the 1970s to around 2010 or so, whereas birth rates were falling in other countries, they weren't falling in the US in the same way, but they were falling in the US before then, they're falling in the US since then, and when you plot it over the long history with other countries, it's clear that, for the world as a whole, as long as we've had records, not just for decades, but for centuries, we've seen birth rates be falling. It's not just a new thing, it's a very long-term trend.It's a very widely-shared trend because humans are unlike other animals in the important way that we make decisions. We have culture, we have rationality, we have irrationality, we have all of these. The reason the population grew is because we've learned how to keep ourselves and our children alive. We learned how to implement sanitation, implement antibiotics, implement vaccines, and so more of the children who were born survived even as the birth rate was falling all along. Other animals don't do that. Other animals don't invent sanitation systems and antibiotics and so I think that we can't just reason immediately from other animal populations to what's going to happen to humans.I think one can make a plausible case that, even if you think that this is a problem — and again, it's a global problem, or a global phenomenon, advanced countries, less-advanced countries — that it is a phenomenon of such sweep that if you're going to say we need to stabilize or slow down, that it would take a set of policies of equal sweep to counter it. Do those actually exist?No. Nobody has a turnkey solution. There's nothing shovel-ready here. In fact, it's too early to be talking about policy solutions or “here's my piece of legislation, here's what the government should do” because we're just not there yet, both in terms of the democratic process of people understanding the situation and there even being a consensus that stabilization, at some level, would be better than depopulation, nor are we there yet on having any sort of answer that we can honestly recommend as being tested and known to be something that will reliably stabilize the population.I think the place to start is by having conversations like this one where we get people to engage with the evidence, and engage with the question, and just sort of move beyond a reflexive welcoming of depopulation by default and start thinking about, well, what are the costs of people and what are the benefits of people? Would we be better off in a future that isn't depopulating over the long run?The only concrete step I can think of us taking right now is adapting the social safety net to a new demographic reality. Beyond that, it seems like there might have to be a cultural shift of some kind, like a large-scale religious revival. Or maybe we all become so rich that we have more time on our hands and decide to have more kids. But do you think at some point someone will have a concrete solution to bring global fertility back up to 2.1 or 2.2?Look at it like this: The UN projects that the peak will be about six decades from now in 2084. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know that it's going to be 2084, but let's take that six-decades timeline seriously because we're not talking about something that's going to happen next year or even next decade.But six decades ago, people were aware that — or at least leading scientists and even some policymakers were aware that climate change was a challenge. The original computations by Arrhenius of the radiative forcing were long before that. You have the Johnson speech to Congress, you have Nixon and the EPA. People were talking about climate change as a challenge six decades ago, but if somebody had gotten on their equivalent of a podcast and said, “What we need to do is immediately get rid of the internal combustion engine,” they would've been rightly laughed out of the room because that would've been the wrong policy solution at that time. That would've been jumping to the wrong solution. Instead, what we needed to do was what we've done, which is the science, the research, the social change that we're now at a place where emissions per person in the US have been falling for 20 years and we have technologies — wind, and solar, and batteries — that didn't exist before because there have been decades of working on it.So similarly, over the next six decades, let's build the research, build the science, build the social movement, discover things we don't know, more social science, more awareness, and future people will know more than you and I do about what might be constructive responses to this challenge, but only if we start talking about it now. It's not a crisis to panic about and do the first thing that comes to mind. This is a call to be more thoughtful about the future.A pro-parenting culture (12:40)The world's becoming more similar in this important way that the difference across countries and difference across societies is getting smaller as birth rates converge downward.But to be clear, you would like people to have more kids.I would like for us to get on a path where more people who want to be parents have the sort of support, and environment, and communities they need to be able to choose that. I would like people to be thinking about all of this when they make their family decisions. I'd like the rest of us to be thinking about this when we pitch in and do more to help us. I don't think that anybody's necessarily making the wrong decision for themselves if they look around and think that parenting is not for them or having more children is not for them, but I think we might all be making a mistake if we're not doing more to support parents or to recognize the stake we have in the next generation.But all those sorts of individual decisions that seem right for an individual or for a couple, combined, might turn into a societal decision.Absolutely. I'm an economics professor. We call this “externalities,” where there are social benefits of something that are different from the private costs and benefits. If I decide that I want to drive and I contribute to traffic congestion, then that's an externality. At least in principle, we understand what to do about that: You share the cost, you share the benefits, you help the people internalize the social decision.It's tied up in the fact that we have a society where some people we think of as doing care work and some people we think of as doing important work. So we've loaded all of these costs of making the next generation on people during the years of their parenting and especially on women and mothers. It's understandable that, from a strictly economic point of view, somebody looks at that and thinks, “The private costs are greater than the private benefits. I'm not going to do that.” It's not my position to tell somebody that they're wrong about that. What you do in a situation like that is share and lighten that burden. If there's a social reason to solve traffic congestion, then you solve it with public policy over the long run. If the social benefits of there being a flourishing next generation are greater than people are finding in their own decision making, then we need to find the ways to invest in families, invest in parenting, lift and share those burdens so that people feel like they can choose to be parents.I would think there's a cultural component here. I am reminded of a book by Jonathan Last about this very issue in which he talks about Old Town Alexandria here in Virginia, how, if you go to Old Town, you can find lots of stores selling stuff for dogs, but if you want to buy a baby carriage, you can't find anything.Of course, that's an equilibrium outcome, but go on.If we see a young couple pushing a stroller down the street and inside they have a Chihuahua — as society, or you personally, would you see that and “Think that's wrong. That seems like a young couple living in a nice area, probably have plenty of dough, they can afford daycare, and yet they're still not going to have a kid and they're pushing a dog around a stroller?” Should we view that as something's gone wrong with our society?My own research is about India. My book's co-authored with Mike Geruso. He studies the United States more. I'm more of an expert on India.Paul Ehrlich, of course, begins his book, The Population Bomb, in India.Yes, I know. He starts with this feeling of being too crowded with too many people. I say in the book that I almost wonder if I know the exact spot where he has that experience. I think it's where one of my favorite shops are for buying scales and measuring tape for measuring the health of children in Uttar Pradesh. But I digress about Paul Ehrlich.India now, where Paul Ehrlich was worried about overpopulation, is now a society with an average birth rate below two kids per two adults. Even Uttar Pradesh, the big, disadvantaged, poor state where I do my work in research, the average young woman there says that they want an average of 1.9 children. This is a place where society and culture is pretty different from the United States. In the US, we're very accustomed to this story of work and family conflict, and career conflicts, especially for women, and that's probably very important in a lot of people's lives. But that's not what's going on in India where female labor force participation is pretty low. Or you hear questions about whether this is about the decline of religiosity, but India is a place where religion is still very important to a lot of people's lives. Marriage is almost universal. Marriage happens early. People start their childbearing careers in their early twenties, and you still see people having an average below two kids. They start childbearing young and they end childbearing young.Similarly, in Latin America, where religiosity, at least as reported in surveys, remains pretty high, but Latin America is at an average of 1.8, and it's not because people are delaying fertility until they're too old to get pregnant. You see a lot of people having permanent contraception surgery, tubal obligations.And so this cultural story where people aren't getting married, they're starting too late, they're putting careers first, it doesn't match the worldwide diversity. These diverse societies we're seeing are all converging towards low birth rates. The world's becoming more similar in this important way that the difference across countries and difference across societies is getting smaller as birth rates converge downward. So I don't think we can easily point towards any one cultural for this long-term and widely shared trend.A place for AI (19:13)If AI in the future is a compliment to what humans produce . . . if AI is making us more productive, then it's all the bigger loss to have fewer people.At least from an economic perspective, I think you can make the case: fewer people, less strain on resources, you're worried about workers, AI-powered robots are going to be doing a lot of work, and if you're worried about fewer scientists, the scientists we do have are going to have AI-powered research assistants.Which makes the scientists more important. Many technologies over history have been compliments to what humans do, not substitutes. If AI in the future is a compliment to what humans produce — scientific research or just the learning by doing that people do whenever they're engaging in an enterprise or trying to create something — if AI is making us more productive, then it's all the bigger loss to have fewer people.To me, the best of both worlds would be to have even more scientists plus AI. But isn't the fear of too few people causing a labor shortage sort of offset by AI and robotics? Maybe we'll have plenty of technology and capital to supply the workers we do have. If that's not the worry, maybe the worry is that the human experience is simply worse when there are fewer children around.You used the term “plenty of,” and I think that sort of assumes that there's a “good enough,” and I want to push back on that because I think what matters is to continue to make progress towards higher living standards, towards poverty alleviation, towards longer, better, healthier, safer, richer lives. What matters is whether we're making as much progress as we could towards an abundant, rich, safe, healthy future. I think we shouldn't let ourselves sloppily accept a concept of “good enough.” If we're not making the sort of progress that we could towards better lives, then that's a loss, and that matters for people all around the world.We're better off for living in a world with other people. Other people are win-win: Their lives are good for them and their lives are good for you. Part of that, as you say, is people on the supply side of the economy, people having the ideas and the realizations that then can get shared over and over again. The fact that ideas are this non-depletable resource that don't get used up but might never be discovered if there aren't people to discover them. That's one reason people are important on the supply side of the economy, but other people are also good for you on the demand side of the economy.This is very surprising because people think that other people are eating your slice of the pie, and if there are more other people, there's less for me. But you have to ask yourself, why does the pie exist in the first place? Why is it worth some baker's while to bake a pie that I could get a slice of? And that's because there were enough people wanting slices of pie to make it worth paying the fixed costs of having a bakery and baking a whole pie.In other words, you're made better off when other people want and need the same things that you want and need because that makes it more likely for it to exist. If you have some sort of specialized medical need and need specialized care, you're going to be more likely to find it in a city where there are more other people than in a less-populated rural place, and you're going to be more likely to find it in a course of history where there have been more other people who have had the same medical need that you do so that it's been worthwhile for some sort of cure to exist. The goodness of other people for you isn't just when they're creating things, it's also when they're just needing the same things that you do.And, of course, if you think that getting to live a good life