Skip navigation
20comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Mark Johnson

Jun 18, 2014
09:08

Member


1 |
Share via:
This framework is "NIRVANA" and "Ameritopia" which is for sure noble, but nation-states are self serving when it comes to increased growth and polluting the environment (e.g., China). Our noble efforts to reduce USA GHG emissions is offset by polluting country emissions an ocean away (pollutants are carried by prevailing winds and arrive on the Left Coast of the USA). Steady-state cannot be achieved now - too few industrialized countries are committed to GHG reduction, world population is growing exponentially, etc. Financial markets, commodity flows, and legal remedies are not yet in place to achieve this project's noble goals. Thank you for sharing such a vision though. The fundamentals are just.

Dave Ewoldt

Jun 18, 2014
12:24

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi EcoElite... Your critique might be valid if the assumptions of the dominant paradigm were correct, but they aren't. This includes the sanctity of nation-states, the myth that growth is necessary for progress and prosperity, and that humans are separate from and can control the natural world while being immune to the consequences of our actions. The other main incorrect assumption is the 18th Century understanding of human nature that Enlightenment thinking is based on that has lead to such nonsense as the selfish gene. The framework I'm presenting is definitely not "Ameritopia" as the basic concepts are congruent with the Earth Charter, which is international. To quickly address your other concerns, China is currently doing more than the U.S. to get a handle on pollution and greenhouse gases, it's just a losing battle while clinging to Industrialism. And we know what to do to reduce population back down to carrying capacity boundaries--provide education, honest family planning, and health care (especially for infants and elders). It seems as if your basic argument is that change is impossible, and it isn't. Change is as close as one is going to get to a constant in this universe. And yes, the pieces aren't in place yet to support systemic change in balance with a living world, which is why these pieces are included with the core framework. The bottom line is that life, on this planet at least, comes about and sustains itself by self-organizing networks of mutual support. Were humans to do likewise we could go back to saying we're a rational creature with a straight face.

Daniel Rossetto

Jul 4, 2014
09:19

Fellow


3 |
Share via:
Dear dewoldt, Thank you for your entry in the global plan contest! Please note that — unlike other Climate CoLab contests -- two central elements of this global contest is for authors to (1) link together proposals from other contests into an integrated plan for the world as a whole, and (2) complete the climate model for their proposal’s impact on climate change and our economic systems. Please revise your proposal to incorporate these two elements, or else your proposal is not likely to be rated highly in this contest. If you wish to submit an idea to the Climate CoLab without including other proposals and how they fit together into a larger vision, we recommend moving your proposal to another contest. Kind regards, Daniel

