"Why Societies Collapse"

by the notable geographer, Jared Diamond.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IESYMFtLIis
Diamond is the author of Guns, Germs, & Steel and several other books on the human condition.

This TED Talk is all about sustainability.  He uses examples from the distant Past and Modern Day.  The clip is from 2003, and is completely relevant today.
............................
Despite the deep denial by some people, we clearly are at the beginning of an eco-catastrophe of monumental proportions.  It goes way beyond fossil fuels, or green energy, or recycling, or the literal insanity of nuclear weapons & nuclear waste, or any number of other individual, "environmental" problems. 

This catastrophe also involves aspects of Human Ecology which we largely have been unwilling to face--- 
1.  a lack of ethics,
2.  social and income inequality,
3.  racism,
4.  the anachronistic stratification of social classes,
5.  the misinterpretation of "religion",
6.  a lack of spirituality,
7.  intolerance of "the other side",
8.  shallow values,
9.  ignorance of systems in Nature,
10.  the tendency to embrace opposition rather than cooperation,
11.  failure to recognize the degree to which we are propagandized, and
12.  the utter arrogance of the human species relative to other life forms on Earth.
.................................
Professor Diamond shows us a methodology for analyzing our predicament, and educating others as to a way forward.  It's a hopeful message.
.................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

"Surviving and Thriving in the 21st Century"

It's a free, online booklet discussing ten major global risks we all face, and proposed solutions.
https://humanfuture.net/sites/default/files/CHF_Roundtable_Report_March_2020.pdf
From the Commission for the Human Future.
Worth the read.
.......................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

The Steady State Economy & How to Begin to Get There

https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/steady-state-economics-in-a-world-of-resource-limits-a-mahb-dialogue-with-environmental-economist-rob-dietz/

Right on the mark.
....................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

The Rubbish of Mainstream Economics: Its Assertions, Most Products, & Its Wastes

Preface

As a species, we're at an important crossroad.  Shall we continue on the path of unlimited growth and overconsumption, or choose a different path?  In other words, shall we continue producing an ever-increasing mountain of rubbish (both products & wastes), or choose another route?

For decades, and continuing presently, we've chosen a path based on myths and falsehoods.  That path has brought about a multi-faceted disaster which is unfolding before our eyes.  We've yet to encounter the worst of it, thus some people continue to believe everything will be okay.  It's all being handled.
...............................
The Primary Myths of Mainstream Economics (in no particular order)

1.  This is the Age of Information and Services.  Don't worry about developed countries transferring manufacturing elsewhere.  We'll import goods.  Plus, soon we'll decouple economics from natural resources and ecological impacts.
https://theconversation.com/the-decoupling-delusion-rethinking-growth-and-sustainability-71996

Most of number 1. above is rubbish.  For example, the number one service industry is Transportation.  What's being transported?  Mostly - material goods (and people).  Unfortunately, a great deal of those goods are junk, inferior goods from countries which have super-low wages and few environmental laws.  Low-priced in the short-run, but costly in the long-run.  They have to be replaced about every year.  Lots of them are on Amazon, and in Walmart.  The rest of the service industry uses "goods" galore.  Point being:  an economy needs manufacturing, especially if a Middle Class is to survive.

Then there's "Information".  Mainstreamers often claim an economy can be grown with the buying and selling of that.  The trouble is:  information usually is connected directly to manufacturing or agricultural GOODS.  Two exceptions to that:  info in the Financial Sector, and Advertising.  The Financial Sector extracts money from the economy; it doesn't add to it.  [This despite the fact that its income is counted as adding to the GDP.]  Advertising (mostly outlandish) adds to the cost of goods or services.  So, neither one is very good for the economy.  Of course, that's arguable.

2.  Perpetual, unlimited growth will lift people out of poverty.  "A rising tide lifts all boats".  That's why Business (especially Mega Business) should have tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, loopholes, etc.

