[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)?



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)?




 

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?