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.
There is no point to Keir Starmer. People didn't so much vote for his Labour as no one could work out what he stood for. They were voting against the Conservatives, but they ended up with the Tories 2.0
1/🧵
Most of the public feel this way, because Keir Starmer's approval ratings are at an all time low, and so is support for the Labour Party. They are so dreadful, they have pushed the even more dreadful Reform Party into the lead.
Flamingoes are filter feeders, which feed on aquatic invertebrates. Self-evidently, there are plenty of aquatic inverts in the newly flooded paddy fields, or the Flamingoes wouldn't be there.
2/
There is a simple solution, to reduce the numbers of aquatic invertebrates in the paddy fields, to encourage the Flamingoes to feed elsewhere, fish! Stock the paddy fields with the fry of fast growing fish, when they are first flooded.
3/
If anyone has any doubts about this, look at the extraordinary attacks on the sick and disabled, by not only Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves etc, but the leaders of the Conservative and Reform Parties, and especially, the Tory Press. They are literally frothing at the mouth.
2/
Yet, public opinion is very clear. There's strong public support, for taxing the very rich. Like 3/4 of the public. So why are the senior politicians of all 3 parties, likely to form the next government, and oligarch owned Tory Press, going on the warpath against the disabled?
3/
Does anyone know what the name is, for the logical fallacy, which I call the walk around problem?
What I mean by this, is when you make a well-supported factual assertion, and an opponent, will blatantly just walk around it, refusing to acknowledge the point.
1/🧵
Often this point, is a fundamental premise and assumption of many arguments. You can completely undo these arguments, by totally undermining the fundamental premises of these arguments. But it is totally useless, if the opponent just refuses to acknowledge the point.
2/
I have come across this problem not just on social media, but in the mainstream media, in politics, when I have been forced to make a formal complaint. It is possible for a person, especially in a position of power, to just refuse to acknowledge something.
3/
I have repeatedly seen people, including some climate scientists, falsely claim that okay, climate warming might get pretty bad, but it won't be the end of the world.
I'm baffled by such claims.
1/🧵
It's a straw many logical fallacy argument, as no informed person, is claiming that climate change will cause the world i.e. the planet, to cease to exist.
Rather, the claim has always been it could lead to a wide scale loss of life, and the collapse of our civilization.
2/
If you refer to the possible end of our civilization or its collapse, these "optimists" will claim there is no scientific evidence for this.
Whilst actually, the resilience of our civilization to climate change, has never been scientifically studied.
The most important thing to understand about the climate and ecological emergency, is that profound and radical change, is coming whether you like it or not. That change might come far sooner, than most people, almost everyone, envisages.
1/🧵
"There are now no non-radical futures. The choice is between immediate and profound social change or waiting a little longer for chaotic and violent social change. In 2023 the window for this choice is rapidly closing." @KevinClimate