Reframing the Crisis

 https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/the-nature-and-overshoot-crisis-reframing-the-discussion-of-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss/

While anthropogenic climate disruption is a massive problem requiring immediate attention, let's not marginalize other assaults on the ecosphere.  The article at the link above demonstrates that loss of biodiversity and other related disasters are interconnected to climate change, and every bit as important.

At the root, the ongoing crisis we're facing is as much a question of ethics as anything else.  The hubris of humans in relation to other species and the environment is (in general) beyond the pale.  We have to correct that if we expect to survive and thrive in the future.

We do have a model or two with which to work.  Indigenous societies around the world and certain Eastern religions have understood for thousands of years the importance of treating Nature as sacred.  It turns out they are on the mark.

As Barry Commoner said in 1971, "Nature knows best.".  Our technology has accomplished amazing things, but sorry to say, it also has egregiously damaged our global habitat.  As a species and overall, our attempts to improve human well-being have brought us to the beginning of our own extinction.  Unfortunately, that's true not only in the ecological sphere, but also in the social sphere.

It will take a paradigm shift in ethics if we are to survive and thrive.

Two books which point the way:  The Sacred Balance -Rediscovering Our Place in Nature, by David Suzuki; and The Web of Meaning - Integrating Science and Traditional Wisdom to Find Our Place in the Universe, by Jeremy Lent.

........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Consciousness, Nature, the Myth of A.I., & Reality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo&list=WL&index=68 

 Research on Consciousness has exploded in the last quarter century. The piece at the link above relates some of the surprising discoveries. One of them is that it's highly likely an organism does not have to be as intelligent as Homo sapiens to possess Consciousness. Another is that it's even more likely something has to be biologically alive in order to possess Consciousness. 

 That means: don't believe the hype being promulgated by Mega Corporations about Artificial Intelligence . The original definition of A.I. was:  an artificial machine conscious of itself as a separate "being". Tech Whiz Kids are nowhere near creating such a machine. A bunch of algorithms which can predict certain outcomes or make certain choices based on input does not constitute a conscious being.  A.I. does not presently exist... and likely never will. I leave it to you to guess as to why certain large corporations want us to believe it does exist. 

 The research also shows that, despite some people believing otherwise, human beings are a part of Nature. We are not separate from, superior to, or in any way above Nature. We are Nature.  That is one of the core principles of ecoethics and ecocentrism.  To believe we must conquer Nature gives us license to destroy Nature, and too many people appear to be doing exactly that... often at will.

 Finally, what the brain perceives are energy impulses coming from objects. Everything is energy. Matter consists of bundles of energy vibrating much more slowly than light, or gamma rays, or radio waves, etc. The implication of it all is clear: all things are made of one thing, and it's all part of a whole. 

 It's encouraging to live in a time when researchers in all fields of Natural Science are seriously studying Reality, and discovering (or confirming) its intrinsic properties. 

 The real mystery is Consciousness. If it only exists in sentient beings, or there as well as elsewhere, then does that mean all sentient beings have intrinsic value? I think it does, which means we humans need to discard our hubris and view all beings possessing sentience as having much more than only utilitarian value.*** That's another core principle of ecoethics  and ecocentrism. 

***For example, the way in which elephants and certain other domesticated and wild animals are treated by some humans (all around the world) is outrageous, immoral, and unethical.

Going Green without adopting an ecocentric (as opposed to anthropocentric) worldview is, in my opinion, an oxymoron.  It's counterintuitive.  It will result in failure.  No sustainability for Spaceship Earth.  Luckily for us, many people appear to be recognizing such.

............................. 

Not only my opinion. Be Well

Is Biodiversity Offsetting Working as it Should?

 Plus, what are the ethical objections to such practice?

https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13603

Commodification of Nature is a path requiring delicate navigation, and care must be taken to ensure an ethical, successful outcome.

Offsetting exploitation impacts seemingly is a great idea; however, certain problems need to be addressed.  The article at the link above, found in the journal, Conservation Biology, is a good start.  In particular, see the Abstract and Table 3.

