Empiricism @Empiricism_Reloaded@qoto.org

@BruceMirken

Lots of money though in the rich countries (it's almost as if folk don't know how to, are being prevented from, or don't want to change their eco-degrading habits).

Let us redistribute resources toward sustainable solutions and restore land (nature-based solutions).

When the powers that be (business as usual status quo) are incompetent & keep making the wrong decisions and doing the wrong actions...?

People have to find ways to be part of the obvious solutions https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

@TruthSandwich

So you're not interested in sustainability? More your own wealth? (e.g., same as Elon Musk?)

Well, you are not alone in having that personal "I want". I also infer neoliberalism has a nurtured selfish greed-based form of reasoning that's not healthy for the (common good of the ) community and isn't ecologically sustainable.

Elon Musk is a typical definition of a neo-liberal. Elon is a "bit" of a narcissist.

Crazy Town: Episode 77. The Elon Musk Episode about Elon Musk Brought to You by Elon Musk https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-06-14/crazy-town-episode-77-muskitude/

Are you now going to tell me that Elon isn't a Neoliberalist? What's your economic word for - rich people trashing the planet's ecosystems so as to pursue their vanity projects?

@TruthSandwich

Well then, since we are not going to agree on the definition of these words and you keep stating what I don't understand ("at all"), without explaining anything I might add, why are you wasting your time by replying to my posts?

Of course, you're free to do so, but....

If anyone reads this article https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020 and the referenced (further reading) links, they clearly understand that the OPD approach explains everything in relatively easy-to-do detail.

Some people simply don't want to hear the evidenced-based solutions.

@TruthSandwich

What matters most?

The price of solar panels

Or

The environmental impact plus social costs (e,g., poor workers' rights) to source the material and manufacture those products?

What use is there in cheaper products when cheaper often means more ecological damage or inhumane working conditions? (caveat. in certain forms of badly regulated economies)

@TruthSandwich

Explain your ecological sustainable definition of "economical"?. For if your idea isn't ecologically sustainable, then evidently it's only "economical" (generally for those that benefit from the system) in the short term.

The One Planet Development (OPD) approach that I keep referring to https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020 is sustainable economics (there are few technicalities with OPD. However, economic #degrowth solves many of the environmental issues that are being caused by overconsumption of resources and pollution).

Economics isn't some dark art, it's simply trading resources. In fact, you could even have an economy that didn't use money (just saying). The OPD approach can use standard currency plus OPD land owners may share \ trade resources with their neighbors.

You asked earlier what I mean by neoliberalism. As mentioned on the wiki page, one ideology of neo-liberalism is a growth of a global economy (more resources and more pollution. No wonder greenhouse gases aren't reducing)

@TruthSandwich

Are you agreeing with your own narrative or are you explaining what people will do when profit is the economy's primary directive?

"Cheaper" also includes slave labor which is how some metals are mined.

How 'modern-day slavery' in the Congo powers the rechargeable battery economy https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara

However, people could actually live a sustainable lifestyle that would use the available metals already in circulation (e.g., by using private vehicles as salvage & a public transport system << vast reduction in resources and power requirements). https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

There is a distinct difference between those of us that want to walk the sustainability walk and those that are simply full of talk. Many are the latter.

The general long-term (lifestyle \ culture) solutions to transition & adapt human behaviors (activities) away from an ecologically damaging, climate-changing civilization towards an ecological & climate-sustaining civilization are known. https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

Business As Usual (BAU) tries to continue by generally doing more of the same (BAU is "baked" into the BAU economy & those that only think in BAU terms). For example, BAU is promoting more mining for resources which means more damage to nature (wildlife habitats) and more pollution.

BAU owns land that BAU doesn't want to use for nature restoration.

This means that BAU will continue to not meet its own BAU greenhouse gas reduction targets (BAU's aim is crap as it keeps missing climate-related targets).

Because BAU has generally done a less-than-crap Job at reducing the BAU greenhouse gas emissions (because BAU emissions are rising https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions), BAU is now planning for a future where the effects of climate change are much worse. BAU won't stop BAU so BAU is trying to adapt to climate change by doing more BAU (that makes "sense" for BAU). For example, BAU is about using more resources and power (e.g., burning more "fossil" fuels) to construct higher flood defenses. Basically, BAU is about exploiting nature so as to extract resources and power BAU technologies (& make tech BAU folk rich by selling BAU products).

So, as BAU continues to degrade nature in the name of BAU (e.g., promoting & sell more BAU products & services), more people will come to realize that BAU is the problem. We can't solve a problem by doing more of the BAU problem (but problems make BAU people money...so, go figure).

When more people accept that BAU is the problem, then, and only then, will more people think about the real solutions to prevent humans from damaging #nature, therefore, changing the #climate. In other words, scale down BAU before it's too late to prevent the worst climate impacts https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

When it's clear that BAU is failing to mitigate climate change (what will that take?) - because climate change is causing more harm to people's lives. When it's clear that BAU is the cause of climate change, then humans will change BAU.

The Planet's climate doesn't consider what we want. It will show what we can't have and that's a BAU ( #economy \ #politics ) that's damaging and polluting nature as friggin usual.

#business #economic #psychology #sustainabilty #ecology #nature #wildlife #CarbonSequestration #reforetration #PeatLands

#ClimateChange is being caused by human activities such as mining & burning fuels. Therefore, it's nonsense for people to think that the solution to mitigate #climate change is to do more of the problem.

For example, the crazy idea of building machines to "suck" or "capture" CO2 out of the atmosphere will require more resources (mining) & power to construct & power the crazy CO2 sucking machines.

The "solutions" can't be doing more of the business as usual problems.
https://www.resilience.org/crazy-town-podcast/

@freemo @TruthSandwich

It's been an insightful discussion. Time for me to bid you both goodnight (or whatever is the time in your time zones).

The One Planet Development approach will be adopted by more countries (over the next decade or so). Expecting business-as-usual to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change is akin to asking an arsonist to put out the fire.

@freemo @TruthSandwich

Isn't that the point? The science of climatology and ecology is inferring that the future is going to "look" bad if we don't change (business as usual). In fact, have you seen the news, the present isn't looking to rosey as the effects of climate change become more evident.

@TruthSandwich @freemo

"It’s hard to predict what technologies will become practical"

Exactly, and since climate change is an existential threat, it would be foolish to gamble that some future technology may become practical.

Better to be safe than sorry! ( yea right! If only that was the general way industries conduct business we wouldn't be facing a climate crisis)

Maybe the profit agenda isn't based on the best solutions - but on the most profitable methods?

@TruthSandwich @freemo

Agroecology is the evidence-based solution to grow food and restore nature, whilst using a minimal amount of fuel. Agroecology isn't an industrial method, so, folk looking to make a big profit are probably going to ignore the nature-based solutions.

@TruthSandwich @freemo

So you don't perceive that degrading an ecosystem is an ecological problem?

"We take CO2 out of the air and then return it"

And how much resources and power will this "CO2 out of the air" method consume?

@TruthSandwich @freemo

"Nah, the problem is that you don’t think like an engineer"

So, do you think that mitigating climate change is fundamentally an engineering problem?

No need to be personal just because I don't agree with everything you write.