Okay, hier bin ich.
Die Art und Weise, wie wir gerade „Nachhaltigkeit“ machen? Es ist gebrochen. Spenden austrocknen, Projekte kollabieren, Korruption frisst das Geld, und inzwischen werden wir gesagt, wir sollten uns für Plastikstrohhalme schuldig fühlen, während Ölfirmen wie es kein Morgen gäbe. Es ist ein Witz. Kein Wunder, dass die Leute das Ganze entweder leugnen oder einfach aufgeben.
Für den Kontext bin ich Ricky, ich lebe in Byron Bay, Australien. Und ich bin ehrlich gesagt frustriert darüber, wie sich alles anfühlt. In den sozialen Medien sieht es so aus, als würden wir alle kämpfen. Aber wenn Sie tatsächlich mit alltäglichen Menschen sprechen, wollen die meisten von uns das gleiche Zeug: sauberere Gemeinschaften, weniger Korruption, eine Zukunft, die nicht schlechter ist als die Gegenwart. Wir sind nicht so geteilt wie das Internet es aussehen lässt.
Hier ist, was mich wirklich nervt: Es gibt vorbei 10 Millionen gemeinnützige Organisationen in der Welt im Moment. Wenn „mehr Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen“ die Antwort wäre, würden wir bereits im Paradies leben. Aber wir sind nicht. Das sagt mir, dass das System, das wir seit Jahrzehnten benutzen, es einfach nicht schneidet.
Also, was machen wir? Für mich geht es darum, ein System zu bauen, das sich selbst erhält. Keine endlosen Spenden. Keine Schuldausflüge. Etwas, das die Tools verwendet, die wir bereits haben, Geld, Geschäft und sogar Technologie – aber sie auf Projekte hinweist, die das Leben tatsächlich besser machen, anstatt nur die Taschen der reichen Leute auszuräumen.
Klingt ehrgeizig, vielleicht sogar naiv, aber ich denke ehrlich, wenn es richtig gemacht wird, könnte es eine der mächtigsten Hebel für Veränderungen da draußen sein.
Aber es geht nicht nur um mich, ich möchte hören, was andere denken.
Add-On-Kommentar:
Hey Leute, wollte nur eine Sekunde hierher zurückspringen. Ich habe mich durch die Diskussion über diesen Thread, eine Menge großartiger Ideen und Perspektiven umgehauen, wirklich alle zu schätzen wissen, die sich die Zeit genommen haben, zu teilen. 🙂
Ein paar Leute haben mich auch gefragt, um mehr über das Projekt zu fragen, das ich erwähnte. Anstatt mich selbst zu wiederholen, werde ich es einfach hierher setzen. Ich habe eine kostenlose Community in Skool eingerichtet, in der ich Schritt für Schritt alles unterbrechen kann, was ich als aktuelle Probleme, was ich denke, und die Vision, die ich für ein System baue, das sich tatsächlich selbst unterstützen und echte Lösungen finanzieren könnte.
Es ist völlig kostenlos und wird es immer sein. Wenn Sie tiefer tauchen möchten, hier ist der Link:
https://www.skool.com/ampacx-4043/about?ref=97D0857CB08C4592AF94C21158C30C83
Kein Druck, nur eine offene Einladung.
Schätzen Sie hier alle Eingaben! Es hat mir viel zu denken, während ich das immer wieder formte und das ist alles für :).
Forget the climate debate. The real question: how do we build a system that works?
byu/Unlikely_Morning_704 inFuturology
23 Kommentare
Are you asking specifically in regards to mitigating or straight up reversing the impacts of climate change?