Dave Ewoldt

Jul 13, 2014
11:57

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Daniel... thanks for your feedback. As you might imagine, I have a slight problem with some of it. First, upon re-reading my proposal, I see I didn't directly state the names of the processes for reconnecting and relocalizing. These are based, with modifications and additions, on what the academic world and activist community know as applied ecopsychology and the Transition Initiative movement. Bioregionalism, for example, is a concept that has major aspects of both (and vice versa), as do Local Living Economies, Post-Carbon Cities, and a few dozen other related and congruent examples from around the globe. My proposal is not merely academic, it's already in process. What is missing is a coherent and cohesive framework to hold it all together. My main problem, though, is that if you're at all familiar with the modeling tools you expect me to use, you should be aware that they are completely incapable of modeling anything systemic--the climate model simply isn't designed to handle multiple attractor basins in n-dimensional space. I mean, be honest with me here, can it even handle interacting 2nd order feedback loops? If so, what's its probability record in the real world--what is its predictive efficacy? The Stanford energy model is based on at least two erroneous assumptions--that GDP is the only way to measure economic health and wealth (though even orthodox growth economists realize it wasn't designed to do either), and that anything that doesn't contribute to GDP growth (which requires concurrent growth in the energy sector) is a catastrophic failure that must be guarded against at all costs. From looking at the claims of the En-ROADS model, its purpose seems to be to convince funders of how greenly we can abuse our life support system. It won't allow for a population size within planetary carrying capacity, it won't allow for negative GDP, etc. My proposal doesn't use subsidies, it prices externalities and natural systems services. The actual price of carbon has been estimated at about %900/ton, but En-ROADS won't allow you to enter a price higher that $100/ton, and it tries to push one toward the more politically feasible price of $30-$50/ton. I agree that it would be nice if the model were useful for anything other than supporting the status quo, i.e. proposals that support the economic system at the root of our rapidly converging global crises. The impact to the current economic system from my proposal is its complete replacement. But I thought the idea behind the Global Plan contest was to find a combination of actions and policies, which at least implies a systemic set of relationships, that stand a chance of success in the real world of mitigating global warming and transitioning into a sustainable future. Since money has been decoupled from the natural world, it must be returned to a means of exchange thoroughly grounded in actually existing natural resources whose pricing mechanism includes depletion rates. Do you know of any other proposal that meets the goal of sustainability on a finite planet where the regeneration rates of some resources are measured anywhere from centuries to epochs? I'll be more than happy to include or make reference to them. Which other proposals are you aware of that deal with powering down, steady-state economics, an earth jurisprudence, ecopsychology, Ecocity development, the transition movement, bioregionalism, stopping economic growth, or replacing Industrialism? My search results on the CoLab site found one reference to the transition movement from a couple of years ago, but it wasn't the proposal focus. And that was it. An "integrated proposal" as the contest calls for does require more than one piece. I know it's not often part of the core curriculum, but there really is an alternative to scientific reductionism and there are paths towards progress and prosperity that don't include or require economic growth or control hierarchies. This alternative is colloquially known as life. Fortunately for me, at least from my reading of the contest instructions, is that bringing together previous CoLab proposals is only one Global Plan proposal evaluation criteria, and only a suggested one at that. And I'm not saying that some of the individual proposals won't play a part in a sustainable future, but for the most part they're slapping Band-Aids on symptoms, they're not part of the core response to stopping the root of global warming. "[A] broad, coherent vision of what the world as a whole should do." This contest statement is almost an explicit admission that what's come before is inadequate in satisfying this goal. I believe the real strength of my proposal, however, comes from meeting the contest guideline vision to "demonstrate that there is a plausible path forward." I realize that a sub-goal of the Global Plan contest is to test out the possibilities of collective problem-solving. As an ex-AI researcher, I can appreciate this. But it can only be collective intelligence if the pieces are first all accounted for (that's the collective part) and then display intelligence themselves based on what we know about biospheric degradation and the effects of positive feedback loops on environmental tipping points. You can't just slap a bunch of actions together willy-nilly and expect them to work together if the goal is truly global systemic change. The only rational response I'm aware of to the actual problem of global warming is to address the root cause, which is Industrialism based on disconnection and domination. Core attributes of Industrialism include infinite economic growth and compound interest which lead to financial speculation and Mammonism. The current global warming manifestations include climate change, ocean acidification, deforestation, topsoil loss, urban sprawl, biodiversity loss (no food chain means no food, and I'm still waiting for someone to present an adaptation strategy for that), dwindling freshwater supplies, and habitat loss--for starters. In the energy sector, for example, my proposal envisions a 75% reduction from current use through decentralized co-generation of clean renewable energy sources, removing waste and planned obsolescence from manufacturing, and implementing neighborhood level sharing co-ops. This means fossil fuels and nuclear energy can both be completely retired today. The offered modeling tools won't allow for that type of input either. So, I must ask again, what is the real goal of the Global Plan contest? If it is to find the combination of actions that can be taken in the world as a whole to address global warming (which is the cause of climate change), that is exactly what my proposal does. It does so based entirely on evidence from a number of fields for pragmatic systemic change that are all congruent with natural systems principles, as opposed to political feasibility. The latter is a separate issue that I'd be happy to address as well. In fact it must be for the proposal to be successful in the rapidly closing window of opportunity climate scientists say we have left available to us.