is a good thing, that there's something valuable about being around to have good experiences, that a world of more people having good experiences has more goodness in it than a world of fewer people having good experiences in it. That's one thing that counts, and it's one important consideration for why a stabilized future might be better than a depopulating future. Now, I don't expect everyone to immediately agree with that, but I do think that the likelihood of depopulation should prompt us to ask that question.Preaching to the pro-natalist choir (23:40)If you are already persuaded listening to this, then go strike up a conversation with somebody.Now, listening to what you just said, which I thought was fantastic, you're a great explainer, that is wonderful stuff — but I couldn't help but think, as you explained that, that you end up spending a lot of time with people who, because they read the New York Times, they may understand that the '70s population fears aren't going to happen, that we're not going to have a population of 30 billion that we're going to hit, I don't know, 10 billion in the 2060s and then go down. And they think, “Well, that's great.”You have to spend a lot of time explaining to them about the potential downsides and why people are good, when like half the population in this country already gets it: “You say ‘depopulation,' you had us at the word, ‘depopulation.'” You have all these people who are on the right who already think that — a lot of people I know, they're there.Is your book an effective tool to build on that foundation who already think it's an issue, are open to policy ideas, does your book build on that or offer anything to those people?I think that, even if this is something that people have thought about before, a lot of how people have thought about it is in terms of pension plans, the government's budget, the age structure, the nearer-term balance of workers to retirees.There's plenty of people on the right who maybe they're aware of those things, but also think that it really is kind of a The Children of Men argument. They just think a world with more children is better. A world where the playgrounds are alive is better — and yes, that also may help us with social security, but there's a lot of people for whom you don't have to even make that economic argument. That seems to me that that would be a powerful team of evangelists — and I mean it in a nonreligious way — evangelists for your idea that population is declining and there are going to be some serious side effects.If you are already persuaded listening to this, then go strike up a conversation with somebody. That's what we want to have happen. I think minds are going to be changed in small batches on this one. So if you're somebody who already thinks this way, then I encourage you to go out there and start a conversation. I think not everybody, even people who think about population for a living — for example, one of the things that we engage with in the book is the philosophy of population ethics, or population in social welfare as economists might talk about it.There have been big debates there over should we care about average wellbeing? Should we care about total wellbeing? Part of what we're trying to say in the book is, one, we think that some of those debates have been misplaced or are asking what we don't think are the right questions, but also to draw people to what we can learn from thinking of where questions like this agree. Because this whole question of should we make the future better in total or make the better on average is sort of presuming this Ehrlich-style mindset that if the future is more populous, then it must be worse for each. But once you see that a future that's more populous is also more prosperous, it'd be better in total and better on average, then a lot of these debates might still have academic interest, but both ways of thinking about what would be a better future agree.So there are these pockets of people out there who have thought about this before, and part of what we're trying to do is bring them together in a unified conversation where we're talking about the climate modeling, we're talking about the economics, we're talking about the philosophy, we're talking about the importance of gender equity and reproductive freedom, and showing that you can think and care about all of these things and still think that a stabilized future might be better than depopulation.In the think tank world, the dream is to have an idea and then some presidential candidate adopts the idea and pushes it forward. There's a decent chance that the 2028 Republican nominee is already really worried about this issue, maybe someone like JD Vance. Wouldn't that be helpful for you?I've never spoken with JD Vance, but from my point of view, I would also be excited for India's population to stabilize and not depopulate. I don't see this as an “America First” issue because it isn't an America First issue. It's a worldwide, broadly-shared phenomenon. I think that no one country is going to be able to solve this all on its own because, if nothing else, people move, people immigrate, societies influence one another. I think it's really a broadly-shared issue.Quantity and quality of life (28:48)What I do feel confident about is that some stabilized size would be better than depopulation generation after generation, after generation, after generation, without any sort of leveling out, and I think that's the plan that we're on by default.Can you imagine an earth of 10 to 12 billion people at a sustained level being a great place to live, where everybody is doing far better than they are today, the poorest countries are doing better — can you imagine that scenario? Can you also imagine a scenario where we have a world of three to four billion, which is a way nicer place to live for everybody than it is today? Can both those scenarios happen?I don't see any reason to think that either of those couldn't be an equilibrium, depending on all the various policy choices and all the various . . .This is a very broad question.Exactly. I think it's way beyond the social science, economics, climate science we have right now to say “three billion is the optimal size, 10 billion is the optimal size, eight billion is the optimal size.” What I do feel confident about is that some stabilized size would be better than depopulation generation after generation, after generation, after generation, without any sort of leveling out, and I think that's the plan that we're on by default. That doesn't mean it's what's going to happen, I hope it's not what happens, and that's sort of the point of the conversation here to get more people to consider that.But let's say we were able to stabilize the population at 11 billion. That would be fine.It could be depending on what the people do.But I'm talking about a world of 11 billion, and I'm talking about a world where the average person in India is as wealthy as, let's say this is in the year 2080, 2090, and at minimum, the average person in India is as wealthy as the average American is today. So that's a big huge jump in wealth and, of course, environmentalism.And we make responsible environmental choices, whether that's wind, or solar, or nuclear, or whatever, I'm not going to be prescriptive on that, but I don't see any reason why not. My hope is that future people will know more about that question than I do. Ehrlich would've said that our present world of eight billion would be impossible, that we would've starved long before this, that England would've ceased to exist, I think is a prediction in his book somewhere.And there's more food per person on every continent. Even in the couple decades that I've been going to India, children are taller than they used to be, on average. You can measure it, and maybe I'm fooling myself, but I feel like I can see it. Even as the world's been growing more populous, people have been getting better off, poverty has been going down, the absolute number of people in extreme poverty has been going down, even as the world's been getting more populous. As I say, emissions per person have been going down in a lot of places.I don't see any in principle, reason, if people make the right decisions, that we couldn't have a sustainable, healthy, and good, large sustained population. I've got two kids and they didn't add to the hole in the ozone layer, which I would've heard about in school as a big problem in the '80s. They didn't add to acid rain. Why not? Because the hole in the ozone layer was confronted with the Montreal Protocol. The acid rain was confronted with the Clean Air Act. They don't drive around in cars with leaded gasoline because in the '70s, the gasoline was unleaded. Adding more people doesn't have to make things worse. It depends on what happens. Again, I hope future people will know more about this than I do, but I don't see any, in principle reason why we couldn't stabilize at a size larger than today and have it be a healthy, and sustainable, and flourishing society.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Generative AI's Impact on Student Achievement and Implications for Worker Productivity - SSRN* The Real China Model: Beijing's Enduring Formula for Wealth and Power - FA* What Matters More to the Stock Market? The Fed or Nvidia? - NYT* AI Isn't Really Stealing Jobs Yet. That Doesn't Mean We're Ready for It. - Barron's* Trump's Attacks on the Fed and BLS Threaten Key Source of Economic Strength - NYT* A Stock Market Crash Foretold - PS* The Macro Impact of AI on GDP - The Overshoot* Powell Sends Strongest Signal Yet That Interest Rate Cuts Are Coming - NYT* Big Announcements, Small Results: FDI Falls Yet Again - ITIF▶ Business* An MIT report that 95% of AI pilots fail spooked investors. But the reason why those pilots failed is what should make the C-suite anxious - Fortune* Alexandr Wang is now leading Meta's AI dream team. Will Mark Zuckerberg's big bet pay off? - Fortune* Amazon is betting on agents to win the AI race - The Verge* Intuit Earnings Beat Estimates as Company Focuses on Artificial Intelligence Growth Drivers - Barron's* Will Tesla Robotaxis Kill Auto Insurers? Hardly. - Barron's* Wall Street Is Too Complex to Be Left to Humans - Bberg Opinion* Meta Freezes AI Hiring After Blockbuster Spending Spree - WSJ* Trump Is Betting Big on Intel. Will the Chips Fall His Way? - Wired* Trump Says Intel Has Agreed to Give the US 10% Equity Stake - Bberg▶ Policy/Politics* Poll shows California policy influencers want harsher social media laws than voters - Politico* How Trump Will Decide Which Chips Act Companies Must Give Up Equity - WSJ* This Democrat Thinks Voters Seeking Order Will Make or Break Elections - WSJ* California Republicans trust tech companies as much as Trump on AI - Politico* The Japanese city betting on immigrants to breathe life into its economy - FT▶ AI/Digital* AI Is Designing Bizarre New Physics Experiments That Actually Work - Wired* Generative AI in Higher Education: Evidence from an Elite College - SSRN* AI Unveils a Major Discovery in Ancient Microbes That Could Hold the Key to Next Generation Antibiotics - The Debrief* A.I. May Be Just Kind of Ordinary - NYT Opinion* Is the AI bubble about to pop? Sam Altman is prepared either way. - Ars* China's DeepSeek quietly releases an open-source rival to GPT-5—optimized for Chinese chips and priced to undercut OpenAI - Fortune* The world should prepare for the looming quantum era - FT* Brace for a crash before the golden age of AI - FT* How AI will change the browser wars - FT* Can We Tell if ChatGPT is a Parasite? Studying Human-AI Symbiosis with Game Theory - Arxiv* Apple Explores Using Google Gemini AI to Power Revamped Siri - Bberg* The AI Doomers Are Getting Doomier - The Atlantic* State of AI in Business 2025 - MIT NANDA* Silicon Valley Is Drifting Out of Touch With the Rest of America - NYT Opinion* What Workers Really Want from Artificial Intelligence - Stanford HAI▶ Biotech/Health* A 1990 Measles Outbreak Shows How the Disease Can Roar Back - NYT* Corporate egg freezing won't break the glass ceiling - FT* How to Vaccinate the World - Asterisk* COVID Revisionism Has Gone Too Far - MSN* Securing America's Pharmaceutical Innovation Edge - JAMA Forum▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Trump's Global War on Decarbonization - PS* Aalo Atomics secures funding to build its first reactor - WNN* Trump's nuclear policy favors startups, widening industry rifts - E&E* How Electricity Got So Expensive - Heatmap* Nuclear fusion gets a boost from a controversial debunked experiment - NS* Google Wants You to Know the Environmental Cost of Quizzing Its AI - WSJ* Trump Blamed Rising Electricity Prices on Renewables. It's Not True. - Heatmap* Trump's Cuts May Spell the End for America's Only Antarctic Research Ship - NYT* How Bill McKibben Lost the Plot - The New Atlantis* Does it make sense for America to keep subsidising a sinking city? - Economist▶ Robotics/Drones/AVs* I'm a cyclist. Will the arrival of robotaxis make my journeys safer? - NS* Si chiplet–controlled 3D modular microrobots with smart communication in natural aqueous environments - Science▶ Space/Transportation* On the ground in Ukraine's largest Starlink repair shop - MIT* Trump can't stop America from building cheap EVs - Vox* SpaceX has built the machine to build the machine. But what about the machine? - Ars* 'Invasion' Season 3 showrunner Simon Kinberg on creating ''War of the Worlds' meets 'Babel'' (exclusive) - Space▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* The era of the public apology is ending - Axios* Warren Brodey, 101, Dies; a Visionary at the Dawn of the Information Age - NYT* Reality is evil - Aeon* The Case for Crazy Philanthropy - Palladium▶ Substacks/Newsletters* Claude Code is growing crazy fast, and it's not just for writing code - AI Supremacy* No, ‘the Economists' Didn't Botch Trump's Tariffs - The Dispatch* How Does the US Use Water? - Construction Physics* A Climate-Related Financial Risk Boondoggle - The Ecomodernist* What's up with the States? - Hyperdimensional▶ Social Media* On why AI won't take all the jobs - @Dan_Jeffries1* On four nuclear reactors to be built in Amarillo, TX - @NuclearHazelnut* On AI welfare and consciousness - @sebkrier Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

