Are really still at the point where "not destroying the planet in the name of perpetual growth" is considered radical? It's extremely simple science. In the long-term, the Earth will run out of...
Amsterdam is the first city in the world to adopt a radical economic theory that suggests economic growth shouldn’t be the ultimate measure of success. Instead, “doughnut economics” focuses on protecting the environment while meeting citizens’ basic needs.
Are really still at the point where "not destroying the planet in the name of perpetual growth" is considered radical?
It's extremely simple science. In the long-term, the Earth will run out of usable matter, the sun will die out. Endless growth is thus impossible so long as we are planet-bound. Pretty much the only feasible option in the short-middle term is orbital space stations, but even that isn't going to scale worth a damn.
If we don't protect our environment, the biological cycle that enables life will be destroyed. We rely on the living organisms of the planet to do very basic things like "return nutrients to soil" and "create oxygen by removing carbon from the atmosphere."
If anything, we should be looking to halt or reverse growth. Freeze everything and put sustainability first. Here's some random ideas:
Severe restrictions on single-use plastics (biohazard handling only).
Scale down R&D for computer hardware. Switch from annual upgrades to like 5/10 year cycles. We've hit a good threshold where there's diminishing returns on advancements.... 15 year old computers are still perfectly serviceable, while that was nowhere near true 15 years ago.
Instead of clear-cutting forests, even on a rotating basis, enforce periodic pruning...as in like 1-2 trees per acre. Manually intensive, but not nearly as destructive.
I’d never heard of donut economics, but I’ve long had a feeling that growth cannot be sustainable. I’m mostly financially and economically illiterate, but I found the idea behind donut economy...
I’d never heard of donut economics, but I’ve long had a feeling that growth cannot be sustainable. I’m mostly financially and economically illiterate, but I found the idea behind donut economy intriguing.
The two charts in Wikipedia clicked right away for me. For any not familiar, they're radar charts. They're fantastic for condensing large quantities of metrics. This one in particular is a bit of...
The two charts in Wikipedia clicked right away for me. For any not familiar, they're radar charts. They're fantastic for condensing large quantities of metrics. This one in particular is a bit of an oddball, because instead of just having different metrics around the circumference, there is also a divide in the center between the social metrics and economic metrics. I think breaking it out into two separate graphics would have been easier to grok.
Any red towards the center represents a deficiency in providing social care for society. We want to focus economic growth towards eliminating these deficiencies.
Any red towards the outside indicates excessive costs to the environment in the name of economic growth. We want to reduce economic output with the most externalizations (or keep the same but regulate to reduce environmental impact, and dedicate resources towards mitigating ones we can't.
Let's take food supply. It's pretty close to the green zone, so should be an easier win. Encourage economic output for food production in a more sustainable way, via incentives and regulation.
Regulate meat production by sun setting industrialized animal farming.
Use chickens as pest control instead of pesticides, unless crop failure is imminent. This will also help ladybugs, spiders grow on/near crops to further help with pest control. Re-introduce fallow fields into crop rotation for cattle ranching to prevent soil compaction.
Focus on making more plant-based composts (only types I see most places are cow feces and mushroom).
Encourage people to homestead. Victory Gardens were a great idea.
Looking at helping biodiversity, land conversion, and freshwater withdraw:
Release more land, especially around water sources, back to the wilderness.
Build more dams, whether by helping cultivate beaver populations or making small man-made ones. Small man-made damns can help with energy production as well.
I guess it's considered radical because it's very much a rebranding of a planned economy. It focuses on environmental impact over labor, but the two kind of go hand-in-hand because it means that a reallocation of labor to needed sectors would be needed.
I would expect Amsterdam's government to step up and fill the voids when other sectors do not.
Okay, that’s making a bit more sense. I’m wondering, though, what this is measuring. What units is “climate change” measured in and where does the data come from? Is it carbon dioxide levels in...
Okay, that’s making a bit more sense. I’m wondering, though, what this is measuring. What units is “climate change” measured in and where does the data come from? Is it carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere? Global temperature rise? Something else?
How do you measure health? Education? Biodiversity? Peace & Justice?
Why is the Peace & Justice metric split in two? Is one of them Peace and the other Justice? But other measurements like Health and Water are also split in two and this is unexplained.
I guess it’s nice to have a dashboard that displays a bunch of different measurements on one chart, but the methodology is entirely hidden and the labels are a bunch of abstract nouns.
I suspect that's the kind of thing that is a "devil in the details" situation, where it's not exactly useful to detail every component in a broad press coverage. Peace and Justice is almost...
I suspect that's the kind of thing that is a "devil in the details" situation, where it's not exactly useful to detail every component in a broad press coverage.
Peace and Justice is almost certainly just Crime and Punishment, just with a more positive spin. Various crime metrics, including types, arrests, and re-offenses. Enforcement metrics like 'rate of arrests of innocent', police using excessive force, or inequal application of law (letting the white person off with warning but not the minority). Many of these metrics are poorly gathered in the USA, sometimes disturbingly so, where the metrics used to be gathered and it was stopped.
