People often ask what I mean by system change re: the climate and ecological crisis. It is very simple. I mean a full shift to a truly sustainable society/economy. This means changing more or less every convention of our modern society.
Sustainable means what it says. A society and economy in balance with the ecological carrying capacity of the Earth. Essentially that means no unsustainable trends, where our impact on the natural systems of the world is growing.
You see, in ecological terms, if there is a component, where it's impact on natural systems is constantly growing. Eventually it will have catastrophic effects, impacting also on the component driving it i.e. human society.
Lots of natural components have growing impacts. Let's say an exploding population of rodents. But this is eventually counteracted, by a sudden fall in the population of that rodent. Often, it produces a cycle or rise and fall.
Humans appear to have got out of this cycle and effect, by using innovation to get around what would cause that contraction in that growth. For instance, the use of fertilisers and pesticides.
But this is at the cost of destroying other ecosystem components and biodiversity, which in a long loop, will eventually have serious impacts on us, that we can't innovate our way out of.
There is no simple recipe for creating a sustainable society economy. However, if we don't want our population, our civilization, our society and economy to crash, it is essential.
A huge thanks to @ZackPolanski and the rest of the @TheGreenParty for restoring sanity and humanity, to British politics, and ignoring the received wisdom, that no politician or party can say positive things, or it is political suicide.
1/🧵
As we can see now, and @ZackPolanski has exposed Keir Starmer for the fraud he is, in claiming that his nasty authoritarian, anti-people policy, was a political necessity. No it was a choice of Starmer, and the regressive forces he represents.
2/
@ZackPolanski has done a marvellous job in interviews on mainstream TV of being level-headed, in answering the attempts to trip him up, in an intelligent and persuasive way. I think the attacks and smears are backfiring, because people do not see what they are being told.
3/
I am hoping @ChrisGPackham will understand this as a naturalist, and he has some understanding of ecology and biodiversity, because my important points about this assessment are being ignored.
My central point is these redacted parts are of little use to us.
1/🧵
I completely agree with @GreenRupertRead that these parts should never have been redacted. However, the idea that the full unredacted report, would help us better understand these threats, is profoundly mistaken, and the ITN report is misleading.
2/
I have been making the same warnings for decades, and they were actually based on the same science and references, as this assessment used.
My point, is we don't know enough about the way our human systems rely on natural systems, to confidently make such projections.
3/
I will have to make a subsidiary thread, because the general knowledge of biodiversity and ecology is so poor, that the vast majority of people don't realize I am making profound, expert points.
1/🧵
I'll start with my point about species. Most are not familiar with this, as they have zero education about it, so they probably think I'm just trying to be controversial. There is no single definition of a species, and all break down at some point.
"There’s no exact figure for how many species live on Earth. As of 2024, more than 2.1 million species have been scientifically described and named, but this is likely to be nowhere near the true number living on the planet."
In other words, it is almost impossible for a layperson to understand biodiversity intellectually, when they have fundamental misconceptions about the core concepts of biodiversity. Ecology, the interactions of these species, is even less understood.
2/
What is known about the most complex field of knowledge known to humanity, is a tiny fraction of what could be known, and most of it is probably unknowable on a level of complexity, impossible for us to comprehend.
3/
A long time ago, and repeatedly over many decades, I said if @TheGreenParty had an electoral breakthrough, the establishment, the media and political mainstream, would viciously turn on them. It was not hard to foresee, when you know the tawdry reality of the establishment. 1/3
The established order, isn't a group of people working together for the public good and the country. It is a tawdry, corrupt, powerful and wealth clique, in which the powerful and rich, cooperate to make themselves even richer and more powerful, at the cost of everyone else.
2/3
The first and most important rule of Rich and Power Club is that it exists only to further the aims of those in this clique. The second rule is that it doesn't exist, and the third is, if anyone breaks ranks or threatens the aims of this clique, then they must be crushed.
3/3
"Keir Starmer has probably made his standing in the Labour party worse with the response to the byelection defeat he gave in a short broadcast interview this morning."
Let's talk about Keir Starmer, and what he is and who he really represents.
It is very clear that Keir Starmer is utterly disingenuous, and what he falsely claims he stands for, is not what he is really about, at all. Whilst Starmer is acting very stupidly, he cannot be as stupid, as he makes out.
Nothing you see about Starmer is genuine or real.
2/
I will qualify what I say, by pointing to the most salient features of his disingenuity first. Starmer claims to be acting in the interests of Labour, clearly he isn't, he's utterly destroying the Labour Party, and aiding Reform.
3/