An author's mother-in-law taught her valuable life lessons and fantastic recipes. This memoir explores Jewish heritage, kosher cooking, and spiritual revival.

Nadja Maleh erzählt in der neuesten "Ehrlich gesagt" Folge, warum „Mindfulness“ kein Esoterik-Trend, sondern ein Praxis-Booster für deine Selbstwahrnehmung und Resilienz ist. Du erfährst, wie echte Achtsamkeit dich im Coaching-Alltag davor bewahrt, ständig in die Selbstoptimierungsfalle zu tappen – und wie du damit langfristig Vertrauen zu deinen Kund:innen aufbaust. Krisen als Kreativ-Booster Jede Krise enthält Wachstumspotenzial. Nadja spricht offen darüber, wie sie nach Rückschlägen – beruflich wie privat – immer wieder neu durchgestartet ist. Lass dich inspirieren, wie du scheinbare Scheitern-Momente nutzen kannst, um als Personal Brand und Beratungsprofi noch authentischer, mutiger und erfolgreicher zu werden. ____ 5 Tage Podcast Challenge: Podcast starten, ohne Technikfrust & Perfektionsdruck – in 5 Tagen https://myablefy.com/s/theangryteddy/podcast-challenge BIST DU BEREIT FÜR DEINEN PODCAST? Mach den Selbsttest - in 5 Minuten weißt du mehr https://share.teddy.click/podcasttest DU SPIELST MIT DEM GEDANKEN EINEN BUSINESS PODCAST ZU STARTEN? Ich podcaste seit 2006 und führe seit 2010 den ältesten Social Media Marketing Podcast in Österreich und berate seit Jahren Unternehmen beim Aufbau derer Podcasts. Ich habe vieles richtig gemacht und Fehler am eigenen Leib erlebt. Das kann dir eine Abkürzung sein. Lass uns einfach unverbindlich reden: https://termin.theangryteddy.at/ WOLLEN WIR UNS VERNETZEN? Ich freue mich über deine Anfrage:

Was passiert, wenn Musik mehr ist als Klang? Wenn ein Lied aus einer Erinnerung entsteht, aus einem Gefühl, aus einem Moment? In dieser Sendung erzählen Musikerinnen und Musiker die Geschichten hinter ihren Songs – leise, ehrlich, manchmal überraschend. Da ist die Ellis Mano Band mit Sänger Chris Ellis, der sich von streunenden Hunden bewegen lässt. Aus dieser Begegnung entsteht ein Song, der von Einsamkeit erzählt, aber auch von Würde und Freiheit. Kuno Lauener, Sänger von Züri West, erinnert sich an seine Rolle rund um den Film «Der Goalie bin ig». Als Fan des Romans war er begeistert, aber auch gehemmt, einen Song zum Film beizusteuern. Sina singt für jemanden, der langsam verschwindet. «Fär wer soll i singu?» ist ein Lied über Demenz, über Liebe, über das Erinnern, wenn Erinnern schwerfällt. Getextet hat es Bänz Friedli – mit viel Feingefühl und Nähe. Sina erzählt die berührende Geschichte zum Song in der Sendung. Boris Blank taucht tief in die Klangwelt von Yello ein. Und nein, es muss nicht immer «Oh Yeah» sein – er erklärt, warum gerade «Liquid Lies» eines seiner Lieblingsstücke ist. Die Thunerin Veronica Fusaro hat beobachtet, dass viele Menschen nur noch für das Wochenende leben, statt jeden Tag zu geniessen – diese Beobachtung hat sie in ihren Song «Weekend» verpackt, die Geschichte dazu bei Swissmade. Pippo Pollina denkt in «D'altro canto» über die Leichtigkeit des Lebens nach – und darüber, nicht immer alles allzu ernst zu nehmen und Philipp Fankhauser erinnert sich gerne daran, wie der Song «Homeless» zu ihm fand – und wie glücklich er mit dem Resultat ist. Mattiu singt auf Rätoromanisch. «Va Lunsch» («Geh weit») ist ein Lied über Fernweh, über das Zufriedensein im Moment – und über die Liebe zur Musik. Und dann ist da noch Dabu Bucher, der mit Dabu Fantastic den Song «Jagge» geschrieben hat. Entstanden nach einem weinseligen und auch peinlichen Abend in Florenz, erzählt das Lied vom Sterben – und doch auch vom Leben. Die Jacke im Titel ist nur der Aufhänger für eine tiefere Auseinandersetzung mit Abschied und Erinnerung. Stefanie Heinzmann beschreibt das gemeinsame Songschreiben für «What I Do» als eine Art Therapie – ein Sich-Öffnen, ein Sich-Zeigen, ein Schritt zurück zu sich selbst. Währenddessen singt Anna Känzig mit schwerem Herzen. «Heavy Heart» ist ein Lied über das Loslassen – inklusive Tränen. Und zu guter Letzt fragt sich Adrian Sieber in «Were We Ever So Young?», ob wir je so jung waren, wie wir dachten – ein nostalgischer Blick zurück, mit einem Lächeln und einem Hauch Wehmut. Wer wissen will, was hinter den Liedern steckt, hört bei Swissmade nicht nur Musik – sondern Geschichten, die bleiben.

In dieser Folge sprechen Holger und Viney über ein Thema, das viele beschäftigt: Vergangenheit und Ballast. Wie können wir loslassen, was uns zurückhält? Und warum ist es manchmal so schwer, Altes hinter sich zu lassen? Ehrlich, tiefgründig und mit praktischen Impulsen. Jetzt reinhören!

Für viele Eltern steht der Schulstart der Kinder bevor. In den meisten Fällen geht das einher mit der „richtigen“ Schulwahl. Caroline von St. Ange sagt, man könne sich freuen, wenn man keine Wahl hat. Warum das so komplex ist, was man bedenken kann und ihre Meinung zu all dem ist, erzählt sie in dieser Folge von „Ehrlich gesagt“. Caroline von St. Ange ist sozusagen „Schulfluencerin“. Sie gibt Tipps und Angebote, wie wir es schaffen, dass unsere Kinder gern zur Schule gehen, sie unterstützen, stärken und begleiten können, wenn sie es nicht gern tun und welche Fehler Eltern vermeiden können. Wir sprechen über

Axel Kaspar, bekannt u.a. durch die Sendung „PRISMA“ im DDR-Fernsehen und die Reihe „Axel Kaspar auf Achse“ in der ARD, war am 30. Juli mit seinem Buch "Durchs Klofenster auf den Bildschirm" zu Gast in der Mark-Twain-Bibliothek. Ehrlich, aufrichtig und mit viel Humor berichtete er über sein publizistisches Leben in zwei Welten.Seit 1990 war und ist Axel Kaspar ein Fürsprecher der vielen Ostdeutschen, deren Würde nach der Wiedervereinigung mit Füßen getreten worden ist.Am Ende der Lesung lüftete der Journalist, Regisseur, Moderator und Familienmensch zwei seiner bisher bestgehüteten Geheimnisse aus seinem Leben. Und wie hat er es geschafft, durchs Klofenster auf den Bildschirm zu kommen? 