The split between food and water makes sense as well. Food relates to food security and nutrition. Water relating to access to clean water. While they are intertwined, the solutions to them are looking very different. Specifically since the infrastructure and enforcement of each will look very different. IMO potable water should be a 100% human right, free at point of use. Not sure how to balance that against preventing excess usage, but I suspect the answer there is insuring a better treatment cycle.
Health probably a function of death causes, types, access to healthcare, average life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.
Education probably a function of various literacy, test scores, and graduation rates. Most of those metrics are already gathered, but rarely put together and used to influence policy (at least in the USA). Like, I still see education budgets getting slashed and poorly allocated regardless of how the metrics look.
I agree that climate change is exceedingly broad. So much discussion revolves around just carbon output, but there's so much more to it, some of which are encompassed in those other categories.
Yes, those are some important things that might be measured and I think your speculations are reasonable. And yes, for a lot of these things, it's not easy to get good numbers. But it seems like,...
Yes, those are some important things that might be measured and I think your speculations are reasonable. And yes, for a lot of these things, it's not easy to get good numbers.
But it seems like, just as a matter of effective public communication, we shouldn't have to guess at what they mean? I think that a chart with so many numbers that's in a format that's likely unfamiliar to most readers needs a pretty extensive legend explaining what they all are. Since there are so many numbers in so many different areas, the legend would probably be a whole separate page.
Maybe there is one, but it's not included on Wikipedia? Infographics taken out of context can be striking but mystifying. (It also can be an unfair way to make them look ridiculous; see DefenseCharts.)
Also important for the food supply is closing the production loop on phosphorus, which would involve redesigning sanitation infrastructure for its capture from feces. Phosphorus is important to...
Also important for the food supply is closing the production loop on phosphorus, which would involve redesigning sanitation infrastructure for its capture from feces. Phosphorus is important to agriculture as a fertilizer component since it's sort of the ultimate limiting reagent for life, and we rely mainly on fossil supplies vulnerable to depletion. Though that's not due to happen for centuries most likely, it's worth bearing in mind both out of consideration for the future and because phosphate mining increases the overall environmental impact of agriculture.
That's part of the idea behind re-integrating the livestock as part of the crop cycle. It's a lot easier to integrate feces when it's being dumped directly on the field. Doesn't solve the human...
That's part of the idea behind re-integrating the livestock as part of the crop cycle. It's a lot easier to integrate feces when it's being dumped directly on the field. Doesn't solve the human feces problem though, especially since there's a lot of other issues with non-biological contaminants in that sewage.
More composting toilets, less water-flush ones might help.
Yeah, but with the amount of infrastructure redesign needed for mass adoption of composting toilets, plus having to sell people on them in the first place, I think we'd be better off redesigning...
Yeah, but with the amount of infrastructure redesign needed for mass adoption of composting toilets, plus having to sell people on them in the first place, I think we'd be better off redesigning existing waste treatment facilities to capture phosphorus.
We just need a pro-environment propaganda machine. If we can get people to support wars, I'm sure we can convince them to buy eco toilets. :) That said, you are almost certainly correct.
We just need a pro-environment propaganda machine.
If we can get people to support wars, I'm sure we can convince them to buy eco toilets. :)
I’m sure that cities, towns, villages, counties, are different enough around the world that there will not be a one size fits all solution. Composting toilets may be an upgrade for some and then...
I’m sure that cities, towns, villages, counties, are different enough around the world that there will not be a one size fits all solution. Composting toilets may be an upgrade for some and then it would be a norm for them. Personally I would love a composting toilet, but by law I am not allowed to have one in my township. I’m not sure why.
The reason is: Fascism. ;) I kid, but I also oppose things like curfews for children, because it's just an arbitrary oppression that gives police a lot of leeway on enforcement. Seriously though,...
The reason is: Fascism. ;)
I kid, but I also oppose things like curfews for children, because it's just an arbitrary oppression that gives police a lot of leeway on enforcement.
Seriously though, just gotta build up grass roots support to strike down laws like that. It's much easier on the local level....just need enough support to annoy the local politicians at meetings that they do what you ask so you leave them alone. My town lifted the ban on having chickens in your backyard a few years ago for that reason.
Are really still at the point where "not destroying the planet in the name of perpetual growth" is considered radical?
It's extremely simple science. In the long-term, the Earth will run out of usable matter, the sun will die out. Endless growth is thus impossible so long as we are planet-bound. Pretty much the only feasible option in the short-middle term is orbital space stations, but even that isn't going to scale worth a damn.
If we don't protect our environment, the biological cycle that enables life will be destroyed. We rely on the living organisms of the planet to do very basic things like "return nutrients to soil" and "create oxygen by removing carbon from the atmosphere."
If anything, we should be looking to halt or reverse growth. Freeze everything and put sustainability first. Here's some random ideas:
I’d never heard of donut economics, but I’ve long had a feeling that growth cannot be sustainable. I’m mostly financially and economically illiterate, but I found the idea behind donut economy intriguing.
Noise:
wasn’t sure where to post this, if I got it wrong, please put it in the right place!
It looks like there is a Wikipedia article and a book. I can’t say I understand it from the little I’ve read, though.
