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.
I'll briefly explain why I have had to stick my head into the murky sewer of politics. I actually despise politics, and I would not spend one second thinking about it, if it wasn't putting us in such mortal danger.
1/🧵
Both the populist right, and the neoliberal centre are trying to undo what small advances had been made in advancing the cause of climate action, and action on the nature crisis.
It's no use campaigning for climate and biodiversity action, without addressing what's happening.
2/
It is no use campaigning for climate and biodiversity action without addressing the elephant in the room, being ignored, and that is the 2 big political forces in our society today, are actively trying to block the necessary action.
3/
I am sickened by the lying Trumpian right, trying to use the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, to justify whipping up political violence against what they call the "radical left".
Such hate speech has serious consequences, which I want to illustrate with the Utøya Massacre.
1/🧵
On 22 July 2011, right wing terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, shot dead 69 young people on the island of Utøya in Norway, attending a socialist summer camp. 33 of them under the age of 18. It remains the deadliest mass shooting ever perpetrated.
The POS Breivik, shot these young people dead, purely because they were left wing. We know that Breivik was inspired by right wing commentators, spewing right wing hate speech, because he wrote a manifesto, directly quoting them.
This is vital as the main demographic reform seems to be aimed at, are the less well off, the old working class. Generally this demographic, is the least well-informed and educated. They don't seem to understand they're backing a party, which represents the richest people.
2/
It really is quite baffling how no one has focused on a mass information programme, to reveal what Reform and it's leadership are really about.
The demographic Reform is targeted at, have been misled by decades of propaganda and disinformation from the right wing press.
3/
I'm extremely worried about the quite bizarre analysis of the Charlie Kirk shooting, by intelligent people who should know better, about the motivation of his killer. As I've said before, this is typical of a lone gun nut, random shooting.
There is currently no evidence that Tyler Robinson had been following Charlie Kirk to other parts of the country, researching him in depth, or his allies. He seems to have primarily chosen him as a target, simply because he was speaking in his locality.
3/
I want to make some observations about the Keir Starmer calamity, because Labour's problems, giving Reform an open goal they shouldn't have, cannot be fixed with Starmer changing direction or strategy. He has to go. He is fundamentally incompetent, and arrogant.
1/🧵
People keep telling me, the problem is Morgan McSweeney, not Starmer. No, if Starmer is being given bad advice by McSweeney, again and again, and is not learning from the experience, this is a Starmer problem, and not a McSweeney problem.
2/
This is not that can be fixed, by getting rid of McSweeney, because if you have a leader who fails to grasp he is being given bad advice, from experience, again and again, it can't be fixed with different advisers. An adviser's job is to advise, not to control.
3/
Remember, it is only just over 2 weeks ago, that Trump vindictively withdrew Secret Service protection for Kamala Harris. Trump has recklessly endangered Democratic, and other progressive figures, for falsely blaming them for Charlie Kirk's death.
Donald Trump, rejected calls for national unity, and made it clear that he intends to carry on inciting political violence against what he calls the radical left, which seems to mean anyone who disagrees with.