Wir sind on Fire! Ehrlich.Wie stellt ihr euch den Palast von Poseidon vor? Wie doof finden wir Triton?Aber wie cool muss es sein, unter Wasser zu sein und das alles zu erleben?

Mit Thilo vom Antenne Alderaan Podcast bespreche ich den Spätwestern "Erbarmunglos" von Client Eastwood aus dem Jahr 1992.

File Download (15:26 min / 7 MB)

In dieser Folge spreche ich mit meiner Schauspiel-Kollegin Saron über den oft romantisierten, aber auch gnadenlos ehrlichen Weg ins Schauspiel.Wir reden darüber, wie man überhaupt anfängt – auch ohne Geld, Connections oder Schauspielschule.Wie wichtig sind Kurse? Muss man immer performen? Wie gehen wir mit Konkurrenz, Castings und Selbstzweifeln um?Und vor allem: Warum wir trotzdem jeden Tag wieder sagen würden: “Ich will genau das machen.”Ehrlich, motivierend, nahbar – eine Folge für alle, die's ernst meinen.Schreibt gern Themen- und Gästewünsche in die Kommentare oder auf Insta (josiehermer) Die Folge gibt es auch als Videopodcast auf YouTube (josie.hermer) xx, Josie

In dieser Folge nimmt dich Verena mit auf ihre Reise zur ersten Million – und zeigt dir ungefiltert, wie sie gemeinsam mit ihrem Geschäftspartner Lukas die social. Academy aufgebaut hat. Du erfährst, warum Naivität manchmal ein Vorteil ist, welche Phasen du als Selbstständige durchlaufen wirst und was es braucht, um wirklich in die Skalierung zu kommen. Inspiration und Umsetzungstipps garantiert. ✅ Die Gründungsgeschichte der Social Academy – von 0 auf 8 Millionen ✅ Warum ein simples Produkt besser ist als fünf halbgare Produkte ✅ Die größte Lernphase: Sommerloch, technische Fails, Workshop-Krisen ✅ Wie ein Start mit wenig Reichweite trotzdem funktioniert ✅ Warum Durchhalten oft wichtiger ist als Optimieren Wenn dir diese Folge gefallen hat, hinterlasse uns gerne eine 5-Sterne-Bewertung und teile den Podcast mit jemandem, der auch von diesen wertvollen Inhalten profitieren kann. Du möchtest auch konstant 5-stellige Beträge umsetzen? Buche jetzt dein kostenloses Erstgespräch: https://social-academy.at/bewerbung/ Hier erfährst du mehr über die social. Academy: https://social-academy.at/ Folge uns auf Instagram: Verena: https://instagram.com/social._verena/ Lukas: https://instagram.com/lukas_vilanek/ Schau auch auf unserem YouTube-Kanal vorbei: https://www.youtube.com/@social.academy/

Tradition ist kein Freifahrtschein! In der neuen Folge von „Basler Ballert“ nehmen sich Mario Basler und Oliver Dütschke die großen Namen des deutschen Fußballs zur Brust – und stellen die provokante Frage: Wie viel Bundesliga steckt noch in Clubs wie Schalke, Hertha und dem HSV? Doch nicht nur die Traditionsvereine bekommen ihr Fett weg – auch beim FC Bayern München sieht Basler Alarmstufe Rot: ⚽ Verletzungspech bei Musiala, Ito und Davies ⚽ Transferpolitik? Für Basler „vogelwild“ und „planlos“ ⚽ Ohne frische Spieler kein Halbfinale in der Champions League – sagt Basler klipp und klar. Auch Borussia Dortmund bleibt nicht verschont: Der angekündigte Kader-Umbruch? Bislang nur heiße Luft! Basler fordert einen radikalen Schnitt – ansonsten sieht er Schwarzgelb bald im Niemandsland der Tabelle. Doch es gibt auch Gewinner: ⚽ Frankfurt könnte die Schwäche der Großen ausnutzen ⚽ Freiburg, Stuttgart und Köln traut Basler überraschende Höhenflüge zu ⚽ Bei Leipzig und Leverkusen sieht er hingegen Sand im Getriebe. Zum Abschluss sprechen die beiden über den Druck auf Aufsteiger, die Euphorie in Liga 2 & 3 und warum man bei Traditionsclubs wie Kaiserslautern, 1860 München und Saarbrücken lieber nicht in Nostalgie verfallen sollte. Ehrlich, scharf, ohne Weichspüler – jetzt reinhören bei „Basler Ballert“!

Was, wenn du frisch verliebt bist - und plötzlich erfährst, dein Partner ist hoch verschuldet? Genau das ist Andreea passiert. Gemeinsam mit Walter erzählt sie in Teil 1 dieser zweiteiligen Folge, wie sie als Paar mit dieser Herausforderung umgegangen sind. Wir sprechen über: - den Moment der Wahrheit in einer jungen Beziehung - den Aufbau von Vertrauen trotz Schulden - den Traum von der Selbstständigkeit Ein Gespräch über Liebe, Verantwortung - und darüber, was wir tun, wenn es plötzlich ernst wird. Diese Folge ist Teil unserer Geld- vs. Lebensweg-Reihe. • Unsere HIMMM-Website und Anmeldung zum Midnight Mail Newsletter: https://howimetmymoney.de/ • Folge uns auf Social Media & schick uns gerne eine Nachricht: E-Mail: hallo@howimetmymoney.de Instagram: howimetmy.money Facebook: howimetmymoneypodcast Twitter: howimetmymoney LinkedIn: How I met my money • maiwerk Finanzakademie - Spannende Onlinekurse für deine finanzielle Zukunft zu ETFs, Immobilien und Altersvorsorge: https://bit.ly/3yX9bpC Rabattcode: HIMMMPODCAST20 • How I met my money: Damit du dich und dein Geld besser kennenlernst

"Eltern sein & Business aufbauen – Wie wir beides unter einen Hut bekommen "

なんだかカチコチなドイツ語を話している人向け◎「絶対に！」「正直に言うと…」「なんか」「〜な感じ」などなど、気持ちやトーンを自然に伝えるドイツ語フレーズを紹介します＾＾①意見・感情を強めるフレーズ、②断定を避けて控えめに伝えるフレーズ、③話の流れをスムーズに繋ぐ便利なフレーズ、と3カテゴリー別に紹介します。会話に感情やニュアンスを添えられると、伝わり方がぐんと変わります！よく使う表現ばかりです。ぜひ一緒に、ニュアンス上手なドイツ語を目指しましょう♩‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥■ お知らせ！産休・育休としてお休みしていたドイツ語学習個別サポートを再開しました◎以前は個別面談として行っていましたが、内容をアップデートして受付開始しました＾＾ドイツ語を本気でがんばりたい方、ぜひご検討ください。→詳細はこちら：https://vollmond.online/beratungsstunde‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥■ 今日のまとめimmer wieder: Dieses Lied höre ich immer wieder.schon wieder: Der Zug fällt schon wieder aus.ehrlich gesagt, ganz ehrlich, um ehrlich zu sein: Ehrlich gesagt, ich mag ihn nicht so sehr.auf jeden Fall: Ich komme auf jeden Fall wieder nach Deutschland!auf keinen Fall: Ich mache den gleichen Fehler auf keinen Fall wieder.nie wieder: Ich reise nie wieder mit Tim.nicht (ein)mal: Er hat nicht mal „Danke“ gesagt.‥‥‥‥‥normalerweise: Normalerweise arbeite ich im Homeoffice.generell: Generell habe ich montags Zeit.in der Regel: In der Regel macht man keine Überstunden in meiner Firma.vielleicht: Das ist vielleicht nicht die beste Idee.sollte: Man sollte nicht so viel Fleisch essen.könnte: Das könnte eine gute Lösung sein.過去配信「丁寧にドイツ語を話せる「接続法二式」を簡単に分かりやすく」https://podcasts.apple.com/jp/podcast/ココロ踊るドイツ語講座/id1483461126?i=1000610064054‥‥‥‥‥zum Beispiel: Ich mag Tiere, zum Beispiel Hunde und Katzen.und so weiter: Wir haben über Essen, Filme, Musik und so weiter gesprochen.irgendwie: Irgendwie habe ich heute keine Energie.genauer gesagt: ”Vollmond” ist eine Sprachschule, genauer gesagt eine Online-Deutschschule.auf diese Art und Weise: Auf diese Art und Weise kannst du dir vielleicht mehr Vokabeln merken.sozusagen: Ich bin jetzt selbstständig, sozusagen.was weiß ich: Er arbeitet jetzt als Berater oder Coach oder was weiß ich.was auch immer: Sie macht jetzt irgendwas mit “Coaching” oder so… was auch immer.‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥■ポッドキャストへのお便り・質問・リクエスト以下ポッドキャストお便りフォームよりどしどしお送りください♩リスナーさんからのメッセージを読む時間が「ポッドキャストやっててよかったな〜」と思う一番の瞬間です。https://form.run/@podcast‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥■ Vollmond(フォルモント)とは私komachiが代表をしている、ひとりひとりに合ったドイツ語学習をサポートするオンラインドイツ語教室です。現在毎月500名以上の学習者をレッスンという形でサポートしています◎▶︎⁠公式ホームページ：⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://vollmond.online/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠完全初級者も上級者も、気軽に楽しく勉強したい方も真剣に打ち込みたい方も、老若男女関係なく「ドイツ語を勉強したい」意志のある全ての方が対象です！‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥■ Japanischドイツ語カフェドイツ人の友だちRikeと2人で中上級者向けポッドキャストも配信中です♩ぜひ聴いてください。⁠https://vollmond.online/podcast

Viele Trader verlassen sich auf Indikatoren – andere schwören auf reine Price Action. Aber was funktioniert wirklich? In dieser Folge sprechen wir ehrlich darüber, wie du die richtige Herangehensweise für deinen Tradingstil findest. Du erfährst, was Indikatoren dir wirklich sagen, wie du Preisbewegungen lesen lernst und warum kein Tool dir die Verantwortung abnimmt. Ideal für alle, die nicht nur kopieren wollen – sondern verstehen. Ehrlich. Klar. Direkt aus der Praxis.

