The more you seek to plant change globally or locally, the more everyone must participate in and trust what roots you stick with
We'll stick with these to 2024
Invest more and more in people before machines- if you believe in this then you will have to introduce a second audit because global accounting is the most conflicted maths possible for investing in people (clue look at what current/historic accounting rules permit the boardroom to book in as an investment -for uptodate stories see intangibles-valuation and the great mathematical mistake that ruling the world, the EU's very conflicted Knowledge management, and what brand experts who love Canadian views of global branding have been plotting for 15 years now)
We believe in human rights to clean water (without which our bodies stop) and the sun's energy. So we will stick to algae as the fuel to 2025 - here's our 1984 extract on that (updated stories on humanity's struggle for clean energies are at omniworldview, solaroof; algaeworld, aSIN, sustainability billionnaires, "green is the next red, white & blue", and future of london) :
End of chapter 16:
Sunlight is the fuel which sustains life on earth. The process by which plants extract energy from sunlight, using that energy to build up complex compounds from simper ones and thereby storing the energy which animals, including humans, use to grow and move and see and think is the life-process itself. We (human beings) have always exploited that life-process, but in the past we have only been able to do so by using living plants as our agents. We learned to cultivate them, develop them by selective breeding, and since the 1980s to meddle with their genes, but we have not yet learned to substitute something of our own making for the living plant. We have not found or made a more efficient substitute for chlorophyll itself outside the naturally-occurring factory which is the living cell.
Until we design our own systems which can deploy the energy of sunlight as efficiently as humble algae does, we humans have no real biotechnology of our own. We have many kinds of solar cells which can extract energy from the sunlight and store is as electricity or heat, but such devices are very crude indeed beside the technical sophistication and versatility of living plants.
We are making a determined effort to capture and use a greater fraction of the solar energy which falls upon the face of the earth every day. We are trying to make plants flourish in paces where at present they can only eke out the most precarious of existence. The ideal situation, however, would be one in which we did not need to work so hard to adapt existing plants to more hostile conditions. If we had our own artificial systems of photosynthesis we might exploit the desert sun ourselves, without using other organisms as intermediaries. Our ultimate ambition must be to make artificial photosynthetic systems more efficient than those which have evolved alongside side us throughout the history of life on earth. Then and only then will we be able to claim that we are technologically self-sufficient. In 2024, this looks as if it might be one of our children's tasks.
Given this picture the 64 trillion dollar energy question and even more than that if we value sustainability of life is what can we best compound around the sun's energy exponentials in 2006. Next major public meeting on this in London looks like March2006- please do tell us at wcbn007@easynet.co.uk if you have other open meetings elsewhere to linkin on this agenda.
INTRODUCING BIOTECHNOLOGY
rest of chapter 16 - to be lasered in
We believe in networking every community up so that boundary transparencies do not externalise risk to whichever society is least ignorant of a global sector's expertise. So we'll go with a peoples economics which sustains healthily gravitated exponentials connecting 2 million global villages. This is how we wrote that in 1984:
When we look at the most stunning development stories from the second half of the 20th Century – eg Taiwan – we see that the main incentive for entrepreneurs in such countries was to produce for fairly rich consumers , abroad or at home. If the 80 or so countries who most need development support in the early 21st Century all started exporting cheap-labour umbrellas like Taiwan in the 1950s, a glut of umbrellas would rather soon appear. It would be better if some of the 21st C entrepreneurs could be encouraged to provide more of the things desperately needed by the poorest three quarters of people.
An early clue emerged from Sweden in the 1980s where remote areas in the North of the country started experimenting with how core types of public service could be provided competitively-but-caringly by private entrepreneurs on performance contracts. Through the 1990s various Swedish voluntary organisations started to use this sort of system as they “adopted” certain Third World Villages.
Trailblazing projects associated withy these experiments mean that commercialism was dashing in where only saints had previously trod. Indeed, many of the saints both participated and learnt from these projects and their open replication across countries where communities faced contextually matching challenges to sustainability. This way ahead helped to realise E F Schumacher’s 2 million global villages. The author of Small is Beautiful published back in 1973 had outlined that the best way to bring help to the billion poorest people in the world was to create 2 million villages functioning smoothly with appropriate, hardy, labour-intensive technology
posted by ... @ 9:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home