The Galaxy Song, revisited

Three days shy of a decade ago, I published a post entitled ‘A little perspective for the new year‘, which featured ‘The Galaxy Song’ from Monty Python‘s The Meaning of Life.

I considered waiting another three days before posting this so as to coincide with that earlier post’s anniversary, but you never know; anything can happen in just three days, and I didn’t want to risk you missing this little gem.

Eric Idle / Brian Cox – The Galaxy Song / Wonders of Life trailer 2013

Eric:
Just remember…
You’re a tiny little person on a planet
 in a universe expanding and immense;
That life began evolving
 and dissolving
 and resolving
 in the deep primordial oceans by the hydrothermal vents;
Our Earth which had its birth almost five billion years ago
 from out of a collapsing cloud of gas;
Through life which was quite new
 and eventually led to you
 in only three point five billion years or less.

Brian:
My director just said, “Just have a wander round,” which is easy for him to say. Just over there is a pride of lions with young cubs, so the mothers are very protective. “Just wander around a bit,” said the director.

Eric:
Deoxyribonucleic acid helps us replicate,
 and randomly mutate from day to day.

We left the seas
 and climbed the trees
 and our biologies
 continue to evolve through DNA.

We’re ninety-eight point nine percent
 the same as chimpanzees
 whose trees we left three million years ago
 to wander, swapping genes,
 out of Africa – which means
 we’re related to everyone we know.
(Oh, ‘ello luv!)

Life is quite strange,
 life is quite weird,
 life is really quite odd.

Life from a star
 is far more bizarre
 than an old bearded bloke they call ‘god’.

So, gaze at the sky,
 and start asking why
 you’re even here on this call?

Although life is fraught,
 the odds are so short,
 you’re lucky to be here at all.

Brian:
How wide can they open their jaws?
[Ah, three foot wide…]
About three feet?
[… and they can swallow a man whole.]
Yeah, so about three foot wide, can swallow a man whole…

Eric:
Standing on a planet which is spinning round a star:
 one of just a billion trillion suns
 in a universe that’s ninety billion light years side to side
 wondering where the heck it all came from.

You’ve a tiny little blink of life
 to try and understand
 what on Earth is really going on
 in biology and chemistry
 which made you you
 and made me me
 but don’t ask me –
 I only wrote the song.

Brian:
Hello. […] He’s coming for us… oh, god.

See you in 2022. I hope you have a good one!

Posted in ... wait, what?, art, balance, Biodiversity, Core thought, People, Phlyarology | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Get my eBook for FREE, Boxing Day 2021

Bah! Humbug!

Boxing Day is the traditional day for exchanging gifts, and so…

On 26Dec2021§ my eBook is available totally FREE!

Just click on this link right here to get it.

If you don’t have a Kindle,
don’t worry, you can use
the Kindle app
or
Kindle for PC

Enjoy!

If you feel that you owe me something (you don’t),
could I ask you please for a review on amazon and/or goodreads?

Reviews of ‘The Eclectic’

If your sense of humour is like mine, you will roar with laughter at some of these gems. The Eclectic is a collection of poems and short stories that take a gentle but firm poke at reality. For example, the trickle-down effect is examined in a goblet-shaped poem, which correctly identifies the main reason our world is in trouble. One hilarious story tells you exactly what had happened to the Titanic, and why. Or you might be interested in the REAL story of King Arthur. I can recommend the productions of a delightfully twisted mind.

Bob Rich on Goodreads 🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠

After you read this wonderful collection of stories, poems and dreams, you will be asking this incredibly original deep thinker to put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) without delay! Fantastic stuff!

Rick on amazon 🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠

(If you should happen to land on this page on some other day,
leave a comment below or contact me
and I’ll schedule another free day, just for you!)


§ The small print: 00:00 to 23:59 Pacific Time — check here for your time zone!

Posted in ... wait, what?, Fantasy, Phlyarology, Science Fiction | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

God rest ye merry, gentlemen

A couple of millennia ago, some geezer was allegedly nailed to a tree for suggesting that we should be nice to each other.

What have we learnt since? Not a lot, it seems to me.

Far too many people congregate in massive edifices built by our forebears and sing their hearts out in songs that use words like ‘love’, and ‘peace’, and ‘goodwill’. And then we shuffle off to gorge ourselves on traditional fowl, raised in cages in abominable conditions, birds that are bred purely for profit with no consideration for how they feel.

