Empiricism @Empiricism_Reloaded@qoto.org

Can we trust the media? The written and spoken language \ information on the internet, TV, Radio, or newspapers?

Trust and understanding are not the same qualities. Some people have learned (understand) how to perform heart surgery and some people trust that some people understand how to perform heart surgery. Generally, we can demarcate the media into social information (e.g., general news & politics) and empirical evidence (science). Empirical evidence is scientific information based on experimental data. For example, anyone can (eventually) develop a basic scientific experiment such as measuring the temperature at 12 am every day of the week & calculating the average temperature for that week (at 12 am). In that context, they'd follow a method that would mean they were personally confident of the results of the experiment (if they understood the right methods to use and the accuracy of the instruments. e.g., a calibrated thermometer). I described that example of a basic experiment as a basis to show how science (experiments) is the most accurate (reliable) method to collect real-world data.

However, there are people that are not interested in science and or don’t want other people to be informed of the science. On social media, many problems occur because there are less or more trustworthy intermediaries (agents) between that scientific information and the general audience (the population of people). So, even if a person was sincere and wanted to be informed of that data (science), a biased agent may try to misinform people about the science - as often happens with climate science because there is a lot of money, business interests, and lifestyle bias, associated with ecological degradation (i.e., corruption & biased personal agendas in general). Or laypeople may misconstrue the science they read and pass on misinformation (unintentionally).

I'd advise sincere people to go directly to the source of the science. That being the scientific publications (The abstracts provide a general overview). Or an established scientific organization's website. Science journalism may also be a credible source of information (if the articles are well-referenced with scientific publications). Be cautious of sciencey-sounding social media that does not reference scientific publications.

Science Journals peer review and publish scientists' research. Browse, search, and explore journals indexed in the Web of Science https://mjl.clarivate.com/home

Be cautious of science-sounding posts or toots on Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Especially in the context of ecological sustainability (e.g., “climate”, “ecology”), there are many social media posts from people that write science-sounding narratives. Many of these people will believe in their own sciencey-sounding rhetoric. The folk rhetoric tends to be caused by a mix of cherry-picked science (confirmation bias), personal beliefs, & biased agendas caused by a lifestyle preference (e.g., work and money-related personal biases that cause confirmation bias). Folk “science” or pseudoscience is a ratio of science journalism, wishful thinking, denial, thoughtlessness, virtue signaling, and more explicit forms of dishonesty (not including those that deny all science). Layperson bias or folk science is even more pronounced In the context of environmental sciences such as climate science. The environmental sciences' core message (consensus) is that many people, especially in technologically developed countries such as the USA (most greenhouse gases per capita), need to change their consumerism lifestyles (not a popular message). In other words, the general evidence infers that many people will have to change their lifestyles if we are to mitigate climate change (e.g., reduce greenhouse gases, etc.). On social media (i.e., the “mainstreams” social narratives) the signs are that the majority of people are, well, like the majority of countries, advocating an unsustainable lifestyle (their personal lifestyles).

How to develop a sustainable culture https://empiricalperspective.home.blog/2023/06/08/one-planet-sustainability/

The (published) evidence about climate change is the general scientific literature (the consensus). A random person's opinion or a post on social media is not a trusted source of information (they maybe trustworthy. But how do you know that? unless you know them personally). Not even a climatologist (a scientist who studies the climate) on social media should be a person's only source of trusted information about the climate. Scientists are people, and some people can be bought or adjust their views due to their own financial situation. The point is to be aware (informed) of the general scientific consensus on a subject such as climate change. And be aware that there are many people that don’t want that consensus to be generally known.

For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

There are a few, but popular (influential), celebrity scientists or talk show hosts on Youtube that disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. The fact that some people are believing in the opinions of individual scientists that are not even qualified in climatology just shows how people, in general, tend to believe what they want to believe. That's why many people "cherry" pick the science they like and disregard & or deny the science that they don't like (who likes the fact that human activities, for example, buying sports cars, fast fashion or the latest “must-have” technology, is damaging the planet's ecosystems, therefore, causing climate change?)