The main problems with those assertions are:
a)  the opportunity playing field is not level;
b)  there is almost zero "trickle down" nowadays; and,
c)  too many CEOs focus only on quarterly profits and increasing the stock value. 
That all means low wages, few benefits, and no job security.  CEOs and other top execs get their "golden parachute" even if they run the company into the ground.
More rubbish.
.............................
Industrial and Commercial Wastes

The air, bodies of water, and land are all being used as "waste sinks".  Not much, but some of those wastes are recycled naturally and/or artificially.  Back when I was a teenager (in the 1950's), Earth's human population was 2.5 billion; it's now close to 8 billion.  As population has increased, so has the amount of waste.  Today, despite recycling efforts, and due to the growth of the petrochemical industry, both the amount of waste and its toxicity have exceeded Earth's waste 
assimilating and/or neutralizing capabilities.  Plus, recycling of the most ubiquitous solid waste - plastic - has dropped way off.  Let's not even mention the ongoing problems with nuclear waste... too depressing.

For several years as a HazMat Specialist with Sacramento County, I inspected businesses of all sizes for regulatory compliance regarding hazardous wastes and hazardous products.  [I left that job in 2004.]  Also included in my inspections were governmental facilities such as military bases.  One of those was a SuperFund Cleanup Site.  [By the way, Trump has stopped the addition of new sites to the aggregate list of sites.]  As of June 2019, there are 1,344 SuperFund Sites scattered all across the USA... in every one of our 50 States.  Each one is so badly polluted that it will take years to do the cleanup.  The biggest problem is pollution of groundwater (water held underground).  Frankly, I doubt that all such sites ever will be back to normal.  It's a safe bet there are thousands more sites that didn't make the SuperFund category listing.  Finally, there were 48 more SuperFund Sites proposed for addition to the list in 2019.  They didn't make it because of our "genius" President stopping the entire procedure.

Point being:  we have a massive problem relative to pollution of the air, water, and land.  Most people are cognizant of this.  Those who believe we can decouple GROWTH from natural resources and negative environmental impact via substitutions and human ingenuity are, in my opinion, peddling snake oil... both to themselves and the to rest of us.
...................................
Conclusion

Continuing on with unlimited growth and overconsumption, while ignoring Earth's biophysical constraints, makes no sense.  That's brought us to where we are today... even after 50 years of the "Environmental Movement"!  We don't need more junk and waste in our lives.  What does make sense is degrowth and transitioning to a Steady State Economy, essentially, to Ecological Economics.  If organized human existence is to survive and thrive, that's the path we should take.  And as I've said before, that will require a paradigm shift in ethics.

See https://mahb.stanford.edu/
Also https://steadystate.org/
Also http://www.ussee.org/our-blog/category/education-publications/
..................................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"Evolutionary theory of economic decisions"

New research suggests that policy makers and "the Market" often make wrong decisions when it comes to helping "poor people", especially subsistence farmers.
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/evolutionary-theory-economic-decisions#gs.dffa6q

Amen to that.  Poor people have the most to lose, not the least.
....................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Biden, Trump, Voting, Politics, the Ecosphere, and Propaganda

Preface

We rarely ever know what's really going on in politics.  Whatever we do know about it has been filtered through public and private Oligarchs, as well as the Corporate Media.  Whistleblowers effectively are criminalized, and soon essentially marginalized or forgotten, or both.  Though they've made great progress in the last ten to twenty years or so, alternative media sources often simply don't get the exposure necessary to have a significant impact.

Decades ago, the "Dean of American Journalism", Walter Lippmann, referred to the American public as the "bewildered herd".  He also stated:
1)  "Democracy is much too important to be left to public opinion."; and,
2)  "The effort to calculate exactly what the voters want at each particular moment leaves out of account the fact that when they are troubled the thing the voters most want is to be told what to want.".  [Emphasis added]
Incidentally, Lippmann was a political "liberal".