And, all the while, our human cousins fleeing from oppression, hunger, and worse, drown on our borders because of the xenophobic fascists currently in control. (Perhaps it’s different in your neck of the woods, but here in Blighty, we’re governed by a bunch of morons who are acting as though they have ‘a mandate’ to ‘secure our sovereignty’ on the grounds of a pitifully minuscule ‘first-past-the-post’ margin, one that they continue to claim proves that ‘the electorate has spoken’ even though those who voted were lied to on a massive scale. And they will never in a million years admit that.)

So, on this day, this celebration of the alleged ‘day of birth’ of an alleged ‘saviour’ who ‘gave his life for our sins’ (even though, if he even existed, he was probably actually born in the summertime, and the truth that ‘christmas day’ was appropriated by the ‘Holy’ Roman Empire to assist in appeasing the British populace has been lost in the mists of time)… feel free to stuff your face while the others with whom you ‘share’ this planet are fleeing for their lives, or starving to death.

Merry christmas, one and all.

Yeah, right.

Posted in ... wait, what?, Phlyarology | Tagged , | 22 Comments

Another year, another few bonsai pictures

The climate crisis, not to mention the various other current insanities, is tiring. Time for a change…

Taking a leaf out of Ellen Hawley’s book, allow me to begin with an irrelevant photo. Here’s one, of the dawn sky that presented itself in all its glory a few days ago. Absolutely gorgeous; the photo doesn’t do it justice.

Red sky in the morning
Dawn in England on 11 December 2021

Onward, to the main theme of this post… From May this year, I’ve taken to taking a picture of my dwarf horse chestnut tree on the first day of each month. This tree, which I planted as a conker in 1986, is now 57% of my age – and slowly catching me up. I’m hoping that it will overtake me in the end.

As you can see, there’s a lot of growth around the base of my little tree; I’ve been meaning to repot it for some years now (I need to get a round tuit). I suspect that I’ll find that the roots need some serious trimming!

It’s never once flowered yet. I don’t know why… maybe it’s still too young? Perhaps it will, one day.


I topped this post with one irrelevant photo; I’ll tail it with another… this is one I took recently of a large bird that’s been flying overhead lately. I think it may be a kestrel, but I’m a phlyarologist, not an ornithologist.

A bird of prey of some sort... (Kestrel, maybe?)
Do you know what this bird is?

Here’s hoping you’re enjoying a pleasant Saturnalia wherever you may be, and wishing you peace in the new year. Cheers – or, as the Klingons say, ‘IwlIj jachjaj!

Posted in Bonsai Diary | Tagged , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

An update on how we’re handling the climate crisis

Human overpopulation is a problem, but it’s not the biggest problem. The biggest problems are:

  1. Serious inequity in terms of the emissions generated by the most wealthy people on ‘our’ planet.
  2. Serious incompetence and corruption on the part of governmental institutions – most of which are in thrall to those in (1).
Chart showing emissions inequality (richest 10% generate half of all emissions)
Percentage of CO2 emissions by world population
(click to embiggen)
Honest Government Ad | Net Zero by 2050

thejuicemedia: Hello. I’m from the government with an update on how we’re handling the climate crisis.

We know you’re all counting on us to solve this problem so humanity can keep enjoying its favorite pastime: continuing to live on this planet. But you see, we’ve realized that we are the problem. And so, how should we put this? We’re actually going to get us all killed.

Look at this graph shaped like a penis because it shows how fucked we are. This is where we are now. And as we can see, it’s already pretty fucked, with massive fires, floods, heatwaves, locusts, bullshit.

This is what scientists call the ‘Stop Here Or We’re Fucked’ point, and this is where we’re currently headed, or, as scientists call it, ‘Net Fucked by 2050’. The good news is we’ve promised to reduce our emissions, and if you take all our promises and add them together, that puts us on track for ‘Still Very Much Fucked by 2050’. And that’s if we keep our promises; a big if since some of our biggest promises are being coke-blocked by corporate coal-shill, while others are nothing more than “blah, blah, blah”, or a plan printed on a pamphlet. Planphlet.

Our promises and planphlets are also based on the hope that we’ll offset our emissions with technologies which don’t work or even fucking exist, or with technologies that do work and exist like: trees. Except trees need time to grow, which we don’t have and space: which we also don’t have. Plus, trees can burn, which seems to happen a lot these days, due to climate change, and when they do, they release all that carbon they captured, which means the only way we can keep our promises is to stop emitting carbon. Are we doing that? God, no. We’ve been subsidizing it at a rate of $11 million per minute, which discourages investment in renewables by distorting the market.