Besides science, the other source of information is generally social media (whilst science is also a social enterprise, however, fundamentally, science is the data). Social media such as news and political information. People's opinions, beliefs and views, etc., are a more or less accurate source of information. Social media news may be biased towards only reporting certain news and political agendas. However, having a broad (e.g., not only technology-related) scientific education helps in all walks of life. It's never too late to learn more science. I'd recommend that a person starts with the philosophy of science (i.e., the epistemology of science) alongside learning the subjects of science. A rudimentary understanding of chemistry, biology, ecology (life science), and physics can inoculate people against misinformation and help them make better personal choices (e.g., health-related choices). The only reason why people can be, for example, greenwashed, is because they haven't developed a sufficient understanding of the relevant science subjects and they trust those who are either misinformed themselves or out to disinform them (e.g., generally industries if the prevailing science doesn't align with their profit agendas. In the context of the environmental science, it rarely does).

The only substitute for knowledge is faith. Even in science, we have to have some faith that the paper we are reading has not been based on intentionally false data. However, as scientists we learn to cross-reference our understanding and base our understanding on multitudes of converging data sources (interdisciplinary research). For example, if I reference one scientific paper that's only because it references the general literature that I have already studied. One paper's new discovery should always be considered tentative evidence. In other words, scientists don't report a novel new discovery as a fact - if that fact is only based on one research paper. Though laypeople often do. (And possibly some naive scientists). The general scientific consensus is the most reliable source of information. Of course, new discoveries are made (science updates), however, the point is that established science is and always will be based on the consensus. For example, Darwin and Wallace independently developed a hypothesis termed evolution. At that time (1800's) evolution was a novel discovery. Now, evolution is the general scientific consensus. It would be odd for a biologist to not accept the theory of evolution as all the evidence indicates that evolution is how life evolved (But, as mentioned, the odd scientists can be bought. i.e., charlatans (go rogue) or believe in their own misunderstandings.

We could also take the same cross reference of information sources approach regarding our news feeds. Don't rely on only one source of information (e.g., one News provider). Depending on the country that could be more of a problem (e.g., state-owned media is by definition a biased and restricted source of information). That's the other important point, who owns and controls the media? (a free press is fundamental for a healthy democracy). People that only watch Fox News (USA) or only read the DailyMail (UK) are not the most informed people (to understate it). Recently, people began leaving #Twitter because the new owner is explicitly using the social platform for his own business and (geo)political agenda (corporations tend to spread virtuous-sounding narratives so as to manage their social reputation). In this context, #mastodon is more robust because it's connected to a less centralized #fediverse network - so information can flow more freely as there isn't one corporation controlling what information is and is not regulated. Though the quality (reliability or usefulness) of information that is spread throughout the #fediverse network is dependent on the people using it & the instance moderators.

As for a person's personality. A sincere person that is diligently trying to find out the facts - is what good scientists, investigative journalists, etc., are. An insincere person that is trying to spread misinformation (lies \ fraud) – is less of a useful individual (though could be very rich. e.g., a fossil fuel executive or shareholder)

#climate #science #news #tv #twitter #mastodon #philosophy #epistemology #chemistry #biology #ecology #psychology

#futuregen

The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you. (GRETA THUNBERG, 2019 UN Climate Action Summit)

We hope that what #Wales does today, the world will do tomorrow. Action, more than words, is the hope for our current and future generations. (NIKHIL SETH, head of sustainable development, United Nations Development Programme)

#sustainability #book #climate #ClimateAction https://janedavidson.wales/press-and-reviews

Title – One Planet #Sustainability

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) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

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. https://www.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 #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (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. https://www.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 #climatology (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) #psychology

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

1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

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

3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/

#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy

#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution

The enemy of reason and nature.

This article is a response to the reply (in quotes) I received from someone about my One Planet #Sustainability article. That article can be read here https://empiricalperspective.home.blog/2023/06/08/one-planet-sustainability/

Or here https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

The reply to my article “Yes. What ideas do you have on how we XR (Extinction Rebellion) Psychologists could promote One Planet development? Always good to encourage methods that enable change, and to share examples of where action has made a tangible difference in reducing power and resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and increasing fairness. Wales as a small country is surely ahead on this… as explained in your links. Maybe Jane Davison's book would be a good read for the future https://janedavidson.wales/book “

The response. How to promote One Planet Development (OPD)?

Fundamentally, it’s all about resources and power (to sustain a modern way of life. e.g., a health & education system).