Susan Willis

Jul 16, 2014
05:50

Member


5 |
Share via:
Our only hope is a turning inside-out of our current dominant paradigm. The Einstein quote is exactly apropos: "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” ― Albert Einstein

Grace Gordon

Jul 17, 2014
12:16

Member


6 |
Share via:
Mr. Ewoldt is correct in all his points. The very idea of using GDP as any kind of real economic indicator is absurd, especially given our country's reliance on financial transactions as a means of accumulating "wealth." In addition, anyone keeping track of the availability of resources that our economy (and that of most of the rest of the world) relies heavily upon understands that we are simply running out of the materials that make our technologically dependent culture possible. I won't bore you with the details -- you can easily look it up. And even if we could continue following our current failed model of growth and waste, we would simply be hastening the global warming crisis to its ultimately destructive end. Finally, attempting to dismiss Mr. Ewoldt's proposal as utopian simply displays an unwillingness to come to grips with the realities of capitalism (or any other competitive economic model). One cannot expect our existing elites to voluntarily give up their privileges just so the other economic strata can survive and prosper. I refer you to the nonsense about minimum wage standards that now prevails as an example. If the 0.1 percent dig in their heels to preserve their billions at the expense of people barely making it, then you can be sure they will not willingly accept a new non-hierarchical model as a solution. But that doesn't mean that such a model is unattainable, but rather points to the inevitable conclusion that there will be a struggle. So be prepared to fight!

Barbara Cihlar

Jul 18, 2014
04:44

Member


7 |
Share via:
Mr. Ewoldt gives strong and well reasoned rebuttals to any concerns regarding the formalities of this contest at a time when we urgently need to hear proposals like his, hopefully followed by collective support to help kick this paradigm shift into action via systemic change. His proposal is a bold vision to do so at a time when we desperately need solutions. Corporate models are hierarchical and antithetical to democratic practice by design, promoting greed and profit to the benefit of the 1%. Change is in the wind and Mr Ewoldt is full sail ahead demanding cooperation on this planet we all share.

Delton Chen

Jul 20, 2014
12:14

Member


8 |
Share via:
Hello Dewoldt, I hope you're doing well. My intuition is that the ethics and concepts you present could be the objectives, but how to get there is missing. You wrote: "What is missing is a coherent and cohesive framework to hold it all together. " I would say that there is no pathway, just concepts. It seems that there a growing philosophical division between groups because the public are losing/lost trust of government and institutions. Global issues are looking scary, and so we fall back on familiar territory rooted in our worldview and ethics. Other people will do the same, but they will have a different worldview and ethics to yours. So society becomes polarised, then divided, and then there's conflict. My feeling is that all your ideas should be put in place with intentional communities and shown as an example to the mainstream. Ideally every western country in the world should be supporting transition towns and alternative economies (I would like to join one but the costs are still prohibitive and distance and isolation is an issue). We need a common bond otherwise it doesn't work in the long run. I suggest that we need new currency systems (government backed and not just localised) with intrinsic values quantified in terms of 'sustainability'. You might disagree (?), but it offers an economic foundation. Sincerely Delton

Timothy Damon

Jul 20, 2014
08:16

Member


9 |
Share via:
Dear all, I'm very glad to see a proposal on here that is willing to challenge our economic paradigm - I though my own proposal might be the only one. This proposal clearly outlines the shifts we need to make, but I'm not yet fully sure how we get there; we need much more political will and a more collectivist mentality than we have at present (currently the ideological polarization is quite a problem). If you are interested in making changes within economics to support moving in a new direction, please consider checking out my own proposal (two versions), which suggests we lower the social discount rate in order to end short-term exploitation in favor of real sustainability in our decision-making about the future. The sustainability-focused version is here: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300210/planId/1309010 And the Intergenerational Justice version is in the Youth Action contest here: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300901/planId/1308907 Best regards, Timothy Damon