The point being:  I believe for the most part, Main Street has little to no idea what the "good-guy" Elites really have as a worldview, and even less idea of how much we are propagandized by the Movers-and-Shakers in high places.  Some people are aware, but way too few.
...................................
Biden, Trump, Neoliberalism, the Ecosphere, and Politics

There is no doubt that Neoliberalism in politics, finance, and economics has been a major contributor to the following:
1)  income inequality;
2)  social inequality;
3)  privatization and austerity;
4)  ecological/environmental damage and destruction;
5)  increased susceptibility to disease;
6)  lost manufacturing;
7)  a much less resilient economy; and
8)  several other maladies.
Neoliberals have managed to rule the roost right through today primarily by the use of massive Edward Bernays style propaganda.  It saturates the public and private spheres every day.  It promotes false ideas of both "freedom" and "capitalism".  It wraps its supporters in the American flag, Big Daddy in the Sky, and the American Dream.  It ignores the reality of what Nature is telling us.  Its supporters claim to be "Moderates", when in fact they are Corporatists, essentially NeoFeudalists... or the puppets of same.

It has been clear for quite awhile that Trump is an unmitigated disaster.  In any arena of national life - emergency management, economics, health care, stewardship of natural resources, diplomacy, national security, statesmanship, ethics, monetary policy, fiscal policy, & yes, even politics - he is inept, incompetent, and dangerous.  On top of that, he's a psychological gaslighter and serial liar.  [Again, a reminder - I'm not a Democrat or a Republican.]  He's not a Neoliberal, but he is a wannabe fascist.

The Democratic Party is firmly controlled (at the highest levels) by Neoliberals and/or Corporatists.  That's been true since Bill Clinton's Admin and is still true today.  The "Progressive" surge in the last few years essentially has been marginalized*** by the DNC and its so-called "Moderates".  Those Corporatists include Pelosi, Schumer, Perez, Obama, Biden, Harris, and any other "Establishment" Democrat.
***[How long does Ocasio-Cortez get to speak at the Dem Convention?  Ten minutes?  Oh, I forgot - one minute.]

Joe Biden is either a Neoliberal or one of their puppets; that's true even if he doesn't realize it.  In any case, he's firmly in the back pocket of the Financial Sector and Wall Street.  Nevertheless, he's orders of magnitude better for the country than Trump.  In November, Trump must be kicked out of office.  Again we have the Evil of Two Lessers, but Trump is much, much worse than Biden.

Trump's policies relative to the ecosphere are egregiously outrageous, arguably criminal.  Most sane people know how damaging his actions have been to our social fabric, our standing in the world, and our peace of mind.  I suspect, though, that not enough know how horrible his impact has been on the nonhuman portion of Nature.  Please:  vote him out of office in a landslide.
...............................
Conclusion

The first step in the path forward should be crystal clear:  if you care at all about the human part of Nature, Nature in general, and the world in general, then vote Trump back to private life.  If you want to help "save the world", here's your chance.  Just do it.  Thanks in advance.  Younger generations thank you, too.
...............................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Ignoring Uncomfortable Knowledge

Preface

There's a popular term, the "circular economy", making the rounds in the economic arena and in the halls of policy making... especially in Europe, a region in the forefront of the search for sustainability.  Proponents of the circular economy appear to be on the cusp of finalizing a concept which seems to provide a solution to the vexing problem of saving the ecosphere, the technosphere, the economies of the world, and society in general.  As my father used to say, however, "Hold your horses... not yet.".
............................
Uncomfortable Knowledge

While the "circular" economists acknowledge the dependence of the economy on biophysical elements/flows, they simultaneously ignore the fact that those same elements are subject to thermodynamic constraints.  Their solution to any problems encountered is to:  1) "decouple" the economy from natural resources;  and, 2) to rely on technology, human genius, and the magic of the Market to do so.  In part, such thinking is based on the following.

The agricultural "Green Revolution" increased world food production exponentially in the late 1960's.  That was due mostly to the development of high-yielding cereal grain crops, and from the petrochemical industry, the development of synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides.