The core message of OPD is that living an ecologically low-impact lifestyle is achievable because it’s evidently practically possible and, for an unknown number of people, is a desirable way of life. This core message is important as many people either falsely believe that OPD is difficult or actively try to suppress the relevant knowledge (e.g., industries using disinformation against their competition). Reducing power and resource consumption will mean many industries will be scaled down in size (e.g., the aviation industry, the private transport industry, the agricultural industries and of course the fossil fuel industries). There is a world of business-as-usual related bias that promotes a short-term monetary agenda (not an OPD agenda). So, we can refer to the OPD (& its location-dependent variations. Should other countries adopt similar planning policies as Wales) as an evidence-based example of how OPD policies can encourage low ecological impact ways of living (At the moment, politics generally hinders OPD. E.g., the land is expensive & most often not used for OPD).

In the context of improving equity (fairness), the OPD approach should ideally provide land grants for those that agree to develop the land sustainably (however, due to politics [business-as-usual] that’s unlikely to happen in the short term). Basically, we have to turn the tide on ecological degradation sooner (as the OPD shows, it’s relatively easily possible. Politics is the problem). The longer we wait, the harder it becomes to conserve and restore natural habitats (due to the effects of climate change, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, etc.). To be clear, the OPD doesn’t have to be for everyone, the OPD is the general method that enables the overall society to have more of a resource and carbon budget (e.g., evidently, healthcare workers are as important as people that are taking care of nature whilst growing food & producing other sustainable products)

The OPD meets all the criteria for a sustainable (low ecological impact) and equitable culture by:

1. Conserving & or restoring nature via growing food within a (science of) agroecological framework.

2. Permitting (not restricting) people to have more agency by owning (part sharing \ cooperatives) their own land that they work, rest and play on (a culture).

3. Low-impact construction (low resources) and low power requirements (e.g., locally, using solar, wind, water and thermal energy to generate electricity when required. Batteries from non-mined biodegradable materials are physically possible).

There are also many social aspects to OPD. However, point 2 (an agency in a transparent democracy) will mitigate many of the social problems & ecological problems associated with big industries (i.e., privately owned corporations). The 2nd core message relates to freedom. Governments should be “encouraged” to develop policies that enable the people that want to, to live ecologically light lifestyles (rather than being in rent traps and working for a minimum wage for polluting industries, for example). The OPD paradigm should be scaled up locally, nationally and internationally. For example, public transport (not private) is the method that uses the least amount of resources and power. Furthermore, OPD will also have other cost and health-saving benefits. OPD will encourage a healthier way of life than sitting in polluted traffic Jams, for example. A healthier OPD lifestyle will reduce the resources and power requirements required for a national health system. Free health care, education, housing [land] and a transparent (accountable) democracy are the pinnacles of social equality.

The OPD is a paradigm shift in political and economic thinking (i.e., it’s the opposite of the unsustainable business-as-usual ideology of economic “growth” [i.e., expansion]). That shift is putting people (social) first within an ecologically sustainable way of providing resources and power. (then, anything is possible. Within reason).

The following is a side note regarding what I term the enemy of sustainable development. Therefore, fundamentally, the enemy of nature.

A side note regarding the general human population. In any population of adults, there are liars, cheats and abusive people that walk among us. For them, evidence or truth is merely more ideas that are mixed up with their overall sense of subjective reality. Because of their psychology, they are mixed up in their own web of lies. Because their ideologies are not based on sincerity, they only use science or truth within the context of trying to win an agenda. Whilst these people may be more or less honest in their social in-groups, in the context of what they perceive is their competition, they will lie and manipulate people if they associate that behaviour with “winning” and covering up their personal moral transgressions. “Winning” is the core point. They’re not trying to find the evidence like a diligent scientist or investigative journalist, nor do they care about the truth when competing against what they perceive is their social rivals (e.g., what they accuse others of). In fact, they intentionally make up stories about the people that they perceive are their rivals. Mr Trump, the former president of the USA shows all these antisocial behaviours. He doesn’t care about scientific facts (e.g., climate change), other than when he is promoting his core political agenda. Trump will slander his political opposition with no evidence to back up in claims. For example, during the last presidential election that Trump lost, even though the evidence suggested that the election results were generally accurate, Trump intentionally spread the lie that the election was rigged (& gaslit his followers by calling the election a “big lie”). He was speaking to his faithful followers – folk that do not base their understanding on science – if the evidence doesn’t align with their beliefs. Basically, they trust a source of information (Trump) that will lie and cheat if he believes that will help him “win”. Mr Trump has rich financial backers that regularly express their distaste for democracy. Therefore, when Mr Trump says that other people are a danger to democracy, that’s simply more gaslighting (Trump lives a web of lies – he also doesn’t know fact from fiction because he doesn’t understand the difference between fact and fiction). Trump is a socio-political and business animal (& not a sincere one at that). Trump's financial supporters and followers are a mix of very rich sociopaths (e.g., fascists that express racists views) that intentionally spread propaganda for socio-political and economic reasons and everyday folk that believe that Trump is on their side (e.g., because Trump says he’s an American Christian, etc. Although, his rhetoric conveniently doesn’t mention that the teachings of Jesus were against greed and corruption (the rich and powerful). i.e., another example of simply spreading the information that promotes Trump's financial agendas (& those who financially support his brand of geopolitics). Trump has been known to be a supporter of President Putin. It’s difficult to know what goes on behind closed doors (e.g., private corporations), however, it’s evidently corruption.