Dave Ewoldt

Jul 20, 2014
03:46

Member


10 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Delton... Perhaps you could help me clarify the path to a sustainable future, as I'm not sure how else to phrase it from what I've already written. The overall framework is supplied by natural systems principles; the path is reconnecting through applied ecopsychology and relocalizing through the Transition, bioregional, permaculture, intentional community, local currency, and related movements. This is what everyday people are already engaged in on a daily basis as they let go of the paradigm behind empire and economic growth and start thinking and acting the way nature works. These all mirror self-organized networks of mutual support which have been functioning quite well for billions of years. It's not like we're just guessing on whether or not it will actually work. While this terminology may not be familiar to most people today, this is what is actually occurring. These aren't just abstract concepts, they are daily practices that seek to supplant empire, domination, disconnection, selfishness, and greed with very clear alternatives that can all be scientifically and spiritually validated. And the thing is, the alternatives I'm talking about are all actually non-polarizing issues across cultures and sectors--except for those who insist on clinging to fantasies of entitlement that emerge from the Western industrial mindset. But this is a pathology--it doesn't deserve to be compromised with. The worldview and ethics of sustainability--ecological integrity, social justice, economic equity, and participatory democracy--are fully congruent with the Earth Charter, the international people's declaration of interdependence. Our greatest commonality is that we come from the Earth. This also provides a foundation for building multi-issue coalitions that can create the critical mass for systemic change that's in balance with a living world. And this is something that people can participate in today. We don't need to wait for a new technology to be discovered or a shift to some higher plane of consciousness. On the economic front, it seems that what you're talking about is ecological economics, and that is an integral aspect of my proposal. In fact, it's the very first thing I mention.

Dave Ewoldt

Jul 20, 2014
08:43

Member


11 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Tim... as for how we get there, see my reply above to Delton. My take on economics in general is that it is a subset, and not even a major one (or needn't be), of society, which is a subset of the environment. We need to create a social system that is sustainable within the carrying capacity of supportive ecosystems and only then decide what type of economic system can subsist within that system. This pretty much eliminates anything that is self-serving or based in growth. The guiding philosophy of that economic system must be maximizing potential for individuals, society, and the web of life. This means it must be thoroughly grounded in natural systems principles. This means replacing the Enlightenment science of separation and reductionism. Right now we have everything ass-backwards. Fortunately, there are alternatives to the dominant paradigm. We could start the shift to a sustainable future tomorrow, as this part of it is just a story. A new story based on natural systems principles contravenes no known laws of physics or biology--just some ideology that purports to be based on these disciplines. Now, does all this share some commonalities with collectivism? Yeah, some. But it also shares some with the technotopians. And when one considers the bigger picture, it even shares the libertarian goals of freedom, liberty, and opportunity. As I've probably mentioned at least once in this thread, sustainability consists of ecological integrity, social justice, economic equity, and participatory democracy. Justice isn't possible without sustainability, and without justice we'll never have peace.

Thakur Pandit

Jul 22, 2014
11:27

Member


12 |
Share via:
This should be the universal concept, yet to materialize by humans who have created the crises for themselves and in the whole natural - ecological systems. Let's go back to the Nature. Climate change should become the last warning for humans. Let's derive simple and workable solutions from this present climate crisis! Thank you Dewoldt to take this initiative and discourse! I support your philosophy!