May I interest you in two readings:
1. The Sustainability Solution to the Fermi Paradox
„In this paper, we argue that this conclusion is premature by introducing the „Sustainability Solution“ to the Fermi Paradox, which questions the Paradox’s assumption of faster (e.g. exponential) civilization growth. Drawing on insights from the sustainability of human civilization on Earth, we propose that faster-growth may not be sustainable on the galactic scale. If this is the case, then there may exist ETI that have not expanded throughout the galaxy or have done so but collapsed. These possibilities have implications for both searches for ETI and for human civilization management.“
https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0568
2. Doughnut Economics
„The Doughnut consists of two concentric rings: a social foundation, to ensure that no one is left falling short on life’s essentials, and an ecological ceiling, to ensure that humanity does not collectively overshoot the planetary boundaries that protect Earth’s life-supporting systems. Between these two sets of boundaries lies a doughnut-shaped space that is both ecologically safe and socially just: a space in which humanity can thrive.“
https://doughnuteconomics.org/about-doughnut-economics
The world needs to change completely. Every solution is profit driven. I don’t think the earth or life cares about profits but rather simply being alive and capable of surviving.
Until the world moves away from profit motives, nothing will change.
Prove me wrong.
Teach kids how to compromise. Feed them so they are too full to be jealous.
So I agree with a lot of your sentiments. I think there are at least three ways to look at the problems of climate change: technical, economic, and societal.
Technically, there are solutions to excessive greenhouse gas emissions, which include solar power, batteries, hydroelectric, etc. These could be good areas to work on.
Economically, I agree that charity alone won’t solve the problem. I think governments are quite good at collecting taxes. So, increasing taxes on polluting industries makes sense to me. If the free market is tilted away from destructive practices, there will be less of them. So this could represent a very good area to work on.
On a societal level, the total resource consumption is equal (mathematically) to the product of resource consumption per person and number of people. Resource consumption per person can theoretically be reduced by switching to utilizing less damaging resources. So that is a good area to work on. The only ethical ways that I am aware of to deal with the number of people is to promote birth control and educating women and things like that in the hopes that the growth rate slows or stops (as correlations have shown). But these could be good areas to work on also.
Recognise that we are operating in a system where there is organised, well resourced, sometimes covert resistance to changing things by the people and organisations that benefit from the status quo. Even people and organisations that claim to want good things can be actually devoting their energies to stopping, redirecting or stalling those good things.
Many of the charities and non-profits are stalking horses for the broken system, and some are at least infiltrated. It’s not paranoia, it’s just what power does.
Ketan Joshi is a great Australian writer on this. Here’s an illustration he posted recently that covers some of the adversarial landscape.
https://drive.usercontent.google.com/download?id=1BefoJc47I3ITnd4jQA94JFGrJAZIJnn2&export=download
We need some mechanism to discourage wealth accumulation. There is a vast difference between financial security and obscene wealth. The problem with obscene wealth is it becomes a scoreboard of personal achievement where practically none of that wealth is used for public overall well-being. Very few of the holders of immense wealth are trying to improve society and instead want to carve out a vision for certain people. Just check out what Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg think of how the future should be formed. Why these individuals should have an outsized influence on world policies is a mystery. They were good at one thing, that’s all.
I know the answers not just your mind but I know what’s coming what how it will happen but probably I never used social media for influencing,that’s I’m not sure where or how to start but once I’ll start whole world will find IBNE- KHALDOON PART 2
The problem is much deeper than you suggest. Our culture and society are broken. They probably cannot be fixed.
We would need a new type of system. Governmental oversight prevents anything going at a meaningful pace, what can be done by universities and organizations is always bottlenecked by money and again, government oversight. Thing is, nothing can happen legally without government oversight and approval. There’s illegal claimate destruction, so i suppose the concept of illegal climate action is logical possibility, but the long term success of guerilla climate activism is unlikely and no appreciable progress can be made without stymying the cause. Until we can replace oil as the main source of energy, we won’t see major improvements. That requires legislation, and legislation relies on people with the vison in office, and that starts with us.
Destroy the profit motive. We need to move beyond the idea that infinite growth is possible or even desirable.
Everything that’s bad in the world is due to unfairness. Force a society to be fair, and it will solve all of societies problems.
