Show newer
Empiricism

Title – One Planet

The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).

Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)

Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.

Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).

Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)

However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.

To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).

There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)

Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.

There are many well-intended people in & that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.

More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)

People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)

That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).

However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).

Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).

The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)

Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)

In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.

To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas)

Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.

1. One Planet Development Policy oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. dsawsp.org/environment/climate

3. The Soil Association. soilassociation.org/

0
Empiricism

It's interesting juxtaposing the following podcasts that are generally about the same subject of , therefore, mitigating

The Optimist podcast generally discusses the subjects within a free-market neoliberal paradigm. For example, Going Green or Greenwashing? climateoptimists.co/episodes/g

Whilst the Crazy Town Podcast generally infers that the neoliberalist free market economy is part of the core business as a usual problem (therefore won't mitigate climate change). For example, Tech Bros on Acid with Douglas Rushkoff resilience.org/stories/2022-11

The Climate Optimists Podcast generally advocates that businesses should be encouraged to, for example, put more accurate "green" information on the product labels and hope that the consumers make the right choices. Whilst the Crazy Town podcast generally advocates that is the solution & we can't trust the neoliberal "free" market to not spread .

The Crazy Town doesn't put a positive spin on the challenge to mitigate climate change. It does suggest solutions, though those solutions are not generally the same as the neoliberal consumerist solutions suggested by the Positive Climate podcast. For example, you won't hear the Crazy Town podcast hosts advocating that everyone should buy electric cars. Whilst the Climate Optimist Podcast hosts generally promote electrifying everything and they didn't explicitly state how that conflicts with sustainable development - the mining companies are planning on extracting minerals from the ocean floor (Degrading pristine wildlife habitat. Well, "pristine" besides the plastic particle pollution). theguardian.com/environment/20

The Climate Optimist Podcast is promoting more of a business-as-usual-light option (neoliberal consumerism). Having said that, the Climate Optimist podcast has some effective ideas regarding how to mitigate the issues related to climate apathy in politics (e.g., especially the party).

This will happen! (the future) - However, as the effects of climate change inevitably negatively impact more USA voters, you will start to hear a very different narrative from the Republican party (i.e., they will change their narratives to address their core voter's concerns about climate change).

The time of climate apathy will be over when climate change is negatively effecting all people's lives (in a global economy. e.g., food prices \ supplies)

0
Empiricism

What are "tipping points"?

Climate tipping points are termed positive feedback loops or positive reinforcers.

Basically, Increasing the "X" variable increases the "Y" variable.

For example, (X) is increasing the risk of (Y) scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?a

Wildfires are fundamentally Carbon being burnt (Carbon Based lifeforms. e.g., plants and animals) which releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere.

Human activities are burning carbon-based fuels ("Fossil" fuels & Biomass [e.g., wood fuel]), which release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere, which in turn cause more wildfires, which release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere - that's a positive reinforcer (although not "positive" within the colloquial [common] use of the word)

Wildfires are only one of many known positive climate heating reinforcers (there may also be some unknown reinforcers). Another climate reinforcer is how climate heating is causing the melting of permafrost. Permafrost is any ground that remains completely frozen—32°F (0°C) or colder—for at least two years straight. Permafrost covers large regions of the Earth. Areas closer to the North or South pole have regions of permafrost that have been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years. livescience.com/planet-earth/a

Permafrost soils also contain large quantities of organic carbon. As Earth’s climate warms, the permafrost is thawing. This means that the organic carbon will decompose and release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere - another positive climate heating reinforcer.

"State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes" Nature. (2019). doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-087

Generally speaking, humans are not mitigating climate change, the effect of climate change is mitigating humans. However, whilst it's not impossible (it's an unknown unknown) that human greenhouse gas emitting activities could cause a climate heating runaway effect due to positive reinforcers, the general scientific literature (evidence), infers that the fewer greenhouse gases humans emit, the fewer ecological limiting factors will curtail humans.

Mitigating the existential threat of human-caused climate change is a precautionary approach. However, the data on greenhouse gas emissions clearly shows that industries are not taking the precautionary approach. ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

Of course, industries supply the fuels, the machinery, etc, that enable people to take part in activities that burn fuels, etc. Many industries are evidently aiming to continue to burn fuels as are many consumers. Many businesses are aiming to continue to farm ruminants (e.g., sheep & cows that emit relatively high amounts of methane)

What is going to limit people from burning carbon-based fuels? (emitting greenhouse gases). The decisions of industries, politicians, and consumers? Well, that has not been the trend.

Generally, in wealthy countries, the effects of climate change, which are causing more localized severe weather such as heatwaves or flash floods, are causing politicians and industries to respond in ways that advocate activities that emit more greenhouse gases (more fossil fuels being burnt) into the atmosphere. For example, constructing more flood defenses. Repairing the damaged infrastructure caused by severe heatwaves such as repairing roads. This is another example of positive climate heating reinforcers. Generally, industries are leading the way (rather than focusing on nature-based solutions such as reforestation <<< that go against the farming industries' business models)

Whilst the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are a predictor of climate heating (there is a time lag), so is human behavioral psychology. In other words, habits (repetitive activities), politics, business decisions, lifestyles, and activities in general.

In many contexts, even when adults are informed that their fuel-burning activities are causing the climate to change in harmful ways, many adults don't even try to reduce their fuel-burning activities. When they're informed that eating meat is a leading cause of climate change, they generally ignore this information.