And that’s why there’s a huge gap between our promises and where we need to be. We don’t talk about that gap because that would entail a complex process called ‘Being Honest’. ‘Being Honest’ would mean admitting that we’re failing; and we can’t do that ’cause then we’d have to stop failing. That would mean ending fossil fuel subsidies and banning all new gas, coal and oil projects. And to anyone suggesting harming our precious children like that, we say, “How dare you?” So ‘Being Honest’ isn’t an option for us, which is why we’ve come up with the next best alternative: ‘Net Zero by 2050’.

‘Net Zero by 2050’ means that instead of being honest this decade, by taking this path, we leave the being honest part to the last minute by taking that path instead. As you can see, both lead to net zero in 2050, but they’re very different journeys because this path adds this many emissions to the atmosphere, and that one adds three times as much. And since emissions are what’s causing the planet to warm, that means crossing the ‘Stop Here Or We’re Fucked’ point, which risks setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond our control.

That’s the exciting part of running an experiment with the only planet we know that supports life in the whole fucking universe, just so we can make a few billionaires even richer.

Net Zero by 2050‘.

Anyhoo, feel free to take over from us at any time because as you can see, we’re captured by the fossil fuel industry, compromised by our moral failings and lack of vision and probably going to get us all killed.

This has been a message from your local government franchise. Goodbye.

Greta Thunberg: Authorized by the Department for Blah Blah Blah.

The transcript above was made with the help of Sonix, which did most of the donkey work for a tiny fee (I did have to spend some time tidying it up). Note that I do not have the copyright owner’s permission to publish this transcript here. I’ve investigated the copyright rules regarding transcriptions (more about that here), and one thing I’ve learned is that it’s no defense to make a disclaimer like “these aren’t my words, no copyright infringement intended.” However, I offer the transcription here as a service to society (especially the deaf community). I do hope the copyright owner won’t object. And I hope that you find this video as entertaining and/or interesting as I did.

Posted in ... wait, what?, Climate, Communication, Core thought, Education, Environment, GCD: Global climate disruption, News and politics, Strategy | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Ten new insights in climate science (Johan Rockström at #COP26)

We are on average, moving towards four degrees warming this century. And we haven’t been in a four-degree warmer world for the past four million years. So it’s not as if it’s a place we know very well.

Johan Rockström (2016)
Johan Rockström at #COP26: 10 New Insights in Climate Science | UN Climate Change

Dr. Wendy Broadgate: So, I’d like to turn the floor to Professor Johan Rockström to give an overview of the report. Professor Rockström is Director of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research. He represents both Future Earth and Earth League. Over to you, Johan.

Prof. Johan Rockström: Thanks, Wendy, and good morning, everyone. So, just to set the report again in stage, I mean, the purpose of this is for the scientific community to hand over the ten new insights that we believe every climate negotiator must have in his or her back pocket to be an effective negotiator at any COP meeting and certainly here in Glasgow. So, this is the scan of the latest insights.

1) Insight number one is that, from an Earth systems science perspective, we land in the conclusion that 1.5°C is still a possible landing zone. We can still achieve it. The question is how will we do that from a feasibility perspective, and that an overshoot is likely. It translates to a two gigaton, two billion tonnes, of carbon dioxide per year reduction pace in a linear level, that’s five percent per year; but if you want to have a two-thirds chance of success, it requires a doubling, to four billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. And we emit today 42 gigatons or a billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. [Brief break while a new participant arrives.] So, here you have the pathways in the report in terms of the landing zone to 1.5°C.

2) Insight number two is what has been very much in discussion here in Glasgow; namely that there is no safe landing to deliver the Paris Agreement only by decarbonising the global energy system carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide; the non-CO2 gases are worsening global warming. The climate models show clearly that we need to follow the same pace of reductions as carbon dioxide to have a chance of delivering the Paris Agreement. Here you see the latest assessments of the warming versus cooling gases, and that nitrous oxide and methane are fundamental here, and that the discussions here and agreements is one step along the way, but not sufficient scientifically. Also important in this context is to remind ourselves that air pollutants are actually cooling the planet, so we have a paradox, and a very dramatic one, which is that one environmental problem, air pollutants, are camouflaging another environmental crisis. The global warming crisis. And this is well established scientifically.

3) Insight three is that we’ve entered the age of intensified megafires. This is also causing, apart from social impacts on humans, enhanced climate positive feedbacks, which is a warming amplifier. And here you have the 2019-2020 mapping of the accelerated forest fire outbreaks, which are now covering more and more area and caused by human global warming, or accentuated by human global warming.

