What my thread is about here is the reality gap between how the physical and natural world described by science actually operates, and the convenient fiction narrative of the natural environment as imagined by classical economics sees the world. #MindTheGap
@GretaThunberg is accurately and pertinently highlighting the reality gap between the climate action pledged by politicians, and the action the science tells us we need to take to avert dangerous climate change and ecological catastrophe. #MindTheGap
However, the problem goes much, much deeper than this. Politicians, economists, business leaders and a large proportion of the public have a totally false view of the world in which we live. The reality gap is much bigger than just the pledged action. #MindTheGap
There is a tendency for those with a view of the world based on the scientific evidence, an ecological view, to think that everyone else sees things the same, just maybe not in the same level of detail. In fact others have a totally different, incommensurate view. #MindTheGap
Economists, most politicians, most business people, do not see humanity, society, our economy, as totally reliant on the natural systems of the world, as it actually is. The reality gap is immense. #MindTheGap
I've lost count of how many dystopian future movies I see, in which biodiversity, natural habitat, most fauna and flora has completely died out, yet some sort of modern semblance of modern human society persists albeit in a diminished way. This is totally unrealistic.
All modern lifestyles and almost certainly humanity itself would disappear long before all natural habitat and biodiversity did. However, this false belief occurs, because most do not understand natural systems, totally sustain humanity, our societies and our economies.
Absolutely no attempt is made to find out what people's beliefs are about natural systems totally sustaining us. No one ever challenges politicians to explain their understanding of this reality. Not doing this could be the death of us.
Whilst flying should be discouraged, no one would willingly get on a plane without being assure the pilot knew how to fly the the plane. Yet we allow political leaders to pilot our societies, without ever establishing if they've got any idea what they're doing and how it works.
We need to urgently establish how other people, especially decision makes, and powerful influential people see and understand the world we live in. To discover why they nonchalantly accept the reality gap between the action necessary, and the action pledged. #MindTheGap
No one, or very few people are looking at the obvious explanation, and that is that most people have a view of the world, totally inconsistent and mutually incompatible with the big picture of the Earth's systems derived from the scientific evidence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In this thread I want to establish what the problem is using the most simple problem solving strategy there is - of how to effectively solve a problem. The first step is always to define the problem.
2) The problem here is self-evidently what politicians and businesses are referring to as "net zero" isn't actually net zero, it is what they are calling net zero. Calling something net zero doesn't make it real net zero.
3) To understand this problem, you must first understand the map territory relationship, where the map is a metaphor for an idea and the territory a metaphor for reality. How useful a map is, depends on how accurately it maps the territory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80…
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 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.
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.