This is exactly what our nonprofit tech startup KarmaHub does.
Our vision is to effectively invert the global economy by incentivizing volunteering and crowdfunding for nonprofits.
This all starts by „rewarding“ volunteering with a non profit crypto-coupon we calll Karmatokens that are backed by substantial pledges by the for profit retail sector partners
We’re in the beta test stsge now, conducting small-scale tests in the non profit music and arts festival landscape…we hope to be launching more broadly by next fall.
Check it out. There’s a video on the landing page that explains everything http://www.KarmaHub.app.
Yes. The system needs major overhauling to to make better living conditions for regular working people rather than just the rich & mega corporations.
The hardest part will be coming out a system that work. Second is to „persuade“ all the beneficiary of the existing to give up their benefit.
The population has grown, and humans, like any other widespread resource, become cheaper, expendable, disposable, and consumable, especially as automation and AI make their utility even less relevant.
Imo it’s the endless consumption caused by endless profit seeking caused by inflationary money.
Change money change the world.
You need to build a space colony. Bringing 1 kg of anything costs between $10 and $14k, so reusing is key.
The article [Tecnología del negocio ecológico](https://www.rankia.com/blog/comstar/2543412-tecnologia-negocio-ecologico) tells you about the chemistry of a space colony in a very simple way.
Normally „being green“ is about „degrading less“ instead of turning the inhabitable into habitable. A space colony turns the most hostile to life environments into a livable environment. I can guarantee you that if you create this space colony on Earth, you will not be able to be able to be more sustainable than that, with the plus of developing space technology using nature’s technology.
We usually see sustainability as non profitable. But if you develop this space technology, you could develop a profitable business.
The business of non profit organizations is to get donations and never solve the problem because if they do, donations stop coming.
Your premise is entirely correct. The barrier is entrenched business interests. Big oil, for example, has a lot of ‘proven reserves’ they have invested in. Every one of these companies wants to sell every ounce of their reserves, so will invest heavily in political donations to make this happen.
So many different views and opinions are we heading to any kind of solution 🔜 🤔
Legally a public corporation cannot make sustainable moves if unsustainable moves would be more profitable. Capitalism, especially in America, requires a willingness to exploit something for profit: workers, the environment, customers, etc.
if there are ruling classes that cannot be restrained by the people due to excesses of wealth and lack of restraining institutions and systems, they will wreck the world to preserve and expand their power, because the people impacted by the extraction can’t do anything about it.
>how do we build a system that works [Environmentally]?
Good question. And in a term: [Solarpunk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk). That’s a whole lot solar power as well as wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, fission, and maybe even fusion. Electrifying as much as possible. Synthetic oils and plastics where were can’t. It’s going to need a good deal of invention because the reality is that we just can’t get there from here. Automation bottoming out the cost (and CO2 impact) of living. Bountiful gene-spliced crops that don’t need pesticides or fertilizer. Growing more locally where possible for freshness and avoiding transportation costs.
And don’t forget about the social changes that allow us the sort of luxury of maintaining our environment: Democracy. Open trade. Open borders. An end to war and conflict. Taxing the wealthy or otherwise sharing the prosperity. Free speech and civil debate. Public transit. An educated and informed populous. A functional and healthy 4th estate. Distributed systems over central control. Nationalized healthcare.
>The way we’re doing “sustainability” right now?: …Donations …nonprofits …charities.
Yeah, environmentalism isn’t some charity case.
>So what do we do? ..Something that uses the tools we’ve already got, money, business, even tech — but points them at projects that actually make life better instead of just lining rich people’s pockets.
What? What’s the idea? „Sounds ambitious“? No it doesn’t you don’t ever actually say…wait
….OH SHIT. „—“ That EM_DASH. It’s fucking AI slop. siiiiiiiigh. THAT’S why it’s a meandering and pointlessly full of fluff without any actual idea in there.
>I want to hear what others think.
Tsk, and engagement bait at the end.