The two charts in Wikipedia clicked right away for me. For any not familiar, they're radar charts. They're fantastic for condensing large quantities of metrics. This one in particular is a bit of an oddball, because instead of just having different metrics around the circumference, there is also a divide in the center between the social metrics and economic metrics. I think breaking it out into two separate graphics would have been easier to grok.
Following the descriptive example:
Let's take food supply. It's pretty close to the green zone, so should be an easier win. Encourage economic output for food production in a more sustainable way, via incentives and regulation.
Looking at helping biodiversity, land conversion, and freshwater withdraw:
I guess it's considered radical because it's very much a rebranding of a planned economy. It focuses on environmental impact over labor, but the two kind of go hand-in-hand because it means that a reallocation of labor to needed sectors would be needed.
I would expect Amsterdam's government to step up and fill the voids when other sectors do not.
Okay, that’s making a bit more sense. I’m wondering, though, what this is measuring. What units is “climate change” measured in and where does the data come from? Is it carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere? Global temperature rise? Something else?
How do you measure health? Education? Biodiversity? Peace & Justice?
Why is the Peace & Justice metric split in two? Is one of them Peace and the other Justice? But other measurements like Health and Water are also split in two and this is unexplained.
I guess it’s nice to have a dashboard that displays a bunch of different measurements on one chart, but the methodology is entirely hidden and the labels are a bunch of abstract nouns.
Maybe the book would explain this.
I suspect that's the kind of thing that is a "devil in the details" situation, where it's not exactly useful to detail every component in a broad press coverage.
Peace and Justice is almost certainly just Crime and Punishment, just with a more positive spin. Various crime metrics, including types, arrests, and re-offenses. Enforcement metrics like 'rate of arrests of innocent', police using excessive force, or inequal application of law (letting the white person off with warning but not the minority). Many of these metrics are poorly gathered in the USA, sometimes disturbingly so, where the metrics used to be gathered and it was stopped.
The split between food and water makes sense as well. Food relates to food security and nutrition. Water relating to access to clean water. While they are intertwined, the solutions to them are looking very different. Specifically since the infrastructure and enforcement of each will look very different. IMO potable water should be a 100% human right, free at point of use. Not sure how to balance that against preventing excess usage, but I suspect the answer there is insuring a better treatment cycle.
Health probably a function of death causes, types, access to healthcare, average life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.
Education probably a function of various literacy, test scores, and graduation rates. Most of those metrics are already gathered, but rarely put together and used to influence policy (at least in the USA). Like, I still see education budgets getting slashed and poorly allocated regardless of how the metrics look.
I agree that climate change is exceedingly broad. So much discussion revolves around just carbon output, but there's so much more to it, some of which are encompassed in those other categories.
Yes, those are some important things that might be measured and I think your speculations are reasonable. And yes, for a lot of these things, it's not easy to get good numbers.
But it seems like, just as a matter of effective public communication, we shouldn't have to guess at what they mean? I think that a chart with so many numbers that's in a format that's likely unfamiliar to most readers needs a pretty extensive legend explaining what they all are. Since there are so many numbers in so many different areas, the legend would probably be a whole separate page.
Maybe there is one, but it's not included on Wikipedia? Infographics taken out of context can be striking but mystifying. (It also can be an unfair way to make them look ridiculous; see DefenseCharts.)
Also important for the food supply is closing the production loop on phosphorus, which would involve redesigning sanitation infrastructure for its capture from feces. Phosphorus is important to agriculture as a fertilizer component since it's sort of the ultimate limiting reagent for life, and we rely mainly on fossil supplies vulnerable to depletion. Though that's not due to happen for centuries most likely, it's worth bearing in mind both out of consideration for the future and because phosphate mining increases the overall environmental impact of agriculture.
That's part of the idea behind re-integrating the livestock as part of the crop cycle. It's a lot easier to integrate feces when it's being dumped directly on the field. Doesn't solve the human feces problem though, especially since there's a lot of other issues with non-biological contaminants in that sewage.
More composting toilets, less water-flush ones might help.
Yeah, but with the amount of infrastructure redesign needed for mass adoption of composting toilets, plus having to sell people on them in the first place, I think we'd be better off redesigning existing waste treatment facilities to capture phosphorus.
We just need a pro-environment propaganda machine.
If we can get people to support wars, I'm sure we can convince them to buy eco toilets. :)
That said, you are almost certainly correct.
I’m sure that cities, towns, villages, counties, are different enough around the world that there will not be a one size fits all solution. Composting toilets may be an upgrade for some and then it would be a norm for them. Personally I would love a composting toilet, but by law I am not allowed to have one in my township. I’m not sure why.
The reason is: Fascism. ;)
I kid, but I also oppose things like curfews for children, because it's just an arbitrary oppression that gives police a lot of leeway on enforcement.
Seriously though, just gotta build up grass roots support to strike down laws like that. It's much easier on the local level....just need enough support to annoy the local politicians at meetings that they do what you ask so you leave them alone. My town lifted the ban on having chickens in your backyard a few years ago for that reason.
What would a sustainable, universally beneficial economy look like? "Like a doughnut," says Oxford economist Kate Raworth.