4) Tipping elements are real. It’s a real risk that we cannot rule out. The IPCC is clear here; here you see the trajectory in terms of the risk assessments from science, from the third assessment of the IPCC all the way till today. What you see here is that the more scientific advances, the lower in global mean temperature is the scientific assessment of the risk of crossing tipping points and that the tipping point risk today is down between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius with low probability, high impact events. We don’t have scientific certainty here yet, but we are seeing more and more risk landscape that is coming very closer within the Paris range. The scientific frontier here is that we are not only seeing the risk of crossing tipping points, but it’s also that we are seeing the risk of interactions, so-called ‘cascades’, between tipping element systems. And you see here, for example, when the Greenland ice sheet melts fast, releasing cold freshwater in the North Atlantic, slowing down the overturning of heat of the North Atlantic, impacting on the monsoon over the Amazon, which can explain higher degree of droughts and forest fires in the Amazon rainforest, which in turn also locks in warm water in the southern ocean, accelerating potentially the melting of the West Antarctic ice shelf. These cascades is on the scientific frontier; we are still working very hard on this, but it just gives even stronger message to negotiators here that precaution is important.

5) Climate action must be just; and this justice factor has very dramatic numbers. We know them all, but just to give you the latest statistics, the richest 1% must reduce emissions by a factor of 30, while the poorest 50% in the world can actually increase emissions by a factor of three for the world to stay within the global carbon budget in a fair way.

6) Now, insight six is really on behavioural change. We need to have a transition not only into decarbonisation of the energy systems in terms of technologies, but we also need 1.5°C lifestyles. Status quo and consumption patterns and growth will not take us to the Paris range. This is about equity, but it’s also about lifestyle change and behavioural change.

7) Insight seven is about economic policy measures. We have so much scientific evidence today that carbon pricing can accelerate the scale of transition. Sixty-one countries in the world have adopted a price on carbon. This is, however, it’s only covering 22% of global emissions are covered by carbon price, and, so far, the carbon price is not efficient because it’s set at a too low level. But the European Union is the first example in the world of a region where the carbon pricing system is starting to work, because it’s starting to come up to scientific parity in the level of pricing at over 60 Euros per tonne of carbon dioxide.

8) Nature-based solutions are absolutely fundamental to have a chance of delivering the Paris Agreement; the challenge, though, is to have robust, resilient nature-based solutions and not to fool ourselves in investing in offsetting mechanisms that have already been factored into the climate models that give us a carbon budget. So, you know, the only reason why we have a remaining carbon budget that allows us to reduce emissions, according to what I mentioned earlier of a net zero world economy by 2050, is that we assume that nature will continue to be a net carbon sink. So we need nature-based solutions, but we cannot use them to slow down the pace of emission reductions from fossil fuel emissions.

9) The ocean is the resilient thermostat of the planet, biologically and physically; we have so much science today showing the threats to the ocean, and we’ll come back to that in the discussion here, but this is something that will be also a determinant factor, and investing in 30% targets for marine protected areas we believe is one measure to reduce these threats.

10) And, finally, number 10 is on the connections between climate impacts and costing that we need to correct the market economic failure in factoring in the true cost of climate damage, and that the number one entry point there is really about health; that we have today over seven million people per year prematurely losing their lives because of air pollutants, which is one of the factors that we need to now fully factor into the costing of our risky journey on climate change.

The transcript above was made with the help of Sonix, which did most of the donkey work for a tiny fee (I did have to spend some time tidying it up). Note that I do not have the copyright owner’s permission to publish this transcript here. I’ve investigated the copyright rules regarding transcriptions (more about that here), and one thing I’ve learned is that it’s no defense to make a disclaimer like “these aren’t my words, no copyright infringement intended.” However, I offer the transcription here as a service to society (especially the deaf community). I do hope the copyright owner won’t object. And I hope that you find this video as entertaining and/or interesting as I did.

Posted in Climate, Communication, Core thought, Environment, GCD: Global climate disruption, People, Strategy | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

Today’s Quote

This quote is appropriate and timely in so many ways!

Posted in Core thought, News and politics, Reblogs | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Wellbeing Economy approach to meeting climate goals

Half an hour from now, Caroline Lucas MP is scheduled to lead a Westminster Hall debate on ‘a Wellbeing Economy approach to meeting climate goals‘.

A tweet from Caroline Lucas, including a video that I wish I could embed separately

I was invited to offer my thoughts to her on this topic (because I signed the UK Parliament petition ‘Shift to a Wellbeing Economy: put the health of people and planet first‘, which closed on 26Sep2021 with a puny 67,912 signatures). Here are the words I offered to the UK’s only Green Party Member of Parliament…


This is not a well-thought-out treatise; it’s just a brain-dump of various thoughts I’ve had in my six decades as a British citizen.