Bill Kendrick

Jul 24, 2014
10:14

Member


13 |
Share via:
Something To Consider I have created a white vapor, from gasoline, with twice the power of gasoline, and at the same time I also got a non flammable liquid from the gasoline, by spraying a fine mist of gasoline onto a 600 degree Fahrenheit heater, neither the white vapor, or non flammable liquid, will mix with the gasoline they were created from. I created a flammable gas from distilled water, by spraying a fine mist of distilled water onto a 221 degree Fahrenheit heater. The only thing flammable in water is the hydrogen atom. I feel like I am Galileo trying to convince the Catholic Church that the planets orbit around the sun, only I am fighting against the Chemistry society, to prove that atoms have boiling temperatures inside of liquids, and that by spraying the liquid onto the right temperature you will find these boiling temperatures, and the atoms inside the liquid will separate. Who knows how many new fuels can be created from this, not to mention what it can do for medicine, science, and the environment. We know when heated, a liquid produces a gas. This gas will separate from the liquid, it was created from. We know all liquids have their own boiling temperatures. What if it was possible to take any liquid to any temperature, and just like all liquids, atoms in liquids will have boiling temperatures to. Therefore it would be possible to take liquids to the boiling temperature of atoms inside of those liquids, and like going to the boiling temperature of any liquid. The atoms that boiled would separate from the atoms that didn’t. One atom, or group of atoms will become a gas and the other atom or group of atoms, inside the original liquid, will remain a liquid. Thus you have separated the atoms in that liquid, and at the right applied temperatures, it would be possible to separate the atoms in all liquids. I have a synopsis, all I ask is to read it and decide, if I am right. If you know nothing about Sublimation please look it up on the internet. Sublimation happens to snow when ample amounts of heat is applied to it, of course in explaining Sublimation, the scientist, used an unknown temperature, from a flame, or torch. When a large amount of ample heat is applied to the snow, the snow goes from a solid matter to a gas, without becoming a liquid matter. It is the size of the snowflake’s frozen matter that makes this possible. The snowflakes are extremely small, and they assume the applied temperature faster than the snow can melt, so by going to the applied temperature. The solid matter (snowflakes) bypasses the temperature needed to change to a liquid matter, which is above 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the freezing temperature of water. The snowflakes assume the applied unknown temperature, using the Sublimation effect and snowflakes become a gas, which happens above the 212 degree Fahrenheit temperature, the boiling temperature of water. We all know how long it takes snow to melt, but snowflakes are small and will go to the applied temperature very fast, faster than the snowflakes can become a liquid. Agreed? Sublimation is what science calls it. Using the Sublimation principle and specific temperatures, I replaced the snowflakes with small droplets of liquid, I used specific temperatures, and instead of applying unknown temperature to the liquid, I applied the liquid to the heating element, or heat source, in spray form. I used the same principle, as Sublimation, just a different way of applying the heat. I did this to gasoline and water; it can be done to any liquid. On gasoline I used 600 degrees Fahrenheit, for the heater temperature. Spraying a fine mist of a liquid onto the heat source, at specific temperatures is totally different from Sublimation, and I start with a liquid. I call it my Flashing Liquid Process. I have found a way to take any liquid to any temperature, before it changes state from a liquid matter to a gas. Using my Flashing Liquid process on gasoline at 600 degrees Fahrenheit, I got a white vapor that has twice the power of gasoline. I saw it on two different vehicles and 2 different Dynamometers. The white vapor I produced, had a zero parts per million hydrocarbons reading, this I have seen on a smog analyzer. To further prove what I discovered I put clean dry rags over the vehicle exhaust pipe, running the vehicle on the white vapor, and on all 7 vehicles, I have run the white vapor on, all the rags smelled like they had just been ironed. Some of the vehicles ran for half an hour on, the white vapor, very clean. At the same time the white vapor was created, I also accumulated a non flammable liquid, neither the white vapor, nor the non flammable would mix with the gasoline they were created from, after I Flashed the liquid gasoline. I did my Flashing Liquid Process to distilled water. On water I used between 212 and 230 degrees Fahrenheit. I could not find a temperature control to get the exact temperature. I split the difference between the 212 and 230 temperatures and 221 degrees Fahrenheit has to be the temperature that the hydrogen atom boils inside of distilled water. I found that public water has unspecified amounts of chlorine added. Chlorine influences the boiling temperature of water, so I used distilled water. Distilled water and gasoline are non conductors. You see, I used electric heaters, and thought about shorting out the electrical, when and if, it is used on a conventional or hydrogen powered vehicle. When I sprayed the distilled water onto the heat source at the above mentioned temperatures, I detected, with a combustible gas leak detector, a flammable gas from the vapor I produce. Think about it, the only thing flammable in water, is the hydrogen atom. Hydrogen in water cannot be detected, with a combustible gas leak detector. To get hydrogen from water with temperature, you would have to find the boiling temperature of the hydrogen atom, turning it to a gas, while the oxygen atom, still in liquid matter form, having not been flashed and reached its boiling temperature, remains a liquid. The liquid oxygen atom remains a liquid long enough for the hydrogen atom to become a gas, and separate from the liquid oxygen matter. Of course liquid oxygen boils at, according to one internet source, -368.77 degrees Fahrenheit, below zero, so it will boil as soon as the hydrogen atom separates from the oxygen atom, inside the distilled water. This is Hydrogen from water using the right temperature applied a different way. Science says when atoms separate, a void is created in the original atomic structure, and the void will be filled. Air being present, when my Flashing Liquid Process takes place, the surrounding air fills the void, and oxygen, being in that air, is what turns the vapor I created from gasoline, white. I have seen the bubbles form, and the gas inside the bubbles is clear, until they break, then like magic, when the clear gas is exposed to the air, the clear gas turns white. The oxygen in the surrounding air creates a hotter burning vapor, this is where I get twice the boost in power over gasoline. The liquid that forms the bubbles, that has clear gas inside, is the non flammable liquid that I created when I Flashed the gasoline, at 600 degree Fahrenheit temperature. A Gas Spectrum Analyzer, would add documentation to my synopsis. Prove me wrong, you have the temperature, use an electric fry pan, turned to its highest temperature, which should be around 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Spray a fine mist of gasoline onto the heated surface. Don’t worry, science is wrong about gasoline igniting at 536 degrees Fahrenheit. I have seen a heating element turn a dull red (about 1000 degrees Fahrenheit) before the gasoline auto ignited. The electric fry pan cannot reach that temperature. Analyze the white vapor, and non flammable liquid on a Gas Spectrum Analyzer. I know what I discovered. I will call the white vapor I created from gasoline, Billy Gas. I know its saturation temperature is around 65 degrees. It remains a gas at higher ambient temperature, than 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Find that saturation temperature on the combustible liquids chart. I have 3 videos on You Tube my channel Bill Kendrick, watch them and read the comments, make your own decision. A large mass of heat will be needed to sustain the desired temperature, when the liquid is sprayed onto the heat source, and the droplets need to be as fine as possible, to react to the applied heat faster. Yes I think I found the way to separate the atoms in any liquid with the right temperatures. I say every liquid atom has its own boiling temperature, when my Flashing Liquid Process is applied. Try it and see for yourself. Heat transfer happens first and I say faster than matter can perform a change of state, when the matter applied, is very small. One can take any liquid above its boiling temperature, by doing this. Bill Kendrick

