Living more intentionally, with consideration for the resources needed to fuel society, is not a dark, miserable experience. It can be fantastic, if we simply use our imagination, our minds, our innovation, we can get around and living well without destroying the earth as we've known it. A smaller car, or a change in the density of the city you live into, or living in something that isn't 5,000 square feet is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Choosing to transition to a doughnut economy with carbon reducing incentives built in is better than being forced into it because you can't grow food or your town is flooded permanently by sea rise.
The Washington Post had a lovely article about "Rising seas risk climate migration on ‘biblical scale,’ says U.N. chief" Doing something and building on it is not a bad idea, unless you are tired of humanity living on the planet. Meh.
I was just introduced to the development proposal “The Orbit” for Innisfil, Ontario which was the community I grew up in and where my parents still live. As a concept, it is probably not a bad idea for more intentional living and future development. It seems like an idea that dips its toe into the challenges of current low-density suburban living and adapting those areas to being more accommodating to higher density living spaces. I don’t think something like this can be actualized, nor do I want it to given developer ties to the Ford government, but it’s an interesting view of future development strategies.
A dreamy, naïve belief that human nature will accept "less" as "welcome and better". Not a chance. The net-zero crowd's primary challenge is that they can only visualize "taking away" and not "replacing with better". Until they do, I'm not investing in any bike manufacturers.
Living more intentionally, with consideration for the resources needed to fuel society, is not a dark, miserable experience. It can be fantastic, if we simply use our imagination, our minds, our innovation, we can get around and living well without destroying the earth as we've known it. A smaller car, or a change in the density of the city you live into, or living in something that isn't 5,000 square feet is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Choosing to transition to a doughnut economy with carbon reducing incentives built in is better than being forced into it because you can't grow food or your town is flooded permanently by sea rise.
The Washington Post had a lovely article about "Rising seas risk climate migration on ‘biblical scale,’ says U.N. chief" Doing something and building on it is not a bad idea, unless you are tired of humanity living on the planet. Meh.
Hear, hear!
The Theofrancos study inspired me as well:
https://jamesbelcher.substack.com/p/the-impending-mining-frenzy
I was just introduced to the development proposal “The Orbit” for Innisfil, Ontario which was the community I grew up in and where my parents still live. As a concept, it is probably not a bad idea for more intentional living and future development. It seems like an idea that dips its toe into the challenges of current low-density suburban living and adapting those areas to being more accommodating to higher density living spaces. I don’t think something like this can be actualized, nor do I want it to given developer ties to the Ford government, but it’s an interesting view of future development strategies.
A dreamy, naïve belief that human nature will accept "less" as "welcome and better". Not a chance. The net-zero crowd's primary challenge is that they can only visualize "taking away" and not "replacing with better". Until they do, I'm not investing in any bike manufacturers.