First and foremost, it’s crucial to reverse the trend of rising wealth inequality that has persisted for decades. This could perhaps begin with an overhaul of the tax system aimed at eliminating the various loopholes that allow the wealthiest to avoid contributing their fair share, and implementation of a wealth tax; it’s absolutely unconscionable that taxes are primarily based on income, yet the vast riches that many accrue are not classed as ‘income’ and therefore not subject to tax!

Implementing a universal basic income (UBI) would, I think, eradicate the wage slave syndrome, and help redistribute the nation’s wealth more equitably.

The subject of inheritance needs to be rethought. It’s perfectly natural for people to want to provide for their own progeny, but reasonable limits ought to be placed upon the maximum that can be transferred down through generations. While I am all for recognising and rewarding those who contribute most to society, when some incompetent can use their ancestors’ wealth to exert power simply by dint of an accident of birth, it makes a total mockery of any idea of ‘meritocracy’. The motto of my alma mater was ‘virtus non stemma’ (‘worth, not birth’), and I think any nation would do well to adopt it.

Now, I’m no expert in economics, but even so it’s perfectly plain to me that we need a steady state economy. The Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) has some good ideas in this domain, and I believe that our government ought to work with them.

The horror that is the current neoliberal economic theory, which underpins all our activities, needs to be eradicated; its greatest flaw is that its adherents seem to have no real grasp of the environmental effects of exponential growth. Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ has been perverted into a monstrosity. (Though I’m currently unable to locate a relevant quote from his works, I believe that even he maintained that at some point capitalism would need to acknowledge that there are limits to growth.) The ‘trickle-down’ is in reality a ‘flood-up’, and the ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ meme is poor succour to those who have no boat – and are drowning as a result.

As we approach the centenary of the introduction of ‘Gross Domestic Product’ (GDP), it’s time to acknowledge that this anachronistic atrocity should be consigned firmly to the history books, where it belongs. GDP is indeed ‘gross’; it has no soul. It loves catastrophes because of the rebuilding they require, and it encourages antisocial activities (such as weapons manufacture, for instance). A better measure is required: perhaps the UN’s ‘Human Development Index’ could be used as a basis for this (although my own preference would be for a ‘Planetary Development Index’, a measure that considers the environment as a crucial factor in the wellbeing of all living things – not just humans).

Natural resources, and the environment as a whole, need to be revalued such that the economy recognises and appreciates their contributions to our wellbeing. All ‘externalised costs’ need to be reformulated as ‘internalised costs’!

The power of the banks to create money needs to be curtailed and put under the control of the State. Positive Money has some excellent ideas on this topic.

Manufacturing needs to be reworked from the bottom up, with longevity as the watchword. Those who design for obsolescence so as to ensure their income streams need to be encouraged to change their ways (perhaps by rewarding those who design long-lived devices), and those who cynically design their widgets to fail the day after their warranty expires need to be penalised for their avarice.

Modular construction should, likewise, be encouraged and rewarded. The failure of a small component should not require replacement of the whole shebang.

Perhaps most importantly of all, the concept of ‘recycling’ needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary, from its current position as a greenwashing mascot and placed front and centre as a model of aspiration. Consumerism is killing us. It’s time that we acknowledged that when we throw things away, ‘away’ is a place on Earth; somewhere that, until recently, has been all too often out of sight, and out of mind. If we fail to recognise this, we may come to realize at the last that our society is itself also disposable.

In case you’re not familiar with what a ‘Wellbeing Economy’ (WE) is, here’s a TEDX video that explains it, and why it’s necessary. There’s no doubt in my mind that ‘WE’ offers far greater promise than the corrupt perversion of an economic system to which we’re all currently yoked.

We are trapped in an economic system that tells us just because the system and the economic growth that went with it may have worked, some of the time, in some of the places, then that is automatically the right recipe for the future.

Katherine Trebeck
Why the Future Economy has to be a Wellbeing Economy | Katherine Trebeck | TEDxMünchen

Katherine Trebeck (the presenter in this video) is the Policy and Knowledge Lead for the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll), which is a collaboration of organisations, alliances, movements and individuals working towards a wellbeing economy, delivering human and ecological wellbeing.

Katherine Trebeck: Thank you so much and so lovely to be here, though I have a sense I’d much rather spend the afternoon dressing up as a rhinoceros now and hanging out in Michael’s museum. But I do want to talk to you about economics, and I hope it doesn’t make you do this [shows picture of a sleeping person]. But, to be honest, this is my friend Martin, and he is one of the many people who is striving to make the world a better place, striving to build what we’re calling a ‘wellbeing economy’: an economy that delivers for people and for planet.