...................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"Decolonization or Extinction: Indigenous Red Deal Lays Out Plan to Save the Earth"

 https://www.democracynow.org/2021/4/22/the_red_deal_book

At the link above, two indigenous scholars lay out the following.

1.  How/why we're still tinkering around the edges of solving the Socio-Eco-Econ-Ethical Crisis upon us.

2.  Neoliberalism, neocolonialism, and neoimperialism still are the flavor of the day.

3.  The Biden Crew is not adequately addressing the above problems.

4.  Our relationship with Earth is in dire need of a paradigm shift.

The lambasting of Biden may seem excessive to some, but I believe it's right on the mark.  Like Obama, he's a wolf in sheep's clothing when it comes to the Oligarchy v. the rest of us, or ecological ethics v. mega corporate greed.  [Nevertheless, both men are orders of magnitude better than Trump.  But that alone will not rescue Homo sapiens from disaster.]

The two interviewees are proposing the adoption of  ecoethics, and that's the first step toward sustainability.

...................

Not only my opinion.  Happy Trails

Wisdom, Indeed

 These gems of wisdom apply not only to the paradigm shift to sustainability, but also to almost any field of endeavor.

https://www.stuartbhill.com/

Professor Hill (a social ecologist) has compiled a list of ideas which are both brilliant and crucial to the implementation of significant change.  If ever there was a time for positive collaboration, ecoethics, and dedication to a bright, sustainable future, that time is now.

KUDOS to Stuart B. Hill, and profuse thanks.

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Happy Trails

"What is the Bioeconomy?"

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/7/691/htm

Via a scholarly review of over 450 journal articles, the piece at the link above identifies and discusses three approaches or "visions" of the bioeconomy:

    1)  a bio-Tech vision;

    2)  a bio-resource vision; and,

    3)  a bio-ecology vision.

Two or more of these different approaches sometimes are implemented in combination with each other.  As you might surmise, the first two are primarily concerned with technological "fixes".  The bio-ecology approach is, in my opinion, the closest to the view of Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of bioeconomics.

Despite early theoretical work done in this discipline, the more recent research has evolved in such a way as to attract a broad range of sciences, and a heavy technological flavor.  To have a significant, long-term, and global impact on future human endeavors, Bioeconomics needs to further identify its scope and purpose, and its adherents need to consider the following.

Our primary focus should not be more technological fixes, but rather, the adoption of Ecoethics and striving to live within our means (as aggregate humanity).  The elephant in the room is Unlimited Growth.  It's not sustainable... period.

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

One Aspect of EcoEthics

https://twitter.com/ScottHa85992272/status/1302711900338257921?s=20

Here's how animals should be viewed, one reason why ecoethics is vital, and a worldview that could stop our collective suicidal path. This is Spirituality, not formal organized Religion. It seems to be lacking in too many people.
...........................
Not only my opinion. Be 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

A Paradigm Shift in Ethics is Needed for the Journey to Sustainability

Preface

Philosophy is the study of knowledge, being, and reality.  One of its branches is Ethics, the study of values and behavior.  Ethics is concerned with "right" and "wrong", and in particular, with what is "good" for individuals and society.  Its three primary principles are:  respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.  A simple definition would be:  a code of conduct for human good.  Socrates was the Father of Ethics in the western world.
................................
The Ethical Problem in Relation to the Cessation of Environmental Damage

As detailed to a degree in previous posts here, the Powers-That-Be in most countries around the world have opted (for decades) to implement neoliberal economics in their lands... resulting in severe, worldwide environmental damage.  Despite efforts to mitigate that damage, it continues to this day.  Most ecologists agree that's because, rather than Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" (or something similar), countries have chosen to follow the neoliberal path of unlimited growth and overconsumption.

Even in countries that are attempting to "go green", the prevailing ethic is "growthism" not sustainability.  More and more perpetual growth apparently is mistakenly viewed as "good" for society.  History disagrees with that assessment.

