ubiquitous computing, ubiquitous networking yet no spirit no coordination.. strange isn't it ?
There's people out there in very poor shape, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and eating junk every day and it would take a massive health problem to get them to change their habits, even tho they feel like crap all the time.
This is essentially the same thing with our society. What needs to be done is drastic, yet how do you convince people that this is desirable? You can't. Most people need suffering in order to change.
I'm calling for a different group of people to sit and think. People with a bit of abstract math, systemic and various fields (food, geology, ecology, logistics) to assemble, and reflect on how to migrate people lifestyle gradually.
Spreading small degrowth groups around, creating nature cattering associations, educators to turn people from consumers to actors of their neighborhoods with pleasure and care.
I'm highly convinced it doesn't require much to tip off a whole population in our case. Because the system is already sick to me. People just need a smooth path out and the benefits are not far (better diet, more physical exercises, less loneliness, less stress, less toxic competition, more control over their life).
You can’t hammer people problems with tech and expect a fix. They’re people problems!
- individual initiative is not enough
- nation wide (or larger) is not happening (there are big efforts but there are also contradicting accounts of actual progress and even opposing forces like countries investing in coal even more)
the usual levers (parties) are not effective, how to combine individual efforts into groups (the middle layer) so that people can 1) have access to useful information 2) find solutions to problems (buying local food, consuming less, producing some stuff locally if it makes sense).
I have this view where small groups spread in enough numbers would divert all the yet passive people into followers so that quickly economics will be redirected into a sustainable low pollution model.
In just 20 years my state has moved from 70% coal - 30% natgas power to 25% coal, 50% natgas, 25% wind. In maybe a decade the only CO2 my state will be producing of any significance will be from automobiles, which look to be on the verge of being replaced by electric in at most 2 decades. Granted my state in the US has likely moved the fastest on this.
It is hard to believe that given just our current level of progress, that the world won't have drastically cut CO2 by 2050.
If you're going to dispute the qualifications of the IPCC, it would help to show something peer reviewed by people in the field.
The EU are nearest to meeting IPCC recommendations, and have taken some worthwhile steps forward, but so far not nearly enough, though they committed to net zero by 2050 shortly after the failed COP25. Most of the rest of the world is doing nothing, or worse. Don't forget emissions are still rising, coal and gas plants still being built, and new oil fields explored.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/15/cop25-un-cli...
There are ZERO indicators showing that we will meet any climate saving goals.