And some might call that a utopian vision; but since when has that been such a bad thing? People like Martin, and, I suspect, so many of you in this room, have always got up out of bed and strived out of the hope that the world can be better, that we can improve on where we are. And so, just before I took this photo, Martin and I were chatting about what is the foundations of that hope? What’s the scaffolding, if you like, of our optimism? Because it’s an enormous task to transform the economy. And so where is it that we build our hope on? I’m going to come back to that.

Because, if you think about it, we’ve got an economic system that is founded on economic growth. It’s structurally dependent on growth. And I guess the good thing is that there are examples of where that economic system has delivered for us, there has been fruits of that growth, and you probably all have your favourite example, whether it’s mothers and babies now surviving childbirth to rates that they haven’t before, whether it’s certain diseases being eradicated, whether it’s life expectancy rising across the world, whether it’s illiteracy rates coming down and so on; you all have an example where you can think about over the last decade or even the last century, things have got better.

But the crucial thing is that these achievements have come about when we have used the fruits of growth to invest in our collective institutions, like health and education systems, and when that growth has been used to divert it and direct it to those who need it most. But the challenge is, it is very hard not to stand here today and look around the world and think it is time to ask, “Are those fruits of growth beginning to rot?” Because we’re seeing and we’ve just heard about the extent of environmental breakdown. It’s an unsafe growth. We’ve got scientists telling us ever more loudly of the extent of the damage that we as human beings are doing to the environment. And they are pointing ever more firmly at the economic growth system as the root cause of that environmental breakdown just at the same time as young people are coming out of their schools week after week after week and saying, “Enough of this political recalcitrance.”

So it’s an unsafe growth, but it’s also fruits of growth that have been unevenly shared; it’s an unevenly shared harvest. It’s an economic system that has done too little to support those who struggle to get by each week. And it’s an economic system that has done so much, though, to enrich those people who have so much wealth, and the power that goes along with it, that their money will make more money for them in a day than you or I could make just working for our wages in a year. So it’s an unevenly shared harvest, but it’s also an economic system that is hurting us. Individuals like never before are feeling more stressed, more alienated, more precarious, more lonely, more depressed and more anxious about their future. And so yet, despite all that evidence and all those realities, we are trapped in an economic system that tells us just because the system and the economic growth that went with it may have worked, some of the time, in some of the places, then that is automatically the right recipe for the future.

That assumption is dangerous, and it’s dangerous for three reasons. Firstly, just like with the substance of salt; a little bit of it when we don’t have enough of it is helpful. But the same it is with growth; when we don’t have it, it’s dangerous and it’s harmful. But if we keep reaching for more and more of it, after salt, or after economic growth has done its jobs, the benefits start to tail off. The returns become marginal. And even if we keep reaching more and more for growth, or if we keep reaching more and more for salt, we’re doing damage to ourselves and damage to our planet and damage to our society.

It’s also a dangerous assumption because of something called ‘failure demand‘; the extent to which so much of what we’re now spending our money on is to fix, and repair, and clean up, and try and patch up the damage that our growth-obsessed economic system is doing to people and to planet; whether it’s gas masks to try and combat pollution, whether it’s top-up wages for those people who have worked for their poverty, whether it’s security guards because we’re scared of each other, or whether it’s cleaning up after a flood or a climate change induced bushfire, like my own country is experiencing so much today, or whether it’s help cleaning up after an oil spill: so much of that expenditure is avoidable – as avoidable as the greasy breakfast to ease a hangover and then the causes of the cholesterol-reducing medicine because we’ve clogged up our arteries. It’s avoidable, reactive defensive expenditure.

And the third reason why this economic system is so dangerous is because just as which so often to fulfill that very innate human need for social connection, we so often reach for consumption and materialistic goods. Same it is with economic growth. We won’t meet our needs for very natural desires like decent work, secure livelihood, a quality natural environment just by reaching for economic growth. Because GDP and economic growth and consumption are pseudo-satisfiers; and reaching for them more and more is actually going to undermine our chance of meeting what it is we most depend upon for good lives.

And so instead, what can we have? Can we have a different system that isn’t so unsafe, that isn’t so precarious, that isn’t doing so much damage to our planet, and so unevenly shared? Well, what we need to do is recognize that GDP-rich countries have arrived. They have got enough wealth and resources. The fruits of growth have done their work, and what they now need to do is shift gear and make themselves at home and cherish those fruits of growth much more than they have done to date; share it much better than they’re doing now.