In addition to the concept of entropy, the uncomfortable knowledge being ignored by proponents of the circular economy are the following facts.
1)  Agricultural and urban/suburban runoff of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers has caused massive eutrophication of bodies of fresh water, thus depleting them of oxygen and essentially killing all life in them.
2)  Synthetic pesticide use has had disastrous results over the decades on both nonhuman and human life.
3)  Synthetic fertilizers have caused a significant negative impact on soil structure, resulting in increased soil erosion in many places.

In other words, using the ag green revolution to encourage reliance on technology, human ingenuity, and the Market to solve social-ecological problems is not a good idea.  It totally ignores the downside of that revolution, and all the downside is not even fully known yet.

For a full (& brilliant) discussion of this topic, see this journal article---
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120302033 ,
From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy.
For anyone studying the crisis in economics, it's a must-read.
..............................
Conclusion

It seems to me that mainstream/neoliberal economists are attempting to repackage their economics as even more "circular" than before, and now "green" as well.  The problem is that they're still promoting unlimited growth and overconsumption.  Meanwhile, our life support systems on Spaceship Earth continue to be negatively impacted.  The "new" circular economy being proposed will not stop that.  And by the way, tick-tock.  Time is getting short.
.............................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Natural Capital Valuation and the Problem of "de dicto" OR "de re"

Preface

One part of designing an economic system which is ecologically sensible and sustainable is the approach of assigning monetary values to "natural capital".  Efforts are underway in various places around the world to do that.  I believe those efforts are commendable and necessary, but there might be a problem that should be kept in mind.
............................
Will the Valuation be "de dicto" or "de re"?

http://www.isecoeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ONeill-what_is_lost_through_no_net_loss.pdf

To value an object merely as a vehicle for "services" is to value it de dicto.  The object is substitutable.  To value it for its specific, intrinsic characteristics, for its inherent, essential nature is to value the object de re.  It is not substitutable.

Valuing some objects de dicto is entirely appropriate.  A case in point would be tools.  To do so with other objects, such as living, sentient beings, is ethically questionable.  In some cases, even the nonliving portion of a landscape may not be substitutable in terms of the well-being of various people.

One proposal in the natural capital valuation approach is to implement offsetting markets.  If, for example, there's a loss of an ecosystem or a portion thereof in one area, then in another area one (of equal value) would be restored, or created, or preserved.  Supposedly, there would be no net loss.  But, what if the lost item is valued "de re" by the people in the area or region?  Then there is a net loss, and the well-being of some people is reduced.

In the article at the link above, Professor John O'Neill gives a critique of the whole idea of natural capital valuation (including offsetting markets).  The article at the link below is a slightly different version of the one above.  He makes some very important points which need to be given serious consideration.

https://www.cusp.ac.uk/themes/m/m1-6/#1475182667098-0328ae0f-4bcbf2c7-159ee609-9652

I well remember when offsetting markets were created for air pollution.  "Unused" carbon emissions could be sold to companies above their limits in order for them to keep polluting the atmosphere (for some limited time).  No net gain in air pollution.  Or, in exchange for being above their limits re emissions, polluters could buy tracts of forests and preserve them in order to reduce CO2 in the air.  Only the good side of that scenario was promoted in the media; it still is today.  So, the question is:  how well has "cap and trade" (carbon offsetting) worked out for our atmosphere?  In my view, not very well at all.

I'm not saying that natural capital offsetting markets are strictly comparable to carbon offsetting.  Nevertheless, the latter is a cautionary tale.
............................
Conclusion

While I believe that natural capital valuation is a worthwhile endeavor, policy makers must be extremely careful as to how they use it.  Markets rarely have been kind to nonhuman life.  Nor have they been kind at times to the abiotic portion of the ecosphere.  In particular, it's questionable whether or not offsetting markets could, or should, be utilized in all cases of natural capital.  See the links above for a full discussion.
...........................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well