1) I'd like to clarify the rationale behind lots my recent posts. I see maintaining an organizing economy society as the most important thing, because it is the only way we can continue to feed such a large human population.
2) Unfortunately, the current economic model and general model in our society, is the pursuit of economic growth (in essence the pursuit of greater personal wealth). This is the primary glue that holds our current organized economy and society together.
3) I see this as putting our societies in a precarious positions, because systems based on the pursuit of growth, especially economies and societies, are prone to collapse. This is derived from ecological principles where continued growth tends to cause instability and collapse.
4) I see humans as innately cooperative and social beings, driven to be competitive, because of the present economic model. In other words, people don't have to learn to be cooperative and to share resources, it is their natural state.
5) For the vast majority of the existence of modern humans (Homo sapiens) we lived in cooperative and egalitarian societies where resources were shared equally.
6) Whilst the pursuit of ever greater personal wealth, can apparently bring short term benefits in terms of the rapid development of technology, and higher living standards, this is at the cost of the long term viability of our civilization.
7) Therefore I believe, that to create a sustainable society, viable in the long term we need to change from a highly competitive society, pursuing growth at breakneck speed to a cooperative society, working together for the common good.
8) I don't see this as Utopian, because as I say people are innately cooperative, and have to be driven to be competitive. Our modern highly competitive society didn't just spontaneously arrive and those running our society constantly try to drive people to be more competitive.
9) Therefore, I am suggesting highlighting the practises designed to encourage and drive people to be competitive, and to ask if this is really a good idea? I want people to think about this.
10) I do not see any political ideologies as helpful as they all claim to already know what the problem is and what the solution is. Whereas for effective problem solving you need to remain open minded as to how to best solve the problem.
11) I believe that if people think about things and develop a good idea of how society runs, how we are reliant on natural systems to sustain us, then people will innately work together to maintain a sustainable society.
12) Part of this means understanding the precariousness of a system based on continuous growth. This growth system did not arise spontaneously but was developed by wealthy people pursuing even greater wealth and power at a time when few had the vote or an influential voice.
13) In other words, I am not warning about the dangers of societal collapse because I am saying we're all doomed. Rather it is to highlight why a system based on continuous growth puts us in danger, and why we need a more cooperative rationale.
14) Once again I believe in people's good sense, when they see things clearly and are not misdirected by misleading false ideas.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) This came up in a discussion the other day, when someone was misguidedly claiming that cuts to emissions should come before attempts at system change, because that was impossible to achieve in the short term.
2) Yet as @KevinClimate succinctly points out meaningful reductions in carbon emissions and system change are inextricably linked. There is so much misunderstanding of this because of the disjointed reasoning methods we are taught to use to think about things.
3) You see, even if you managed to create the necessary reductions in carbon emissions, without any conscience attempt to change the system, you would in fact of radically altered the system, even if that was not your intention.
1) I'd like to deal with this thread as there are a lot of misleading assertions about the possibility of a civilization collapse triggered by the climate and ecological crisis.
2) I cannot understand the arguments put forward in this thread, which seem ill thought out. Climate scientists are experts on the climate, not the stability of large civilizations/empires, which they do not study at all.
3) Right at the very beginning we need to remember that every civilization in human history has collapsed. They don't tend to simply fade away, they collapse. As I will explain here, there is a very simple reason for this.
1) Let me explain the problem with this tweet. @ClimateOfGavin accuses @ClimateBen of exaggeration. The problem is Gavin's certainty that Ben is wrong. He is actually doing what he is criticising Ben for.
2) As the levels of warming get greater, it becomes more and more difficult to predict what the impacts will be on both human society and civilization, and life in general i.e. both biodiversity.
3) To an extent, climate modellers like @ClimateofGavin can model physical systems like the climate, because whilst a complex system, it does have simplistic components which allow it to be modelled.
1) I'd like to posit a few possibilities about our leadership.
What if when our leaders commissioned all these people, sincere academics to come up with plans to address the climate crisis, that they never really had any intention of implementing them?
2) What if these leaders were just buying time. That they hadn't got a clue what to do about it. But didn't want to stop business as usual because all their status and wealth was derived from it. But at the same time didn't want to tell people that they didn't give a damn.
3) Right from when climate change became a public story in the late 1980s the public were very concerned about it. So political leaders knew if they wanted to get the public to vote for them, or support them, they had to at least act concerned.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein A tangled web has been woven. In the 1990s when I said to a number of academics, that I expected politicians to reverse ferret out of commitments and pledges they made, they simply dismissed what I said as far too cynical.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein However, my views were based on several insights into how modern societies, systems operate. That oil and fossil fuels were the lynchpin of the whole system and that those in charge knew any change to this would profoundly alter how the whole system operates.
@KevinClimate@JamesGDyke@NaomiAKlein The economic system since the industrial revolution, really is an intergenerational Ponzi scheme. The actual role of governments is just to maintain this, to facilitate it. This may seem an extreme statement, but it is entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence.
2) I do not blame Greta for being taken in by people in influential positions who say "I want action on the climate crisis, but you have to understand that contracts, legal obligations, public opinion, or whatever, stop us". This is simply not true and contrary to evidence.
3) The reality is that whilst these influential people would like to see the climate crisis addressed, they are actually far more wedded to their luxury lifestyles, their high status, wealth and high salaries, than they are about addressing the climate and ecological emergency.