One Planet Development (OPD) is a way to establish a sustainable economy & culture in general. Climate change is generally caused by the neo-liberal wealthy group think culture (e.g., a free market capitalist economy that is badly regulated). For example, the more money people have, the more they tend to consume resources in the neo-liberal economy. The “Billionaire” class are an extreme example of how the neo-liberal definition of success is a death sentence to our planet. However, OPD means shrinking the many wasteful sectors of the present dominant economy. That means that many of the “successful” business-as-usual agents will lose out financially. Their definition of “success” (“wealth”, “power”. i.e., social status) is the unsustainable losing side.

In a world where there are many liars and cheats (especially when money is involved – they even lie to themselves), the OPD approach plus mitigating climate change in general, attracts the worst of humanity. They have and do try to spread doubt about environmental science (e.g., climate change, air pollution). They will and do try to slander those that are trying to inform people about science (e.g., scientists). Because the evidence would cost them (money, etc). To add to this web of lies are the people that simply don’t know how to inform themselves of empirically based information (information that’s based on evidence. e.g., real-world scientific experiments). These people often trust the false sources of information that the liars and cheats spread. Therefore, they unknowingly spread false information as they believe it’s true.

Facts and Truth are not technically the same. People can learn the technical facts about how an electric motor works. Humans constructed electric motors because humans learnt the facts about electromagnetism and mechanics in general. However, a person could lie to another about the science of electromagnetism, climate change, medicine, etc. To reiterate, liars and cheats may or may not understand the facts – the point is, they only promote the facts that they believe are promoting their personal agendas and lie about those facts that don’t (honesty isn’t their general policy).

In summary – you can’t trust a liar! But, many people do unknowingly trust liars. Broadly, a habituated liar (lying is a norm for them) is a form of anti-social behaviour. Whilst they also lie to the people in their in-groups so as to try and slander an in-group rival, they also lie about the people that they perceive are their out-group rivals. Generally, they lie about those people & organisations of people that they perceive are their political or economic rivals (e.g., propaganda).

This represents the mere tip of the “iceberg” – “For nearly three decades, many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.” https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

What lies beneath is a world of business and lifestyle as usual people and their personal biases. Whether that misinformation is intentional or not, makes no difference within the context of ecological sustainability – for it is human actions (activities) that either sustain the planet's life support systems or not. So, next time you hear a rich person saying “climate……blah blah blah”, judge them by their actions, not their words (excuses won’t mitigate climate change).

“many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public”

Many of the general public were (& are) deceived because they trusted the source of information that they want to believe in (i.e., “faith”). They trust the information that tells them what they want to hear. That makes them feel good about their air-polluting lifestyles, etc.

The One Planet Development approach is based on practical guidance that clearly shows how to mitigate climate change by reducing resource requirements, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and generally developing low ecological impact lifestyles that grow food whilst also conserving and restoring nature. We have the solutions (no doubt) to mitigate ecological degradation, therefore, climate change. Therefore, the core problem is psychological (e.g., the politics of gossip). The liars and cheats, the ignorant and greedy that are not seeking solutions to mitigate climate change. They’re trying to sustain their unsustainable ways of life. “Business-as-usual” is human social psychology as usual.