Diane Harrington

Jul 29, 2014
09:06

Member


14 |
Share via:
Thank you Dave. Finally a proposal that makes sense and can be done. Amazing!

Laurence Victor

Jul 30, 2014
03:49

Member


15 |
Share via:
David, I agree with Delton that you propose a vision for a better humankind, but your path is too vague. Organizing locally and building up is not a strategy. Do you envision this being adopted by our currently dysfunctional societal systems, which all seem to have lost their minds? If you are able to create and grow an alternative system that follows your principles and if it is not suppressed by the current system, how do you envision confronting the powers who clearly demonstrate their willingness to annihilate opposition. The only viable path is that the alternative system abandon attempts to transform the old and develop to eventually replace the old, not transform it. I call this Societal Metamorphosis, the first stage being "Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing" to uplift the distribution of conceptual/intuitive/performance competencies in most of the global population. The details are there to be discovered in the diverse knowledge of humankind, ready to be synthesized and applied. It can start with a small community of teams. The problem is that this route is currently in a blindspot of most change activists. The resolution of our Crisis-of-Crises must be commensurate with the magnitude/scope/complexity of our Challenge. The law of requisite variety, the second law of cybernetics requires it. Our sick system can't be fixed and it would be foolish to attempt transformation when emerging a nu replacement is much more viable - should we only consider this option. This not an "utopian" proposal. Once you abandon transformation the actions that appear so difficult to take confronting old orders open to reveal many practical solutions. Imagine when our creative energies are not depleted in fighting the many resistances. Creating HUMANITY from humankind, as a societal butterfly emerges from the societal caterpillar, is a grand adventure exciting for all who join the expedition. http://nuet.us/

