toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The UFoWoE appears to be Eric’s sci-fi creation. Note the date of the Constitution is 2087!
As to money creation, it is briefly addressed. I’m unsure of the intended details and exclusivity of it.
As to omissions, the glaring one is the permissible number of citizens/occupants in total on the planet. i read it quickly, so I could have missed a guideline. I did see the limits for small villages, and the prohibition of raising kids in large cities. A limit to the right to reproduce at all would seem necessary, with a license required in advance. Competence in caring for selves and material sufficiency to add a dependent seem reasonable to me as an addition.Responsibilities before rights!
On Dec 22, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Don Chisholm <donchism@...
Eric, that is a very comprehensive
With regard to your question <<Oh, and where should I put
BPC?>>, I think that BPG (Blue Planet Governance) should be
in the top RT corner, diagonally opposite from neo-classic
And the BPClub as a companion.
I had never heard of the Federation of
Watersheds. It has a very interesting and comprehensive
And it is very much in line with what I had speculated in an
envisioned sustainable future.
I'll read it again later, but on first brush it does not deal with
the creation of money, a very important element, in my view.
The Federation exists
to set global policy to manage & protect the planetary
commons and define limits. Member Watersheds accept Federation policy
and limits while non-members reject both and Federation assistance/benefits.
Membership is voluntary and secession from the Union is a
On 2020-12-22 12:49 a.m., Eric Lee
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:56 AM, Luis Gutierrez wrote:
this "responsible parenthood"?
Ask a rhetorical question... and it leads to 'what are these
people thinking (or pretending to think)?
In large print: "The HDR 2020 makes it crystal clear that human development from now on is about making choices that are good for people and the planet."
Which translates to: The HDR 2020 makes it crystal
clear that human development from now on is about making
choices that are good for people (and the planet).
More fine words from the UN, resilience thinking and the
sustainability 'debate'. From the first UN Conference on the
Human Environment, to the fine words of the Brundtland Commission
Report of 1987, to this offering, we keep repeating the pattern
while expecting a different outcome. Yes, we will release our grip
on nature (probably not by choice), we have to stop considering
nature and the environment as something separate from society. and
we need to move 'the state of Earth' issue from a marginal
externality to the centre of the discussion around a prosperous
way down for some.
Sorry, should have said 'prosperous future for all', but I'm not
part of the Fine Words Guild that serves the system. The human
future may not be altered by a consensus narrative of wordsmiths
that 'choices that are good for people', that can also even
slightly reduce the pace of planetary life-support system
destruction, can be chosen.
Enough said. If I'm not preaching to the choir, then please beg to
differ. I would like to be wrong about everything. I'll offer a
graphic that I've used, with some modifications, that is a picture
of the concept mongering landscape (or memescape) we swim in.
Oh, and where should I put BPC? (Where should it be, not where do
we want it to be?) Any omissions (and where they should go)?