I realise that this may sound like a conspiracy. Who are they? However, they are not some unknown secret organisation. They could be the person that abusers people behind closed doors (i.e., domestic abuse) though seems OK when out in public. They could be the salesperson that lies to your face so as to try and make that sale. They could be the person that intentionally tries to make a cruel remark but tries to gaslight the offended by saying it was “only a joke”. They are the haters that are prejudiced. They are the nationalists that hate all people from a country because of what their governments did or do. They are the people that generally have extreme forms of social psychology (e.g., religious, political and economic agendas that are extremely competitive against those they perceive as their rivals in their in-groups and out-groups). They are the aggressors that use propaganda to justify a war that they intentionally started. They are the fuel industries and their economic and political associates that lie about science. “They” are a long list of moral transgressors. However, ultimately, they can’t win for they’re unknowingly competing against the force of nature (reality. e.g., the physics of climate change). Climate change is their nemesis.

The One Planet Development approach is a method to mitigate the ecological negative effects of their losing ideologies. Their unsustainable ways of living. Their maladapted social psychology (e.g., antisocial behaviours).

#climate #sustainability #psychology #politics #economics #nature #wildlife

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

When people such as #elonmusk don't want the #nature based solutions to mitigate #climate change because they're more interested in selling and using #technology

Or when a politician doesn't believe in climate change or hasn't got a clue how to mitigate climate change or is another deceitful business person.

Or when people on social media actually seem to believe that buying an electric car is doing their "bit" for the climate.

It's time to consider people's #psychology

Not specifically "crazy", but what are they not thinking about and what is their morality?

Seriously, in the context of folk psychology & the environment they live in - the "lights" are on but nobody is "home"!

How can you educate (unethical) idiots without offending them?

#climate #psychology

#ClimateChange #money #politics #business

There are people that even when you refer to the evidence that shows how to live an ecologically sustainable lifestyle, they ignore that evidence & say, to paraphrase, "we're screwed!".

Their personal idealogy does not align with living #sustainably (a personal conflict of interest)

A person hears that burning fuel is harmful for people & planet. But, they choose to take part in recreational fuel burning activities, what are they?

#psychology

How to reinterpret emotions, pain, pleasure, etc.

Have you noticed that when you feel thirsty, drinking water instantly quenches your thirst. But, physiologically, it will take a while for that water to be absorbed into your bloodstream.

What's going on?

Making Sense with Sam Harris: #322 — Predicting Reality

Episode webpage: https://wakingup.libsyn.com/322-predicting-reality

Media file: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/wakingup/Making_Sense_322_Andy_Clark_nonsubscriber.mp3?dest-id=480596

#science #neuroScience #psychology

FYI, please contact Sam & ask him to talk about ecological #sustainability as he's unusually quite about that subject

A common complaint is #Mastodon admin suspended someone's account without warning. So, people lose many of their online connections.

This is the biggest flaw with Mastodon & the #fediverse in general (sure, it's much better than Twitter, etc....But?)

This problem could be solved by having our own unique (& anonymous if wanted) password protected fediverse ID.

So, adimin can kick you off their instance, but they can't delete your online conections.

So, online encrypted ID. Pros & cons?

We can never have too much nature!

We can (do) have too much technology! Too much quantity with a poor quality.

#Sustainability ?

1st the plan. The path to success.

2nd the action. Start walking that path (step by step)

Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015: the essentials

Sustainable development is about improving the way that we can achieve our economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being

https://www.gov.wales/well-being-future-generations-act-essentials-html

#nature #ecology #economy #politics #climate
#tech

When Chief Executive Officers, Corporations, Entrepreneurs and profit seekers in general, are not convinced that an open-source tech structure is the (private business) future of social networking, then we will have a social network that can't be corrupted by business-as-usual.

#sustainability #fediverse #mastodon #tech #entrepreneurs
#money #speech

Only a battery made from non-mined & biodegradable material would be affordable (for the planet).

"Globally those in slavery, though small in absolute numbers (est. 40.2 million), contribute disproportionately to environmental destruction and carbon emissions. If modern slaves were a country, they would be the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, after China and the United States"

From forests to factories: How modern slavery deepens the crisis of climate change, Energy Research & Social Science https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102096.

#science #sustainability #climate #ClimateJustice

Holy Cloud above, treeless landscape below.

