Date   

Re: [gaiapc] Analysis of the 2020 HDR

 

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 07:39 AM, Don Chisholm wrote:
I think that BPG (Blue Planet Governance) should be in the top RT corner,
That is where I would put BPG. So given that the Federation of Watersheds is outside or barely on the edge of what normal educated people find thinkable, I'd put BPG within humanity's current Overton window, if near the edge. So, compared to MAHB, is BPG further upper right or to the left, up, or below? 


Re: [gaiapc] Analysis of the 2020 HDR

Steve Kurtz
 

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!

Steve   

On Dec 22, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Don Chisholm <donchism@...> wrote:

Eric, that is a very comprehensive graphic! 
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 economics.
And the BPClub as a companion.

I had never heard of the Federation of Watersheds.  It has a very interesting and comprehensive constitution document.
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.

Don

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 right.





On 2020-12-22 12:49 a.m., Eric Lee wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:56 AM, Luis Gutierrez wrote:
Is 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)?




Re: [gaiapc] Analysis of the 2020 HDR

Don Chisholm
 

Eric, that is a very comprehensive graphic! 
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 economics.
And the BPClub as a companion.

I had never heard of the Federation of Watersheds.  It has a very interesting and comprehensive constitution document.
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.

Don

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 right.






On 2020-12-22 12:49 a.m., Eric Lee wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:56 AM, Luis Gutierrez wrote:
Is 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)?



Re: So happy to see the ethics of this club

 

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 07:10 AM, KAREN SHRAGG wrote:
A Call to Solve Overpopulaiton
A call not merely to do the unthinkable and maybe, like you know, talk about 'it', the word starting with 'o' with 'population' in it. No, a call to solve as in find viable solutions to... something, I'm not sure what, and where's that latte I ordered?

I would like to suggest a subtext meme (or theme) for BPC of 'real solutions' as distinct from feel-good politically sellable memes of salvation and solutions that are sure to come if only enough people join BPC and vote BPC Party (to come) lines. Sorry, but Gaia doesn't care what we believe. True believers don't need a better movement to join, but better stories to tell as told by Gaia who has all the answers. [E.g. 'For the first time in history a conviction has developed among those who can actually think more than a decade ahead that we are playing a global endgame. Humanity's grasp on the planet is not strong. It is growing weaker. Our population is too large....' — Edward O. Wilson, Half Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life 2016]

Our thinking, our informing of ourselves and others, and envisioning's of a better world, i.e. one that is actually sustainable because it is not based on pretend science and deeply held beliefs in political solutions (or religious salvation) that are sure to come if we vote correctly for the next truly great leader, i.e. alpha chest-beater with promises to believe in.

In 12th century Europe, so far as anyone knew, everyone believed in religious salvation, and if you didn't, you didn't say so if you wanted to life. Things are so much better now, however. You can say anything, you can loudly declare and march in the streets with a sign proclaiming that you don't believe in political solutions. You can now just be ignored, then ridiculed, then marginalized, then obfuscated.... (at least until you write a bestselling book, e.g. Limits to Growth, that is viewed as a threat to the consensus view such that you need to be canceled).

We need people who can tell better stories (i.e. systems science-based ones such as Rees, Wilson, Heinberg... tell that are not based on the pretend science of NCE Anthropocene enthusiasts, woke or not. The currently dominate consensus narrative is that there are true stories (to believe in, die for, kill for...). The only different story is that there are no true storiesthe paradigm of no true paradigms, which is itself a paradigm [Donella Meadows, see Dark Mountain Manifesto review where Aluna=Gaia].

There are better stories that are more likely to allow some to pass through the bottleneck with information and functional, viable cultural memes/behaviors intact (e.g. trust, cooperation, love, understanding). We need people who can listen to Nature, and to those who endeavor to listen to Nature, who can then retell the better stories (e.g. such as H.T. Odum endeavored to tell) in a manner that enough of the intelligentsia storytellers can understand and maybe sort of retell to the public they serve with or without being paid to. This is not happening, but there is no biophysical reason to think that our consensus narrative is sustainable and, when it falters (based as it is on false domains of discourse, i.e. delusional storytelling) that we can't tell better stories, ones future QAnons can't tell but will pretend to tell as true stories, 

Telling better stories will change the consensus view and change our world. But if the change is to be for the better, the stories need to be about the what-is (aka reality that is different from our view of it) based on evidence which alone can (eventually) disconfirm deeply held beliefs (science is the endeavor to tell the most likely story) as Nature (aka evidence, the nature of things) alone determines. That we don't get a vote is a better story, as is that we, hubris Man (hu-mans), need to stand down and listen to Gaia.


Regarding the XR moment.

Don Chisholm
 

FYI, I have now signed on to both the local XR group and the main organization. 

https://rebellion.global/about-us/


Don C Don Chisholm: Engineering Technologist  613 476 1700 
Home page 
http://members.kos.net/donchism/index.htm  
If you agree it’s time for a science guided leadership of Planet Earth
Join the  
https://blueplanetclub.ca/


Re: So happy to see the ethics of this club

Don Chisholm
 

Also, Karen, feel free to mention BPC in your Move Upstream book!
Don

On 2020-12-19 10:21 a.m., Don Chisholm wrote:
Great to have you on board Karen. 
I think I sent you a response from the BPC page, but I'm just getting started at this. 
The technical end of things has been set up by Eric Lee.
Don


On 2020-12-19 8:18 a.m., KAREN SHRAGG via groups.io wrote:
When I read the Blue Planet Club's ideas I felt like I was reading the next version of my two books, The first ( Move Upstream: A Call to Solve Overpopulaiton) The second, (Change Our Stories Change Our World.). The modeling of BPC moves these ideas even further upstream to demonstrate that another way of living on our planet is possible and IMPOSSIBLE if we do not change. I have always felt like an Earth Citizen trapped in a downstream narrative of blue and red states wondering when we would realize that the biosphere is ailing and needing our immediate attention at the highest levels..so thank you for this amazing and needed effort.




Re: So happy to see the ethics of this club

Don Chisholm
 

Great to have you on board Karen. 
I think I sent you a response from the BPC page, but I'm just getting started at this. 
The technical end of things has been set up by Eric Lee.
Don


On 2020-12-19 8:18 a.m., KAREN SHRAGG via groups.io wrote:
When I read the Blue Planet Club's ideas I felt like I was reading the next version of my two books, The first ( Move Upstream: A Call to Solve Overpopulaiton) The second, (Change Our Stories Change Our World.). The modeling of BPC moves these ideas even further upstream to demonstrate that another way of living on our planet is possible and IMPOSSIBLE if we do not change. I have always felt like an Earth Citizen trapped in a downstream narrative of blue and red states wondering when we would realize that the biosphere is ailing and needing our immediate attention at the highest levels..so thank you for this amazing and needed effort.



So happy to see the ethics of this club

KAREN SHRAGG
 

When I read the Blue Planet Club's ideas I felt like I was reading the next version of my two books, The first ( Move Upstream: A Call to Solve Overpopulaiton) The second, (Change Our Stories Change Our World.). The modeling of BPC moves these ideas even further upstream to demonstrate that another way of living on our planet is possible and IMPOSSIBLE if we do not change. I have always felt like an Earth Citizen trapped in a downstream narrative of blue and red states wondering when we would realize that the biosphere is ailing and needing our immediate attention at the highest levels..so thank you for this amazing and needed effort.

1 - 8 of 8