Despite the shrinking of nonrenewable natural resources and the overharvesting of renewable natural resources, human populations (in general) have been indoctrinated to accept without question the idea that economic growth must continually expand for the good of individuals and society.  "Going green" supposedly will solve the problems of ecological/environmental damage.  That most likely will help a bit, but only a bit.  Much more is needed.  Here's why.

1.  The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only can be transformed from one type to another.
2.  Because of entropy, every time energy is transformed some of it is lost as dispersed heat.  "Lost" means it's no longer available to do "work" because it's too dispersed.
3.  As a result, because of entropy nothing can be 100% recycled.  So, nonrenewable mineral resources (e.g., rare earth minerals which are gobbled up by high tech industries) will continue to shrink.
4.  Although solar energy is renewable, it obviously has to be captured.  If the rate of consumption of solar power exceeds the rate of the in-flow and capture of solar energy, then sooner or later, consumption has to be limited.
5.  While the stock of solar energy (the sun) is super-abundant, the in-flow and capture of it are limited.
6.  Whether "green" or not, all material economic growth consumes resources and produces wastes.  That's even true of service industries such as health care, education, taxi service, tourism, and others.
7.  Ever-increasing growth results in an ever-increasing flow of "throughput":
resources from Earth's ecosystems to the economic subsystem, and then back to ecosystems as wastes.  Sooner or later, throughput will exceed Earth's resource regeneration and waste assimilation capacities.
8.  Renewable resources, such as ocean fish and trees, are being overharvested already.  More and more economic growth will exacerbate the problem.

All the above means sustainability is nowhere in sight.  It also means that, first and foremost, we have a massive ethical problem.  Without a paradigm shift in the cultural and ethical thinking & behavior of humans, serious ecological damage on Earth will continue.  Why?  Because the Powers-That-Be are firmly locked onto the path of unlimited growth and overconsumption.  The only way to change that is from the ground up, not the top down... and, in my opinion, that won't happen until a majority of us (or at least a significantly large number of us) adopt what ecologists call "eco-ethics" (or ecoethics).  Only then will people gravitate to demanding the implementation of ecological economics.
...................................

Here's a declaration by which to live---
https://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2002/E21.pdf
[It will warm your heart.]

It's a short read.  Have a look, and, as best you can, try to live by it.  Thanks.  Younger generations thank you as well.
[NOTE--- At the above page, the print can be enlarged by moving your cursor to the lower right-hand side.]
...................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

What is Earth Telling Us?

Preface

As we humans continue deforestation in tropical areas, massive air pollution in temperate regions, and numerous other ecocide activities all over the world, our planet (which is a dynamic ecosystem) is reacting in various ways.  The reactions in total are sending a message which is clear to anyone with either an academic ecological background, or anyone with an intuitive sense of ecology, and anyone with both.
..................................
The Message

Professor William E. Rees deftly explains it here:
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/04/06/The-Earth-Is-Telling-Us-We-Must-Rethink-Our-Growth-Society/

Yes, humanity has done many amazing, wonderful, and productive things in the past 5,000 years or so.  There's no denying that.  Plus, in approximately the last 200 years, we've made advances in technology, health, food production, and more that are nothing short of miraculous.  Those accomplishments continue up through present day.

Unfortunately, however, for the last 50 years or thereabouts, we also have been on a path of species suicide.  We have been adhering to an ideology which preaches unlimited growth and overconsumption.  For all practical purposes, it's essentially the largest religion in developed countries.  [See the post immediately prior to this one.]

The disease, cancer, provides an instructive lesson.  What is the overriding characteristic of cancer?  It's unlimited growth.  That occurs in a finite body, and eventually kills the body.  In a certain sense, that's what some of our activities are doing to our habitat; and those particular activities are the result of the economic religion to which we are adhering.
...................................
Conclusion

The article cited above is dated April 6, 2020.  It deals with current problems, and suggested solutions.  It broaches subjects about which too many of us have had our heads in the sand for too long.  If we keep treating the symptoms of ecological problems rather than the root causes, organized human existence soon will be in dire straits... much worse than we already are.
 ..................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Violence Erupts - The State-Corporate-Financial Complex Has Failed Us For Decades