And so, what will a wellbeing economy look like? You don’t have to look far to get a sense of how we can do things differently. You just need to turn the pages of great development scholars who tell us what the real purpose of human progress and development should be about. You can see it in the brain scans of neuroscientists when they say which areas of our brains light up, when we’re relaxed, when we’re happy, when we’re content, or whether you listen to epidemiologists or psychologists and they tell us what really makes us mentally and physically healthy. You can hear it when you sit down with people, wherever they are in the world, and have a conversation with them about what truly most matters to them.

And I’d suggest that you can recognize it when you listen to the voices of people who are in their final days of life. And these were collated by a palliative care nurse, a woman called Bronnie Ware, and over her decades of working with people in their final days she grouped together their common regrets. And what people told her were that they wished they had been true to themselves; they wished they hadn’t worked so hard; they wished – there’s a lesson there – they wished they had been more honest and more open with their feelings; they wished they had stayed in touch with their friends; and they wished they had allowed themselves to be happier. So, you bring that together and you get a very, very clear message about what we need the economy to actually deliver for us.

So, we all need connection and a wellbeing economy has to be about building connection, and creating the institutions that deliver that for us. We all need to participate, so a wellbeing economy has to be built on the engagement of citizens around the world, and ensuring they are rooted in their local communities. We all need nature, so a wellbeing economy has to be about regenerating and protecting that precious planet that we all depend upon in so many different aspects. A wellbeing economy has to be about fairness and delivering justice in all its dimensions. And finally, a wellbeing economy has to be about ensuring dignity to everyone, making sure we all have enough to get by and we have a sense of purpose and meaning in our existence.

So, you bring that together and you apply it to the economy, and actually you have an economic system that tips that one of today absolutely on its head, because a wellbeing economy starts with the premise that the very purpose of the economy should be about serving people and planet first and foremost. And so building that is about ensuring that everyone has enough; a wellbeing economy is about distributing much more fairly than the unevenly shared harvest we have today. And that is about asking the economy to do more of the heavy lifting, not being content to turn to government and policy and charities to fix up and clean up and repair that damage of our unsafe, unevenly shared, hurtful economic system. But say the economy from day one, from the word ‘go’, needs to do more of that heavy lifting by regenerating the planet and delivering good lives for people.

And it’s also going to be measured by something so much different from gross domestic product with all its distorting perverse incentives. GDP is blind to distribution, and it actually counts as a boost to the GDP ledger when we spend on pseudo-satisfiers and failure demand. So wellbeing economy has to be about measuring what really matters.

The good news is that despite all the headwinds, a wellbeing economy is emerging; we can see these chinks of light already bubbling up, already being built around the world. And you can see it in organizations that are saying work is going to be better shared; work is going to be decent quality; it’s going to pay enough for people to live on. You see it in successful businesses and saying that their purpose is going to be squarely about delivering social and environmental returns rather than just extracting profit in the short term for the very few. And you see it in the cities and places that are designed not for petrol, but for plants; not for consumerism, but for choirs and for communities coming together and powered, of course, by renewable energy.

And you can see it in the collaborative circular economy. We see examples of this everywhere; whether it’s people sharing books or sharing tools; or whether it’s co-housing with 25 families, for example, saying, “We don’t all need to own our very own washing machine.” 25 families can do very well with just four washing machines. Or the circular economy that says one person’s waste is another person’s input, their materials and their energy, and my favorite example of this is off the west coast of Scotland, where you get heat from the local whisky distillery is used to warm the local community swimming pool. And you also see examples of a wellbeing economy in practice with all the community budgeting and participatory budgeting, community planning initiatives where it’s saying it’s got to be about people who design how we do our local economic spending, how we spend public money, how we design our communities.

And a wellbeing economy will be more possible with initiatives like this: the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership, which in a way is an alternative to the G7. These are governments led by Scotland, with New Zealand and Iceland, who are saying, “We want to collaborate, to learn from each other, to share, and exchange, to build economic systems that deliver collective wellbeing rather than just short-term GDP growth.” This is sort of the future of political leadership. And so, Sam, who’s one of the amazing young people that we work with to try and bring about a wellbeing economy for the future, has been looking around the world; and he says all those societal challenges that we face demand that we transform our economy.

But now, the climate crisis, and the biodiversity crisis, has set the clock. It gives us a decade to bring about that economic transformation. And as I’ve explained, the good news is that there is a lot happening; ideas are bubbling up how to do the economy differently. It’s all about paving the path to a wellbeing economy. And the challenge is – and I think this is the question of our time – Sam, from WEAll Youth, has said, “Will this change happen fast enough?” So Martin, who you saw at the very beginning, my filmmaker friend Martin and I, we were reflecting on this question, because it is the question of our day.

