We assume that the cause of the Global Warming and reduction of sustainability lies in typical Western mono-causal, unilateral, individualistic thinking. New concepts as have emerged in biomedical sciences and cellular biology as in physics are currently lacking in business and the public domain, let alone on an individual level.
Fortunately, there are some initiatives to arrive at healthier economic theories. With difficulty, because there are hardly any media that write about these new quests. Names such as ecological economics, bio-economics, eco-economics or eco-capitalism characterize them.
“Learning about the natural world is one thing. Learning from the natural world—that’s the switch. That’s the profound switch.”
* How does Nature ¨thinks¨? What is the difference with human thinking? Where comes that difference from?* How forces neo-liberal economic behavior that is destructive for humans and nature? * How can we shift from classical Western habits of thinking in entities to thinking in relations between entities?
What have we taken for granted the last 50 years in the way we thought about how to counter global warming and increase sustainability? What can we learn from that to NOT do? What can we learn from that to do otherwise? What has been a seemingly ineffective mechanism for change?
We need desperately better strategies to scale up ideas regarding global change and sustainability. We present some.
What curriculum changes are needed for schools, regarding global changes and sustainability? Current Approach The European Commission's climate plan is limited to reducing carbon emissions by industries. It has goals, but not strategies on how to reach those goals. It covers sectors such as electricity, mobility, industry, built environment, and agricultural and land use. However, …
What to do with meaningless but well intended moral calls for action?
We make complex things, Nature makes them work.
What if we think as a quantum physicist? What if we introduce distributive justice instead of using Cost-benefit Analysis for decisions??
It is easy to use a similar type of thinking that lead to the problems with climate change. Economic benefits such as subsidiaries are tempting to use but we need to ensure that the risks involved with any solution are carefully explored. Sustainably managed forests to combat cllimate change is not as simple as it might first sound.
If you think about mitigating Global Warming, and you are looking for creative solutions to, it may make sense to map out existing approaches.
Let's try to get ideas on how to attack the climate crisis by greenhouse gas emissions in a non-obvious way. Ideas where never anyone has thought of. If you wish so: out-of-the/box. Beyond more-of-the-same thinking. Outside current thinking.
As we are interested in non-traditional thinking. Put forward a fantasy or a wish, knowing that it is impossible to achieve. It is important that a provocation be a fantasy.
You agree we need innovative thinking here, don´t you? To begin with: childish questions.
Of course, we could study intensively the different approaches to the ethical question of ¨Why should we bother about climate change?¨ that scholars have identified. But we believe that policymakers and responsible citizens must able to answer that question for themselves.
Besides the practical, economical and ecological advantages of reusing obsolete things, it is good brain workout to give yourself the instruction: 25 Creative Ideas To Reuse ... The amount of required ideas is important to avoid too obvious ideas. Try to make twenty-five at least. If you don't believe this is possible, look at these examples: …
Positive Steps New ideas and suggestions to solving problems are always interesting to examine. In many cases, there is a lack of obvious signs of the idea or suggestion making any real change. Sometime this way of looking at new ideas can be deceptive. Often new human resource management ideas are regarded as old wine …