Preface
As frustration boils over, in this essay we'll accept the premise that most protesters basically are nonviolent, and most cops essentially are good people.  Plus, the current situation goes way beyond a Racial Crisis and misdeeds by Law Enforcement.
..............................
In the USA and much of the rest of the world, decades of neoliberal policies implemented by the State-Corporate-Financial Complex (the Corporatocracy) have fueled the fires of---
1. a racial crisis,
2. a socio-economic class crisis,
3. an economic crisis,
4. a health crisis,
5. an ecological/environmental crisis, and
6. an ethical crisis.
They are all interrelated.

The policies to which I refer include:  austerity (except for the war & police machinery), the militarization of law enforcement, privatization, deregulation, wage stagnation, an inadequate healthcare system, a gross distortion of "conflict of interest", an ugly conversion of our educational system to one which produces compliant robots, bizarre financialization (which produces little to no employment), so-called "free trade", the almost complete destruction of labor unions, ditto for decent retirement plans, and more.  In addition to all that, too many private & public Powers-That-Be have demonstrated a blatant disregard for both common people and the environment.  Equity seems to have become a long-forgotten concept.  Inequality (including income inequality) is the flavor of the day.  Nature is unimportant.  And so it goes, ad nauseam.

Meanwhile, the ecological crisis of the century--- Climate Disruption ---appears to have been put on the back burner.  On top of that, the gross degradation of necessary biodiversity, the interference with crucial ecosystem functioning, pollution, corporatist propaganda, the suspension of enforcement of EPA regulations, etc., are all ongoing.

In short, neoliberal policies have failed utterly... except for people in the Upper Crust.  The current eruption of violence isn't about only racism toward people of color.  [The response to it has been multiracial.]  It isn't about only a few very recent murders.  This situation has been building for decades, and almost everyone is frustrated and fed-up to the gills.  It's not just about Race, or economics, or police, or inequality.  Perhaps more than anything else, it's also about ethics.

As the Harvard Professor, Cornel West, stated today on Democracy Now, "The American Empire is imploding.".  West also had a telling opinion piece in The Guardian.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/01/george-floyd-protests-cornel-west-american-democracy

The time is ripe for a global paradigm shift to ecoethics, ecoliberalism, ecological economics, common sense, and equity.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Time's Up: It's Now or Never for the Implementation of Ecoethics to Avoid Catastrophe

Preface
All credit to Paul R. Ehrlich, ecologist, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, and still active in the Center for Conservation Biology.  Kudos, too, to the Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP) section of IR, Inter-Research (Science Publisher), and its Open Access approach regarding crucial, scientific information.
.........................................
My first job as an ecologist was as one of the main researchers and authors of the "Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan for Drainage Basin 15, State of Washington".  That was in 1973.  Over subsequent years and various positions in teaching, consulting, & a period of almost seven years with the Sacramento County Environmental Management Dept, I came to the following conclusions.
1.  Despite some progress, Humanity was heading for more and more ecological disasters.
2.  Some of the reasons why included materialism, unlimited consumption, unlimited growth, neoliberal policies, and politics.
3.  The main reason, though, was/is a lack of ethics... specifically, ecoethics.
[Dr. Ehrlich coined that term, I believe, in 2009.]

Our environmental/ecological problem on Earth is not only material in nature, it's metaphysical, spiritual.  Spiritual not in the sense of organized religion, but rather in the sense of ecoethics, life purpose, relationships to nonhuman life, and values which benefit/respect all biotic & abiotic parts of this amazing planet.  It's a question of where and how to direct our energy during our short time in this physical, cosmic dimension.

When first thinking about this particular blog post, I decided to do a limited "literature search" on the subject.  Perhaps someone else already has covered the subject... better than I ever could.  And that's the case.  In the essay at the link below, Professor Ehrlich brilliantly connects all the dots.  [It's on an Open Access venue.]  It's well worth your time.
https://www.int-res.com/articles/esep2014/14/e014p011.pdf
................................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well