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.
The decline of the European Eel (Anguilla anguilla), is the most shocking species decline, I have personally observed in my life time. Earlier in my life, I was an angler and became fascinated about Eels. They have a fascinating lifecycle.
With my big picture view of things, especially my ecological big picture view, I soon realized that they were one of the most important keystone species in not only the British Isles, but in Europe. They were the most widespread freshwater fish, with the greatest biomass.
2/
The reason for how widespread they were, is because of their ability to disperse, and even travel across land, and to populate small pools and lakes, not connected to rivers and streams. This meant they could be found where few or no other fish were.
I see Reform as a fake grass roots party, a fake political movement. The so-called populist right, is a billionaire, oligarch agenda, wrapped up in some concocted populist stuff to draw people in.
2/7
The idea is to make out that they are for ordinary people in a corrupt political landscape, where it is utterly transparent that politicians are bought and paid for by the elite. That they don't represent ordinary people.
3/7
I have been scathing about the ability of AI to replace human intelligence, because the proponents, making outlandish claims about the potential of AI, don't seem to understand what human intelligence and consciousness is. But it will take your jobs.
2/
However, AI doesn't need to supplant or supersede human intelligence, to replace most people's jobs, as the vast majority of jobs people are meaningless, don't really contribute to our societies and can easily be replaced by AI.
Tony Blair was clearly a neoliberal, and so was Gordon Brown. I'm not sure about Jimmy Carter, but every major Democratic politician since, has been neoliberal. Bernie Sanders isn't but he was an independent for much of the time.
2/
Neoliberal doctrine, is essentially Conservative policy. It is no coincidence whatsoever that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, are generally regarded to have ushered in neoliberalism in the West (I'm aware of Pinochet) Milt Friedman was senior economic adviser to both.
3/
In the last 10-20 years, there's been a huge increase in renewable energy, and a huge rise in EVs. Yet emissions are rising, because more fossil fuels than ever are being burned. Energy demand for things like AI and global economy growth, is increasing.
2/
There seems to have been this naive belief, that if we just create more renewable energy, and put most EVs on the road, this will result in a switch from fossil fuels, and emissions will be greatly reduced. I don't believe those pushing this, actually believe it themselves.
3/
I'm sure there are a lot of people, who think they are committed to climate action, who think I am being totally unrealistic, saying we need to stop burning fossil fuels.
1/🧵
Firstly, we've had 33 years since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, to be systematically phasing out fossil fuel burning and not developing any more reliance on them. Not suddenly stopping, we've had 33 years to do it gradually.
2/
Let's look at the usual arguments, that we need to carry on with the mass burning of fossil fuels, to maintain a civilized lifestyle. I have addressed this on countless previous occasions.
3/