Über 10 Millionen Euro Umsatz in der Kurzzeitvermietung. Was funktioniert wirklich? Was war unnötig teuer – und was hat den größten Unterschied gemacht? Ehrlich, direkt und mit konkreten Tipps für alle, die ihr Business skalieren oder professionell aufbauen wollen.Du willst ebenfalls erfolgreicher Gastgeber werden und dir somit ein zweites Standbein aufbauen? Dann schaue auf dem folgenden Link vorbei und überzeuge dich selbst, ob wir die richtigen sind, dir diesen Weg zu zeigen. Ich freue mich auf dich!Jetzt eintragen:❯❯ https://saliconsulting.com/ ❮❮oder

Du bekommst Absagen auf deine Bewerbungen – obwohl du alles gibst? In dieser Episode spreche ich über die wahren Gründe, warum Bewerbungen scheitern – und was du tun kannst, um trotzdem zu gewinnen. Ich teile eine persönliche Geschichte, die dir Mut macht, deinen Weg im Business weiterzugehen – mit Haltung, Herz und Klarheit. Es geht nicht nur um Karriere – sondern um Vertrauen, Verbindung und echtes Wachstum. Du erfährst, wie du trotz Rückschlägen im Bewerbungsgespräch wieder aufstehst, dich selbst verkaufst – und endlich gehört wirst. Ehrlich. Direkt. Tief. Für alle, die mehr wollen als Standard. Kommentiere, teile und lass uns in Verbindung treten.Love it. Sell it. Euer Michael (Mike)Holt Dir mein LoveSelling Akquise Kit https://michaelweyrauch.de/loveselling-akquise-kit-2/Trage Dich kostenfrei zum Webinar einhttps://michaelweyrauch.de/kunden-gewinnen-ohne-rabatte-pos-webinar/Hole Dir die kostenfreie Aufzeichnung Neukundengewinnung https://michaelweyrauch.de/neukundengewinnung-mit-loveselling/Der Notfallkoffer SOS im Vertrieb mit LoveSelling Akquise Kit als Lösung https://michaelweyrauch.de/sos-vertrieb/Meldet Dich jetzt an für LoveSelling Umsetzungsschmiedehttps://michaelweyrauch.de/loveselling-umsetzungsschmiede/Buche Dir direkt hier unter diesem Link ein One to One Gespräch?https://michaelweyrauch.de/kontakt/

Welcome to Unstress Health with Dr. Ron Ehrlich! In this episode, Dr. Ron Ehrlich and Dr. Sarah Myhill dive into the deeper meaning of Turtles All the Way Down, exploring the intersection of philosophy, health, and vaccine risks. Dr. Myhill, an expert in preventive medicine, brings valuable insights into mental health, immunity, and the science of vaccine safety. What is ‘Turtles All the Way Down’? This concept goes beyond a metaphor, offering a framework to understand complex health issues like mental well-being and immunity. Dr. Myhill and Dr. Ehrlich discuss its relevance to vaccine safety and overall health.Vaccine Risks and Health Impacts: Get a clear, research-based perspective on the benefits and potential risks of vaccines, helping you make informed decisions about your health.Mental Health and Health DecisionsLearn about the connection between mental health and making informed wellness choices, especially when it comes to navigating vaccine discussions. Show NotesAccess in-depth show notes here: ⁠https://drronehrlich.com/dr-sarah-myh...⁠*

Warum Multivitamin-Kapseln meist nur teuerer Placebo sind, was wirklich in deinem Eiweißpulver stecken sollte und wieso „natürlich“ nicht automatisch gut heißt – wir sprechen Tacheles. Ehrlich. Wissenschaftlich. Ohne Bullshit.Besonders spannend: Was du über Proteinpulver wissen solltest – und falls du gerade auf der Suche bist, kann ich dir das Schlankheitspulver von Carish empfehlen. Schau gern mal hier vorbei: https://carish.at/search?q=proteinpul... Ich geb dir Fakten, Alltagswissen & ein bisschen Aufklärung mit Augenzwinkern – damit du ab jetzt klüger durch den Drogeriemarkt gehst und dich von Influencer-Versprechen nicht mehr verunsichern lässt.

In dieser Folge von Ehrlich gesagt ist Alina Friederichs zu Gast – Content Creatorin, Mutter und laut eigener Aussage: „eine fette Mutter“. Doch was wie eine Provokation klingt, ist vielmehr eine Selbstermächtigung. Alina spricht offen über das Sichtbarmachen marginalisierter Körper, über Bodyshaming, über das Muttersein zwischen Selbstzweifeln und Internet-Hass. Sie erzählt, wie sich ihr Alltag mit zwei kleinen Kindern anfühlt, die nur ein Jahr Altersunterschied haben, warum sie sich für die Abnehm-Spritze entschieden hat – und wie sie gelernt hat, mit negativen Kommentaren online umzugehen. Ein Gespräch über Körper, Kommentare und die Kraft der Community.

Die SPD-Politikerin und ehemalige Bundesfamilien- sowie Frauenministerin spricht über die Wirkungsmacht von Frauen in Machtpositionen und erklärt, weshalb sie für die Quote ist. Auch in der Frage nach gutem Personal sei sie für Gleichstellung, werde immer wieder gefragt, ob es denn überhaupt gute Frauen gäbe: "Also ich frag mich manchmal, wer hat eigentlich gefragt, ob man genug gute Männer findet, oder ob die Männer, die man da findet, eigentlich wirklich so top sind, oder ob sie nicht nur einfach besser posen konnten?" Dabei sei Macht und das Bewusstsein darüber ein wichtiger Faktor, weil man Macht brauche, um Dinge tun zu können. "Wenn ich wirklich was verändern will und gestalten, brauche ich die Möglichkeit dazu." Dazu benötige es auch Unterstützung unter Frauen, bis man dann sagen könne, "ich gehe jetzt den Weg, ich traue mir das zu und ich frage mich nicht, ob ich gut genug dafür bin". Bei Ehrlich jetzt? spricht DIE-ZEIT-Redakteurin Yasmine M'Barek alle zwei Wochen mit Spitzenpolitikerinnen und Spitzenpolitikern über Themen, die in Nachrichtensendungen zu kurz kommen. Fragen, Kritik oder Anregungen? Schreiben Sie uns an: ehrlichjetzt@zeit.de. Ehrlich jetzt? ist in der Sommerpause und ab dem 9. September zurück.  [ANZEIGE] Mehr über die Angebote unserer Werbepartnerinnen und -partner finden Sie HIER. [ANZEIGE] Mehr hören? Dann testen Sie unser Podcast-Abo mit Zugriff auf alle Dokupodcasts und unser Podcast-Archiv. Jetzt 4 Wochen kostenlos testen. Und falls Sie uns nicht nur hören, sondern auch lesen möchten, testen Sie jetzt 4 Wochen kostenlos DIE ZEIT. Hier geht's zum Angebot. 

Die drei Plattbarden sind zurück aus dem Urlaub. Frankreich. England. Italien. Braun gebrannt und 5 Kilo schwerer wird der neue Plattcast in Angriff genommen. Marco hat von der Atlantikküste in Frankreich zwei leckere Hopfenkaltschorlen mitgebracht. Das Kronenbourg 1664 und das Triple Secret des Moines Blond unterstreichen die deutsch-französische Freundschaft und wissen zu überzeugen. Mit Ozzy Osbourne und Hulk Hogan haben zwei Ikonen das zeitliche gesegnet. Gott hab die beiden selig! Ihr wart Teil unserer Jugend. Heute haben wir wieder einige platte Fragen im Angebot. Wir klären, welchen peinlichen Moment man(n) im Leben eigentlich gerne wieder rückgängig machen würde. Also, alles wie immer. Ehrlich. Sympathisch. Plattdeutsch!

In dieser Folge spreche ich mit Nicole Wehn über ein Thema, das für viele Frauen noch immer mit Scham, Unsicherheit oder Zurückhaltung verbunden ist: Geld.Wir reden über tief sitzende Glaubenssätze, darüber, warum Reichweite für Frauen oft mit Zurückhaltung verknüpft ist – und wie wir lernen können, uns selbst Fülle und Erfolg zu erlauben.Ein ehrliches Gespräch über Money-Mindset, Sichtbarkeit und den Mut, als Frau groß zu denken – innerlich wie äußerlich.Instagram: ⁠⁠Nicole WehnNicole's Podcast: HER BrandWebseite: https://nicolewehn.de

Wie entstand »Herrengedeck«? Volker Zierke und Philip Stein geben Einblicke.