#Futuregen #book preview

To quote the book "The revolutionary book, Beyond the Limits, argued that society had gone into overshoot – a state of being beyond limits without knowing it: ‘we are overshooting such crucial resources as food and water while overwhelming nature with pollutants like those causing global warming’, and ‘a sustainable future will require profound social and psychological readjustments in the developed and developing world’. I read this in 1998 and was confused. Of course, we knew this – that was what Rio was all about. But why hadn’t governments acted on the information – or did they not want to know? I was heartened by
her conclusion that there could be a peaceful restructuring of the
‘system’ to a sustainable society, but concerned that evidence and
data were ‘useful, necessary and not enough’. So what else was
needed? " https://janedavidson.wales/press-and-reviews

#sustainability #climate #politics #economics

Walking the right path towards a sustainable culture.

Over the last ten years or so, since the information that human activities are changing the climate went more mainstream, I've noticed virtually no sign that the people I see locally are doing anything to change their activities.

The local #sheep farmers: continue to burn piles of wood on their land (CO2 emissions). The local sheep farmers continue to transport sheep using diesel vehicles (CO2 emissions). The local landscape continues to be in a deforested and sheep-wrecked ecological condition (legacy CO2 emissions. Present & future CH₄ [methane] emission). The local farmers continue to be offended if their sheep farming lifestyles are called into question (i.e., they're not changing for anyone or anything).

The people I observe locally continue to drive combustion engine vehicles (CO2 emissions). The tourists continue to pull their caravans or drive the, often increasing in size, campervans (CO2 emissions). And of course, the fossil fuel industries continue to extract and sell more fossil fuels. The logging industries continue to sell wood fuel for power stations or people's wood stoves. The national #uk #conservative government continues to try and open a new coal mine locally. The local people continue to have coal, gas, or kerosene delivered by diesel trucks to their homes.

Generally, only over the last 10 years since environmental protestors made the mainstream pay attention to the science of climate change, nothing has generally changed locally that would mitigate climate change. The general businesses want to continue as usual, the average consumer wants to continue as usual.

What also has not changed over the previous ten years is that greenhouse gas emissions keep on rising https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

However, there have been some noticeable changes locally over the previous ten years. There have been more frequent floods from autumn to winter and longer drier periods during summer.

I can't speak for the world. However, it's self-evident what the future is going to be for the people in my local community (they're not mitigating climate change. They're not adapting to be more climate resilient). Eventually, climate change is going to regulate their lifestyles in the most severe way. Of course, if the world (human population in general) acted to mitigate climate change (reduce their greenhouse gas emissions & restore their local ecosystems. i.e., natural habitats), my local communities' climate inaction, apathy, and virtue signaling wouldn't be so much of a problem. But, the world isn't mitigating climate change. Climate change is mitigating the world.

There is an ecologically and economically viable solution to living a low-impact lifestyle https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

However, a sustainable lifestyle requires a change of lifestyle (for the majority). And as with all animals, (most) humans behave as if they're creatures of habit (& belief).

The path to ecological sustainability is walking the path (not only talking about it & or not only protesting about it).

#futuregen #wales #climate #politics #economics #business #money #culture #corruption #psychology #MoralGrandstanding #EvolutionaryPsychology

"want" is how we make #sustainabilty a reality. More people have to truly want to mitigate climate change. More than they want, for example, to drive cars with combustion engines or electric motors, or to want to fly on jets or eat red meat.

Some people, so many people, believe they're honestly wanting to mitigate climate change (a story they tell themselves). But, many people don't change their own lifestyles so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., they don't quit eating red meat or flying on jets). Perhaps they're assuming that someone else will mitigate climate change (e.g., the politicians & industries) or that some future technology will mean they can simply, for example, buy an electric car and everything will be fine.

Some people, so many people, are not honestly wanting to mitigate climate change. But they tell other people a different story. In other words, climate virtue signaling is a very common form of social greenwashing. Maybe they think sincere people are stupid. Like we can't see that their words don't align with their behaviors (activities).

Who is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if most people don't try to reduce their activities that are causing greenhouse gas emissions?

Sincere people that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will want to live an ecologically low-impact lifestyle https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

"want" is how we make #sustainabilty a reality.

It's not ethical to wait until more people want to mitigate climate change. Therefore, we must nurture that want. And mitigate the merchants of doubt that try to make people feel that mitigating climate change is difficult or hard.

It's evidently not hard to develop political policies that promote a more self-sufficient, low ecological impact lifestyle within a more local economic context. https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110565446073239160

The don't want people - make it hard because they promote & hang onto unsustainable ways of life #Greenwash

#ClimateChange doesn't care about their BS!

#psychology