This blog post generally considers the psychology of those that are evidently not trying to reduce their fuel-burning activities (quite the opposite). empiricalperspective.home.blog

0
Empiricism

The graph shows that greenhouse gas emissions are rising (a trend). This trend also infers the general trends of human behaviors.

Therefore, it's rational to forecast that humanity, or business, politics, and lifestyles as usual, will not mitigate climate change (in general).

As mitigates humanity, and more positive reinforcers come into effect, how long will mono-industrial consumerist societies be able to function?

During this period (present & future) of escalating climate change-related disruption, what forms of culture will emerge?

0
Empiricism

Generally, many people want to sing kumbaya around a campfire whilst deluding themselves that the campfire's smoke emissions aren't toxic.

However, for those that are aware that the is now inevitable (it is already happening - depending on location), The Post Carbon Institutes Crazy Town podcast is a more sane analysis of all things climate-related

Crazy Town: Episode 75. How to Lose Friends and Demoralize People: The (sic!) of Near-Term resilience.org/stories/2023-05.

The photograph is of some crazy-looking clever guy called Einstein, who apparently said "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Of course, within the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, most people (of the world) aren't expecting different results - they're simply either being forced (e.g., gotta pay the rent) or choosing to take part in work and recreational activities that are emitting greenhouse gas emissions.

One thing is for sure, as usual is friggin crazy considering the consequences.

0
Empiricism

Are you wanting that holiday abroad? Are you thinking about booking that Jet ✈️ travel trip?

Do you like to kid yourself?, at least in public, that you care about how Greenhouse gases are heating up the Planet's atmosphere? 🤔

Well then, you will want to hear that the WashGreen Airways travel company is offering environmentally friendly Air travel 😀 This means, the more you travel with WashGreen Airways, the more you are helping to save the Planet 😀

Also, every WashGreen customer will be entered into a prize draw with the chance of winning the unfamous book "An idiots guide to not being able to be Honest (even to yourself)"

0
Empiricism

Greetings!

Who regulates the regulators? Who regulates the admin? The answer, generally, is no one! They can decide to delete your account, without a warning, at a whim (e.g. if they're in a bad mood, etc) If the admin suspends (deletes) your account, that means you can’t move your account to another instance (you have to start a new one). Account suspension prevents you from transferring the "followers" list. That list could be your friends, colleagues, lover, whistle-blower, you name it.

Effectively, there is zero accountability for Mastodon servers! So, when you read posts that say it doesn't matter what Mastodon server you join, that’s misinformation! Ideally, you’d know and trust the admin personally - that’s the most secure way to protect your data (but, not usually practical). Now if you complain, many admins will say, to paraphrase “You can always run your own server!”. Like they think everyone has the time and resources to do so (it’s just their way of avoiding the problems associated with the network)

My previous account was "suspended", without warning and with no written reason given, by the admin of climate justice social (the irony) climatejustice.social/@empiric . I just received an email that said “Account suspended. You can no longer use your account, and your profile and other data are no longer accessible. You can still login to request a backup of your data until the data is fully removed in about 30 days, but we will retain some basic data to prevent you from evading the suspension”

But, as mentioned. You can’t transfer your followers list (effectively, unless you have copied all the followers' addresses – the admin has deleted them!)

I assume the account deletion was because I'd made an accusation public (a private message from the admin), regarding the unfair conduct of ecoevo.social and climatejustice.social admin (they prefer to do their account warnings, etc, behind the scenes. i.e., no public accountability for their decisions). I posted publicly a link to a conversation I had with another person, in which I said that the OP was being prejudiced. In my public post, I linked to the conversation (made it public) that I was being warned of (by the admin). I asked people (the public on Mastodon) what do they think about the conversation? But, before I received any replies, the account was suspended (deleted).

I've asked this before on Mastodon without receiving any reasonable answer. How can anyone trust Mastodon if people can't backup up their own followers' list? There is no agency in the current system. A server could crash, the owner may just decide to close it or run out of money to finance it, etc.

So, this is a security flaw that should be addressed. The only reason I can think of why this security flaw isn’t been addressed (openly talked about with the seriousness it deserves) is that the server owners, don't believe it’s in their interest. However, evidently, it’s in the Mastodon community's interest to have a system in which they can easily back up the follower's list and have some democratic accountability from the admin. Fundamentally, it should not be up to the servers admin to delete a person's followers list (not even Twitter, Facebook, etc, would do that without any warning! Well, maybe they would, I haven’t used those networks in years)

What methods can a user of the network use to back up the "followers" list? (since the software developers seem to be against it) The last time I asked this, the reply I received, I assume from an admin was to quote "You can download a copy of your follows list". Evidently, intentionally tried to avoid the question I was asking because I stated the “followers” list.

So, can Mastodon be a better alternative to , etc? or is this just lip service? Because business as usual is the money controlling the general flow of information! (& that’s a form of corruption).

For the Fediverse to be decentralized, people will be able to connect to the network without any “middlemen” (that’s a given). So, can we have an adult discussion about what’s best for a social media network? Without it being monopolized and parasitized by the age-old corruption of social power (e.g. money). I doubt it, but…..

or

1

climate

45

psychology

31

sustainability

31

climatechange

20

science

19

degrowth

13
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.

Trending now

Resources

Developers

What is Mastodon?

qoto.org

More…

v3.5.19-qoto · Privacy policy