Ehrlich, lustig und ganz schön intim: Gästin Isabell Horn packt aus – über ihre Auswanderung und Rückkehr nach Deutschland, ihre Wochenbettdepression nach einem Notkaiserschnitt und vor allem die Beziehung zu ihrem Mann. Große Liebe? Oh ja! Lust fast nur an fruchtbaren Tagen? Jep. Ein Mann, der aber täglich rattig ist? Auch das. Maximales Vertrauen trotz Status „offen“? Check. Wie funktioniert das mit Coolness und Gelassenheit? Zu hören in dieser Episode, viel Spaß! Auf Instagram ist ,,Alle meine Eltern'' übrigens hier zu finden: https://www.instagram.com/allemeineeltern.podcast/ Hier ist Isabell auf Instagram zu finden: https://www.instagram.com/dieisabellhorn/ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte: https://linktr.ee/AllemeineEltern Du möchtest Werbung in diesem Podcast schalten? Dann erfahre hier mehr über die Werbemöglichkeiten bei Seven.One Audio: https://www.seven.one/portfolio/sevenone-audio

In dieser tief berührenden Episode teilt Nicole Treash ihre Geschichte – eine Geschichte von Schmerz, Verlust, Liebe und unglaublicher Stärke. Nach einer problematischen Schwangerschaft, einer dramatischen Frühgeburt und einem Notkaiserschnitt muss Nicole das Unvorstellbare erleben: Eines ihrer Zwillinge stirbt, während das andere ums Überleben kämpft. Mit viel Offenheit spricht sie über den emotionalen Ausnahmezustand, die Zeit im Krankenhaus, die Beerdigung ihres Kindes – und gleichzeitig das Ringen um Hoffnung und Lebensmut. Sie gibt Einblick in den Alltag mit einem behinderten Kind, das ständige Warten auf Diagnosen und das Ringen als Paar inmitten des Chaos. Und doch finden sich in ihrer Geschichte auch Dankbarkeit, persönliches Wachstum und der Weg zurück zu sich selbst. Diese Folge ist ein zutiefst menschliches Zeugnis darüber, wie man trotz großer Dunkelheit wieder Licht findet.

Ehrlich gesprochen finde ich es erschreckend wie viel Zeit schon die kleinsten Kinder heutzutage mit den Medien verbringen. Es ist sicherlich so, dass die digitalen Medien aus unserem Alltag nicht mehr weg zu denken sind, jedoch ist die Frage wie lange sollten Kinder in welchem Alter die Medien nutzen? Welche Zeiten in welchem Alter empfohlen werden, warum eine Begrenzung sinnvoll ist und wie ihr die Medienzeit bewusster gestaltet anstatt verbietet, werden die Themen von dieser Folge sein. Medien sind kein Feind, sie sind aber auch kein Kidsitter. Hier findest Du Anne Tobien in den sozialen Medien: Facebook https://fb.com/lampentaschedienannyvermittlung/ Linkedin https://linkedin.com/company/lampentasche/ Schreib Anne eine E-Mail: podcast@lampentasche.ch Podcast: iTunes https://lampentasche.ch/itunes RSS Feed Libsynhttps://lampentasche.ch/libsyn Androidhttps://lampentasche.ch/android Spotifyhttps://lampentasche.ch/spotify Podcast.dehttps://lampentasche.ch/podcast-de Der „Lampentasche“-Podcast ist eine Dienstleistung der Lampentasche GmbH Anne Tobien Bergstrasse 8 CH – 8700 Küsnacht  

"Emotionale Blockaden im Business – Wie du sie erkennst und auflöst!"

Sichtbar zu heißt nicht nur: Kamera an und raus in die Welt. In dieser Folge spreche ich darüber, was Sichtbarkeit wirklich bedeutet – im Alltag, im Kleinen, in den stillen Momenten. Es geht darum, zu dir zu stehen, präsent zu sein – auch ohne Scheinwerferlicht. Eine Einladung, dich selbst zu zeigen, so wie du bist. denn jeder von uns ist perfekt, genauso wie er ist.Trau dich, denn es lohnt sich! 

In dieser Folge spricht Ex-Nationaltorhüterin Almuth Schult über das, worüber viel zu selten offen gesprochen wird: Muttersein im Leistungssport, zwischen Trainingsplan, Kinderarzttermin, medialem Druck und dem eigenen Körper. Almuth erzählt ehrlich, wie sie nach Schwangerschaften in den Profifußball zurückkehrte, wie es ist, mit Zwillingen Alltag und Karriere zu organisieren – und warum ihr Modell nichts mit einem 9-to-5-Job zu tun hat. Wir sprechen über Vertrauen, Abgeben, Kinderbetreuung, strukturelle Unterschiede zwischen männlichen und weiblichen Fußball sowie Deutschland und den USA – und wie schwer es für Mütter ist, im Spitzensport gesehen, verstanden und ernst genommen zu werden. Warum sie sich jetzt, mit dem vierten Kind, von ihrer aktiven Karriere verabschiedet – und was andere Mütter (egal ob im Büro oder im Stadion) aus ihrer Geschichte mitnehmen können, hört Ihr in dieser Folge "Ehrlich gesagt".

This week on Trail Society, the team celebrates Hillary's selection to Team USA for the World Mountain Running Championships before diving into a timely and thought-provoking conversation on coaching young athletes. Guests Rachel Sanford and Jennifer Anderson-Ehrlich—leaders from Sportswomen of Colorado—share insights into mentoring girls through sport, navigating puberty in athletics, and creating cultures of confidence, leadership, and joy. Whether you're a coach, parent, or athlete, this episode offers a playbook for supporting the next generation. Don't miss the post-interview Society Slam, where the crew reacts to a new women's sports bar, listener questions about trail bathroom etiquette, and the call for more visibility of historic women in trail running.   SPONSORSHIP:  We are so excited to be partnering with rabbit as our primary apparel sponsor this year! Send us some DMS about your favorite apparel and what you would like to see built for the trail running space!  USE CODE through the end of JULY—> STATES10!   Keep sliding into our DMs with your messages, they mean so much to us!  FOLLOW US on Instagram: @trail.society And go follow our NEW youtube channel @trailsociety_podcast   This episode is brought to you by Freetrail @runfreetrail  

Simon & Schuster provided me with an advanced copy of the superb book After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People, scheduled for release on July 8, 2025. The University of Texas authors, Dean Spears and Michael Geruso, have written a mind-blowing book! It's my second favorite book of 2025! My favorite 2025 book is They're Not Gaslighting You. Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-JfpjJRkok Podcast   The Population Whimper When I was born, Paul R. Ehrlich's book, The Population Bomb, was a mega-bestseller. Although I never read the book, my generation believed the book's message that humanity is dangerously overpopulated. The book gave me one major reason not to have children. The book made intuitive sense, built on Thomas Malthus's observations, that if our population continues to expand, we will eventually hit a brick wall. However, Ehrlich, a Stanford biologist, made these stunningly wrong predictions in The Population Bomb: Mass Starvation in the 1970s and 1980s: The book opened with the statement, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."    England's Demise by 2000: He suggested that England would not exist by the year 2000 due to environmental collapse related to overpopulation.   Devastation of Fish Populations by 1990: He predicted that all significant animal life in the sea would be extinct by 1990, and large areas of coastline would need to be evacuated due to the stench of dead fish.   India's Famine: He predicted catastrophic food shortages in India in the 1990s that did not materialize.   United States Food Rationing by 1984: He envisioned the U.S. rationing food by 1984. Instead of all this doom and gloom, here's what happened: we went from 3.5 billion (when Ehrich wrote his doomsday book) to 8 billion people today, most of whom are fat. Today, our biggest problem isn't famine but obesity. Dean Spears and Michael Geruso's new book should have been called The Population Whimper because it says the opposite of what The Population Bomb said. Forget a catastrophic demographic explosion. We're going to suffer a catastrophic demographic implosion. The graph on the cover of After the Spike sums up the problem: during a 200-year time period, the human population will have spiked to 10 billion and then experienced an equally dramatic fall. Three criticisms of After the Spike For a book packed with counterintuitive arguments, it's remarkable that I can only spot three flaws. Admittedly, these are minor critiques, as they will disappear if we stabilize below 10 billion. 1. Wildlife lost The authors correctly argue that the environment has been improving even as the human population has been growing rapidly. For example: Air and water are now cleaner than they were 50 years ago, when the population was half its current size. Our per capita CO2 consumption is falling. Clean energy production is at an all-time high. There's one metric that authors overlooked: wildlife. As the human population doubled, we've needed more space for growing food. This has led to a decrease in habitat, which is why biologists refer to the Anthropocene Extinction. While fish farms are efficient, overfishing continues. The Amazon gets denuded to make space for soy and cattle plantations. The loss of African wildlife habitats is acute, as the African population is projected to quadruple in this century. I imagine that the authors of After the Spike would counter: National parks didn't exist 200 years ago. Green revolutions and GMO foods have made the most productive farmers ever. De-extinction may restore extinct species. And they're correct. There are bright spots.  However, as we approach 10 billion, wildlife will continue to suffer and be marginalized. The book should have mentioned that. Dean Spears and Michael Geruso would likely agree that if humans continue to grow nonstop, wildlife will continue to suffer. However, they aren't arguing for nonstop human expansion. They want stabilization. When you combine stabilization with technology (e.g., vertical farming and lab-grown animal products), we would reverse the downward trend in wildlife habitat. 2. Increased energy consumption Dean Spears and Michael Geruso celebrate humanity's progress in energy efficiency and productivity. However, they overlook these facts: 1. The Rebound Effect (Jevons Paradox): As energy efficiency improves, the cost of using energy services effectively decreases. This can lead to: Increased usage of existing services: For example, more efficient air conditioners might lead people to cool their homes to lower temperatures or for longer periods. More fuel-efficient cars might encourage more driving. Adoption of new energy-intensive activities: The increased affordability of energy services can enable entirely new consumption patterns that were previously too expensive to adopt. Think about the proliferation of data centers for AI and digital services, or the growth of electric vehicles. While individual electric vehicles (EVs) are more efficient than gasoline cars, the rapid increase in their adoption contributes to overall electricity demand. 2. Economic Growth and Rising Living Standards: Increased demand for energy services: As economies grow and incomes rise, people generally desire greater comfort, convenience, and a wider range of goods and services. This translates to greater demand for heating and cooling, larger homes, more personal transportation, more manufactured goods, and more leisure activities, all of which require energy. Industrialization and urbanization: Developing economies, in particular, are undergoing rapid industrialization and urbanization. This involves massive construction, increased manufacturing, and the expansion of infrastructure, all of which are highly energy-intensive. Even with efficiency gains, the sheer scale of this growth drives up overall energy consumption. Emerging technologies: The growth of data centers, AI, and other digital technologies is leading to a significant increase in electricity demand. 3. Population Growth: While efficiency might improve per unit of output, the overall global population continues to grow. More people, even if individually more efficient, will inherently consume more energy in total. 4. Shifting Economic Structures: Some economies are shifting from less energy-intensive sectors (like agriculture) to more energy-intensive ones (like manufacturing or specific services). Even within industries, while individual processes might become more efficient, the overall scale of production can increase dramatically. 5. Energy Price and Policy Factors: Low energy prices: If energy remains relatively inexpensive (due to subsidies or abundant supply), the incentive for significant behavioral changes to reduce consumption might be diminished, even with efficient technologies available. Policy limitations: Although many countries have energy efficiency policies, their impact may be offset by other factors that drive demand. Conclusion: While technological advancements and efficiency measures reduce the energy intensity of specific activities, these gains are often outpaced by the aggregate increase in demand for energy services driven by economic growth, rising living standards, population increases, and the adoption of new, energy-intensive technologies and behaviors. The challenge lies in achieving a proper decoupling of economic growth from energy consumption, and ultimately, from carbon emissions. Humanity's per capita energy consumption has been steadily increasing with each passing century, a trend that is unlikely to change soon. Therefore, humans of the 26th century will consume far more energy than those of the 21st century.  The authors of After the Spike would probably argue that in 2525, we'll be using a clean energy source (e.g., nuclear fusion), so it'll be irrelevant that our per capita energy consumption increases ten times.  Again, short term, we're going in the wrong direction. However, in a stabilized world, we won't have a problem. 3. Designer babies The authors of After the Spike never addressed the potential impact that designer babies may have. I coined the term "Homo-enhanced" to address our desire to overcome our biological limitations.  Couples are already using IVF to select the gender and eye color of their babies. Soon, we'll be able to edit and select for more complex traits such as height or even intelligence. It's easy to imagine a world like Gattaca, where parents collaborate with CRISPR-powered gene tools to create custom-made babies. One reason some people don't want to reproduce is that it's a crap shoot. Any parent who has more than one child will tell you that each of their children is quite different from the others. Given that they grow up in the same environment, it suggests that genetics is a decisive factor. Until now, we couldn't mold our children's DNA. Soon, we will.  If we were to remove the lottery aspect of having a child and allow parents to design their children, perhaps there would be a baby boom. Dean Spears and Michael Geruso would probably argue that this is unlikely or centuries away from happening. We'll be descending the steep population slope long before we are homo-enhanced. One trillion humans in this millennium? In the Bulgaria chapter of The Hidden Europe, I observed that Bulgaria is depopulating faster than any other European country. Having peaked at 9 million in the late 1980s, a century later, it will be half that size. Despite that, in that chapter, I predicted that in 500 years, we'll have one trillion humans in the solar system, with at least 100 billion on Earth. This video explains how and why that may happen:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lJJ_QqIVnc Conclusion In 2075, will After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People look as stupid as The Population Bomb looks 50 years after publication? Does After the Spike make the same errors as The Population Bomb? Paul Ehrlich's underestimated technology and the continued collapse in fertility rates. As Dean Spears and Michael Geruso point out, fertility rates have been declining since they were first measured. Had Ehrlich extrapolated the trendline, he would have realized that our demographic collapse was imminent, not an explosion. Furthermore, technology solved many of the problems Ehrlich imagined. Is After the Spike making the same error? Fertility rates won't fall forever. They must stop. Otherwise, we'll become extinct. However, will fertility rates soar due to technology or some other reason? What could make our fertility rates return to three or more? Here are a few ideas: We master fusion energy, providing us with ultra-cheap energy and dramatically decreasing the cost of having children. Robots perform most jobs, leaving humans with ample time to raise large families.  As the negative effects of depopulation start rippling across the world, a global cultural panic erupts, prompting people to prioritize reproduction. Homo-enhanced humans, merged with artificial general intelligence, decide to proliferate to dominate the planet. Vertical farms and lab-grown cultured meat improve the environment so dramatically that humans feel less guilty about having three or more children, and generous subsidies offset the costs. Admittedly, these scenarios are unlikely to occur during the next 50 years, so After the Spike won't become the joke that The Population Bomb became in 50 years. Still, I predict that Ehrlich's great-great-granddaughter will write The Population Bomb II: Thomas Malthus Will Be Right Someday. Verdict 10 out of 10 stars! Excerpts The excerpts below are from an advanced copy, which may have undergone edits. Hence, some of these excerpts may have been reworded or deleted in the final print. The reason I am quoting them is that even if the excerpts are removed in the final edition, they illustrate the book's overall message.  It would be easy to think that fewer people would be better—better for the planet, better for the people who remain. This book asks you to think again. Depopulation is not the solution we urgently need for environmental challenges, nor will it raise living standards by dividing what the world can offer across fewer of us. Despite what you may have been told, depopulation is not the solution we urgently need for environmental challenges like climate change. Nor will it raise living standards by dividing what the world can offer across fewer of us. To the contrary, so much of the progress that we now take for granted sprang up in a large and interconnected society. Part I's big claim: No future is more likely than that people worldwide choose to have too few children to replace their own generation. Over the long run, this would cause exponential population decline. Whether depopulation would be good or bad depends on the facts and depends on our values. We ask about those facts and values, building up to an overall assessment: Part II and Part III's big claim: A stabilized world population would be better, overall, than a depopulating future. Part IV's big claim: Nobody yet knows how to stabilize a depopulating world. But humanity has made revolutionary improvements to society before— we can do it again if we choose. We won't ask you to abandon your concerns about climate change; about reproductive freedom and abortion access; or about ensuring safe, healthy, flourishing lives for everyone everywhere. We won't ask you to consider even an inch of backsliding on humanity's progress toward gender equity. We insist throughout that everyone should have the tools to choose to parent or not to parent. This book is not about whether or how you should parent. It's about whether we all should make parenting easier. In 2012, 146 million children were born. That was more than in any year of history to that point. It was also more than in any year since. Millions fewer will be born this year. The year 2012 may well turn out to be the year in which the most humans were ever born— ever as in ever for as long as humanity exists. Within three hundred years, a peak population of 10 billion could fall below 2 billion. The tip of the Spike may be six decades from today. For every 205 babies born, human biology, it turns out, would produce about 100 females. Average fertility in Europe today is about 1.5. That means the next generation will be 25 percent smaller than the last. Birth rates were falling all along. For as long as any reliable records exist, and for at least several hundred years while the Spike was ascending, the average number of births per woman has been falling, generation by generation. In the United States in the early 1800s, married white women (a population for whom some data were recorded) gave birth an average of seven times. If life expectancy doubles to 150 years, or quadruples to 300 years, couldn't that prevent the depopulating edge of the Spike? The surprising answer is no. The story of the Spike would stay the same, even if life expectancy quadrupled to three hundred years. In contrast, if adults' reproductive spans also changed, so people had, say, one or two babies on average over their twenties, thirties, and forties and then another one on average over their fifties, sixties, and seventies, then that would stop depopulation— but it would be because births changed, not because later-adulthood deaths changed. Where exactly should humanity stabilize? Six billion? Eight? Ten? Some other number? This book makes the case to stabilize somewhere. Exactly where will have to be a question for public and scientific debate. So the extra greenhouse gas emissions contributed by the larger population would be small, even under the assumption here that the future is bleak and we go on emitting for another century. The environmental costs of a new child are not zero. Not by a long shot. Not yet. But they are falling. Each new person who joins the ranks of humanity will add less CO2 than, well, you over your lifetime. Humanity could choose a future that's good, free, and fair for women and that also has an average birth rate of two. There is no inescapable dilemma. In that kind of future, people who want to parent would get the support that they need (from nonparents, from taxpayers, from everyone) to choose parenting. The most plausible way humanity might stabilize— and the only way this book endorses— is if societies everywhere work to make parenting better. Globally, we now produce about 50 percent more food per person than in 1961. “endogenous economic growth.” Endogenous means “created from the inside.” Ideas do not come from outside the economy. They come from us. Because scale matters, a depopulating planet will be able to fill fewer niches. A threat with a fixed cost: A threat has arisen that will kill all humans (however many) unless a large cost is paid to escape it (such as by deflecting an asteroid) within a certain time period. Could a kajillion lives ever be the best plan? That question goes beyond the practical question that this book is here to answer. Between our two families, we have had three live births, four miscarriages, and three failed IVF rounds. Parenting will need to become better than it is today. That's what we, your authors, hope and believe. The opportunity cost hypothesis: Spending time on parenting means giving up something. Because the world has improved around us, that “something” is better than it used to be. In no case is there evidence that more support for parents predicts more births. Nobody— no expert, no theory— fully understands why birth rates, everywhere, in different cultures and contexts, are lower than ever before. I hope these excerpts compel you to buy the book. If you're still undecided, consider that the book features numerous graphs and illustrations that will rewire your brain. Buy After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People. Connect Send me an anonymous voicemail at SpeakPipe.com/FTapon You can post comments, ask questions, and sign up for my newsletter at https://wanderlearn.com. If you like this podcast, subscribe and share!  On social media, my username is always FTapon. Connect with me on: Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram TikTok LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr   Sponsors 1. My Patrons sponsored this show! Claim your monthly reward by becoming a patron for as little as $2/month at https://Patreon.com/FTapon 2. For the best travel credit card, get one of the Chase Sapphire cards and get 75-100k bonus miles! 3. Get $5 when you sign up for Roamless, my favorite global eSIM! Use code LR32K 4. Get 25% off when you sign up for Trusted Housesitters, a site that helps you find sitters or homes to sit in. 5. Start your podcast with my company, Podbean, and get one month free! 6. In the United States, I recommend trading cryptocurrency with Kraken.  7. Outside the USA, trade crypto with Binance and get 5% off your trading fees! 8. For backpacking gear, buy from Gossamer Gear.  

In dieser bewegenden Episode spricht Judith Möhlenhof offen über die schwierige Anfangszeit mit ihrem zweiten Kind – einem sogenannten „Schreibaby“. Auch Jahre später spürt man den emotionalen Schmerz, den diese Zeit bei ihr hinterlassen hat. Judith teilt, wie es war, Tag und Nacht mit einem untröstlichen Baby zu verbringen, die ständige Erschöpfung, das fehlende Verständnis von außen und die Hilflosigkeit, die sie als Mutter empfand. Vier intensive Jahre voller Zweifel, Spurensuche und Mini-Erfolge, aber auch ohne das ersehnte Patentrezept. Heute geht sie reflektiert und ehrlich mit dieser Erfahrung um – und macht damit anderen betroffenen Eltern Mut. Eine Folge über emotionale Tiefen, mentale Kraft und das, was bleibt. Ihr seid nicht allein!

"Rückschläge im Business – Wie du daran wächst, statt daran zu zerbrechen"

Das Q&A mit GENETIKK jetzt auf PATREON:http://www.patreon.com/diedeutschenpodcast/membershipGENETIKK (Kappa & Sikk) sprechen offen über die Musikindustrie, Selbstzensur, Medien, Ghostwriting, Kunstfreiheit und ihren Weg abseits des Mainstreams.In dieser Folge geht's nicht nur um Rap – sondern um Wahrheit, Kontrolle, Selbstbestimmung und künstlerische Unabhängigkeit. Zwischen Medienkritik, Philosophie und Stilbewusstsein zeigen GENETIKK, warum sie mehr sind als nur ein Musikprojekt.Ehrlich, unbequem, unzensiert – ein Gespräch, das bleibt.Alle Kanäle | Genetikkhttps://www.instagram.com/genetikkhttps://www.facebook.com/genetikkhttps://outtathisworld.comhttps://open.spotify.com/intl-de/artist/41LLNWUptvfbQ9Q7oCefmgAlle Kanäle | Die Deutschenhttps://linktr.ee/diedeutschen

Drei Babys auf einmal – statt einem dritten Kind bekam Caro Ferreira Santos Philipp (@triplets_of_hamburg) Drillinge. Plötzlich war aus einer kleinen Familie eine große geworden. In dieser Folge von „Ehrlich gesagt“ – dem Podcast von Echte Mamas erzählt Caro, wie sie und ihre Familie auf die unerwartete Nachricht reagiert haben – und wie sie ihren turbulenten Alltag zwischen Windeln, Liebe und Familienchaos meistert. War Caro schon immer so entspannt? Oder musste sie in ihre Rolle als Mutter hineinwachsen? Eins steht fest: Muttersein ist ein Prozess – und Caro nimmt uns mit auf ihre ganz persönliche Reise. Offen, ehrlich und mit ganz viel Mut zur Gegenwart. Was sie dabei auszeichnet: Caro lebt ganz im Hier und Jetzt. Sie macht sich keine Sorgen über morgen, sondern lässt jeden Tag auf sich zukommen – mit einer Ruhe, die ansteckt. Eine echte Gabe der Gelassenheit, die sie heute durch das bunte Leben mit fünf Kindern trägt. Dabei spricht sie auch darüber, wie sehr sich ihr Leben schon mit dem ersten Kind veränderte – und wie sie die Fremdbestimmung durch das Baby damals empfand. Heute fühlt sie sich angekommen – mit viel Herz, Erfahrung und der Unterstützung ihres Mannes. Jetzt reinhören, abonnieren & weitersagen!

In this jam-packed episode, Andrea sits down with Laurie Ehrlich and Miriam Stein, co-founders of ThriveHive, to talk about the real-world challenges—and solutions—schools face with enrollment, marketing, and social media strategy. From building healthy teams to crafting intentional messaging, this episode is full of practical insights for any school ready to level up.4 Key Takeaways for Listeners:What simple shift could instantly bring more clarity and purpose to your school's social media posts?How often should your marketing and enrollment teams actually meet—and why does it matter?What behind-the-scenes systems can help you turn more inquiries into enrollments (without adding more stress)?Why fixing your team dynamics might be the unexpected key to filling your classrooms.SPECIAL GUESTSLaurie EhrlichCo-Founder + Marketing StrategistThrive Hive, MarylandMiriam SteinCo-Founder + Enrollment StrategistThrive Hive, MarylandEmail: hello@thrivehive.group Website: https://www.thrivehive.group/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/thrivehivegroup/ USEFUL INFORMATION

In einem neuen Heft des Fischer Verlags widmen sich Sebastian Guggolz und Roman Ehrlich grandiosen Flops und geistigen Sackgassen beim Schreiben. Die Biografien handeln von Anekdoten, aber auch von neuen Wegen, die sich durch das Scheitern ergeben. Ehrlich, Roman; Guggolz, Sebastian www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Lesart

We think we're so sure about what we know about science - did you know, though, that there are 48 catalogued forms of bias? There exists, and I was excited to learn this, a catalogue of bias that is constantly tweaked and updated. Which leads me to today's show with Dr Lewis Ehrlich - one of our most popular guests over the years. When I saw Lewis had been accepted into a one-of-a-kind postgraduate program in Evidence-Based Medicine and Healthcare at Oxford University last year, I was already excited about this conversation I knew we'd have for the show once he completed it!What's brilliant about this program is that you come together with people from outside your medical field - neurosurgeons, Oncologists, Orthopaedic Surgeons, Cardiologists, Public Health PhDs, and general practitioners- to conduct, analyse, critique, and improve scientific literature. It was a tremendous honour to be accepted into and learn at this historic University.We explore science in today's show, both generally and as it relates to Lewis's field of practice, dentistry. You'll hear about:Bias and how we both form them and become more aware of them in our own lives as we explore topicsNuance - it's all about who you are and what you need, and our system isn't built for thatThe need to leave our black and white frameworks in medical practice, while also not throwing everything we know out the windowThe fine line between curiosity and analysis, and suspicion and mistrustFluoride as an example - not always essential, not always ‘bad' either if you consider all relevant factors in a ‘to fluoridate or not' debateNew frontiers in dental healthWhat we know for sure helps us keep excellent oral health overall.Enjoy the show. AlexxWant to learn more about this week's guest?Instagram: @doctor.lewis ; @sydneyholisticdentalThank you to this month's show partners for joining us to help you make your low tox swaps!@Pureearthaustralia - a wonderful Aussie low tox brand to put on your radar with a commitment to local, closed-loop production, the purest, simplest of effective formulations and an accessible price point. Did I mention their incredibly well-considered packaging? This is for the ‘all of it matters to me' low toxer. 20% off until July 15 with code LOWTOXLIFE@ausclimate is our major partner giving you 10% off their range for the whole of 2025, with brilliant Winix Air Purifiers, the best Dehumidifiers I've ever used and their new energy-efficient heating, air-circulating and cooling range. code LOWTOXLIFE (also works over and above their sales - pro tip!) https://bit.ly/ShopAusclimateBe sure to join me on Instagram (@lowtoxlife) and tag me if this one resonates!Want to support the Low Tox Life podcast?Free option: Leave a 5 star review wherever you listen to Low Tox Life - thanks SO much!Paid + Member PERKS: Join the Low Tox Club - Check it out and join here for just the price of a coffee per month and lots of low tox perks! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

RFP - Rojava - the Kurdish women's revolution in Northern Syria discussed by Anne Ehrlich & Bodil Reller.A live webinar recorded on 22nd June 2025 at 10am UK time.On Sundays (10am UK time), our webinar series Radical Feminist Perspectives offers a chance to hear leading feminists discuss radical feminist theory and politics.Attendance of our live webinars is women-only, register at https://bit.ly/registerRFP

Ehrlich!

Welcome back to the Shame List Picture Show. In this episode, we're cracking open The Shawshank Redemption, and we're thrilled to be joined by the thoughtful and passionate Robyn Ehrlich. The post Shame List Picture Show S9E9 – The Shawshank Redemption (1994) feat. Robyn Ehrlich appeared first on Cinepunx.