Dave Ewoldt

Jul 30, 2014
07:37

Member


16 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Larry... well, the path forward may be a bit vague in this proposal, as I'm limited to 2000 characters. Not too much room for detail there, which is why I also mentioned I've finished a 400+ page manuscript that goes into those details. Relocalization is a major component of those details, and since it is being implemented in cities around the world, I'm curious as to why you don't consider it part of a strategy, especially one that is systemic. The main societal system that has lost it's mind is the Western one, especially in America. Outside of U.S. borders quite a bit of what I'm talking about is already going forward full speed ahead (and some in the U.S. as well), albeit without a systemic framework to help guide it. You may want to look into what's going on in the larger world a bit. We must be willing to admit that the current system suppresses partially through acquiescence. We the people are the ones who supply the system's legitimacy. This is made easier if the status quo can keep awareness of viable alternatives out of the general public awareness. If nothing else I'm hoping that this proposal helps to elevate that awareness, if even in a small way. I agree that transformation of the existing paradigm is a complete waste of time--mainly because it is based on faulty assumptions--which is why the alternative (that's a replacement, not a reform) I'm proposing calls for a _transition_ toward a sustainable future with those terms explicitly defined so we can both measure our progress and ensure we're heading in the right direction. But we must be clear with our terms, as it seems to me that your use of metamorphosis in the butterfly analogy is one of transformation.

John Abdon

Aug 1, 2014
01:56

Member


17 |
Share via:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product GDP remains putty in the political arsenal: scalars per unit of time (velocity) will never result in a useful model of human endeavor. The arithmetic approach is for tax collectors. Vector fields get closer, but acceleration becomes very difficult to manage. Second order differentials require the standard "Usual Simplifying Assumptions", which are subtly engrained in our psyches (apparent in the comments you have received above). Therefore, non-linear dynamics, as you suggest,must be brought into the modeling. Various human economies are currently in chaotic transition states as they move from one strange attractor (The World Bank, etc.)to a new attractor. Discovering the fractal dimensions involved will therefore be quite challenging. Your proposal focuses correctly on the issues involved. Thank you!

Jasmine Hyman

Aug 14, 2014
01:52

Fellow


18 |
Share via:
Advocates shift to steady state economy, but gives no explanation as to how this might be achieved, especially in emerging economies which are eager to reach parity with the advanced economies, and among advocates of continued growth in the advanced economies.

Dave Ewoldt

Aug 14, 2014
02:31

Member


19 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Jasminehyman... as I've pointed out to others here, it's hard to get into details when you're limited to 1,000-2,000 characters. I could give a rough outline in about that many words, though. But if you're actually interested (and not just regurgitating the rhetorical point of someone else who has a vested interest), start with the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), The International Society for Ecological Economics, Journal of Ecological Economics, and the Business Alliance of Local Living Economies (BALLE). And don't confuse ecological economics with environmental economics (greening ecocide). A question for you: What proof do you have that anyone outside of ruling elites in the developing world actually wants the insanity that infects the Western industrial world? The advocates of continued growth believe in fairy tales. How can you possibly take them seriously?

Climate Colab

Aug 21, 2014
04:40

Member


20 |
Share via:
Advocates shift to steady state economy, but does not explain in enough detail how this shift might be achieved, especially in emerging economies which are eager to reach parity with the advanced economies, and among constituencies in the advanced economies that have a stake in the status quo. Also, does not include sub-proposals, as the contest prompt requests.
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.