How can we bring about this transformation to a wellbeing economy in the time that we need to do it? And we were reflecting on how our optimism is founded in some very strong rules of nature, if you like, our hope-filled realities that give us a sense that just this shift, this transformation of the economy might be possible. And so our scaffolding of our hope that we can have a different economy is based on the reality that more and more people are starting to recognize that the economy is a subset of society and those two are a subset of nature and that a wellbeing economy will serve both.

We’re also hopeful because history tells us that it is our collective institutions that have been enabling us to thrive over the decades, and they’re the ones that enable human beings to flourish, and they will be the backbone of a wellbeing economy. We’re hopeful because more and more people are realizing that actual fulfillment and true freedom comes from collective endeavor, from relationships, from staying in touch with your friends, from not working so hard, rather than being a lonely consumer. And we’re hopeful because, while people are diverse across the world and while cultures differ, there are innate human needs that connect us all; and a wellbeing economy will be one that will deliver that.

You can all be part of it. Whether it’s through your conversations, with your work, your investing, your shopping, your mobility, absolutely with your voting, if you’re going to bring in the sort of policy regime that we need to support this. But I’d say most importantly you can be about it with your hope. With your hope, based on those hope-filled realities, that the future economy is one in which humanity determines our economic system, one in which it’s a wellbeing economy for everyone. Thank you.

Katherine Trebeck, ‘Why the Future Economy has to be a Wellbeing Economy

The transcript above was made with the help of Sonix, which did most of the donkey work for a tiny fee (I did have to spend some time tidying it up). Note that I do not have the copyright owner’s permission to publish this transcript here. I’ve investigated the copyright rules regarding transcriptions (more about that here), and one thing I’ve learned is that it’s no defense to make a disclaimer like “these aren’t my words, no copyright infringement intended.” However, I offer the transcription here as a service to society (especially the deaf community). I do hope the copyright owner won’t object. And I hope that you find this video as entertaining and/or interesting as I did.

Posted in ... wait, what?, Core thought, News and politics, People, Strategy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

What happened at COP26? And what next?

A synopsis of the so-called Glasgow ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP26), by the Campaign against Climate Change (@campaigncc). It’s a disturbing, but thoroughly unsurprising, read:

What happened at COP26? And what next?

My summary, in a haiku:

In Pandora’s Box
Hope’s frosty note lay unread:
“Down pub getting drunk.”

There are some who denigrate those who, like me, consider that it is imperative that our entire civilization must take action now to reverse the trend. They call us ‘doomers’ for using words like ‘crisis’ and ’emergency’, and for arguing that if we continue to delay then the results will be catastrophic. They accuse people who say such things of spreading undue fear. But such an attitude plays right into the hands of those whose objective is further inaction and delay, and who promote a continuation of the totally unsustainable ‘business as usual’.

It polarizes the public and then that makes it harder to get consensus and progress.

John Cook, research fellow at Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub in Australia, and climate misinformation expert (via Desmogblog).

Those who would have us continue on our current course are cynically manipulating the majority, who, as they know full well, do not grasp the reality of exponential growth.

The Titanic is heading for an iceberg, and the fools at the helm believe her to be unsinkable. Yet, if the wheel is not turned now, the lumbering behemoth will not have enough time to avoid the inevitable collision.

Someday the earth will weep, she will beg for her life, she will cry with tears of blood. You will make a choice, if you will help her or let her die, and when she dies, you too will die.
“Someday the earth will weep,
she will beg for her life, she will cry with tears of blood.
You will make a choice, if you will help her or let her die,
and when she dies, you too will die.”
Hollow Horn Bear, Brulé Lakota 18501913
Posted in Biodiversity, Climate, Communication, Environment, GCD: Global climate disruption, News and politics, Strategy | Tagged , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

George’s call to action, NOW

I heartily second Bob’s endorsement of this important article by George Monbiot.

Dr Bob Rich's avatarBobbing Around

You’ve got to read this call to action from George Monbiot.

He starts with what appears to be a technological approach: replace fossil fuels with electric, and all will be well. Those who pay attention to scientific evidence have known from the 1970s that this is false. But then, indeed he points out some of the many problems of continuing to consume the earth using a different power source.

What is killing the environment, and therefore threatening all complex life on Earth, is the current economic model. George agrees with me that this is what needs to change.

He is optimistic that we still have a chance of doing so.

View original post

Posted in Biodiversity, Climate, Communication, Core thought, Environment, GCD: Global climate disruption, News and politics, Reblogs, Strategy | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments