Whether our ideology stems from the religion, which put the idea in our heads, or whether our human Ego centrism (3) found it’s way into the scriptures is moot. It resembles the question about the egg and the chicken. No one can answer it. Fact is, that some Anthropocentric believe, that the world, and even the universe, was only created for one reason – for us human beings. Although we, as human beings, are unique in nature it does not necessarily mean, that the whole world and the universe is our dominion, our serfdom, for us to do as we please.

That anthrocentrism can’t be the truth, beginns to dawn on us slowly. The more people live at the same time on Earth, the more precarious the situation becomes. The Climate Change (4) is a real possibility and too many people are still suffering in the 3. World from lack of adequate technology. Technology is needed to raise the standard and quality of living in those countries. This will, hopefully, trigger the Demographic-Economic Paradox (5) and world population will be reduced by the free will of the people. The Demographic-Economic Paradox, means, that the wealthier people become, the less children they have. To raise the standard of living in the 3. World would be the real anthropocentric approach. But, alas, even after decades of so called development policies, the the problem of global poverty still remains unsolved. And the birth rate is too high.

So if human beings are not the center of our world view, what is it instead?

The personal Egocentrism! Or mostly rather Egomaniac dreams of the individual. And of the personalities of the powers to be. Since the powers to be are, after all, only human beings with all their personal shortcomings, no other results can’t be asked for. As an individual it is hard to grasp the overall picture, the angle of perception is narrow. On the other hand our culture tells as constantly, that we are the center of all. Such a Egocentrism of the individual is excusable, but to prolong the cultural superstition is dangerous. Considering human history and the present state of nature, neither human beings, nor nature, as the source of life, was ever in the center of the anthropocentric powers that be. If human beings would really be in the center of our culture, then famine should be a thing of the past. In the 21.century, with all the technology available, no one should die of starvation. Sadly it still happens. This is the result, not of Anthropocentric but because of unbridled and purely egocentric greed.

But this world view is being challenged. The quest for Sustainability (6) bears witness to it.

In November of last year the annual Climate Change Summit was held in Durban/South Africa (7). Nothing came out of it, otherwise it would be news worthy and I would have heard about it. Can it be, that all the scientists and pundits simply don’t know what sustainability actually means? Not just in a practical sense but on a deeper level of a differing world view. We have to understand, that human beings are not the center of the world, we just happen to be on top of a unstable pyramid. The pyramids in Egypt and in Latin America conveys the image of a stability, it is something for eternity. Again it is our narrow perception, which leads us to believe, that four thousand year is a long time.

In reality, 4000 years are only a blink in the history of Earth. In reality there is no hirarchy in nature. Everything has a room in the Oikos (8) and everything is in a state of fluidity. Change is the only secure constant in nature. Our stance towards nature must adept itself to the changes. The change of the world population and a possible Climate Change are the salient points. These two problems combined are overwhelming, nothing comes even close to it. The economic perils are minuscule compared to them. If the Climate Change will take effect and hundreds of million, or even billion, people will start to move, because as an effect of Climate Change their natural environment will be inhabitable, then this will surly change the economic system.

World population (9) will have to come to a point were it has to stop growing and a reduction will take place. There is no alternative, to escape into space will only be possible for a very small number of people, if at all. And those people will have to live in a way we could already live on earth. Zero Energy Waste Tolerance!

There are two possibilities how the reduction will come about. Either through wars and catastrophes or through a new approach to help the 3. World countries to develop and to hope that the Demographic-Economic Paradox will take effect. And at the same time help nature, because the technology is small, decentralized and appropriate for people. Small is beautiful, said E. F. Schumacher (10).

To help people or to help nature, as expressed by the beautiful African lady in the clip at the bottom 1:57, should not be the question at all. On the on hand we have to help the people and on the other hand we have to preserve nature. Not just passively preserving it, but to bring vast areas to their genuine conditions. It has to be done, because nature has to be given the chance to regain stability and thus mitigate a climate change. It is not an Either-Or question but rather, as they say in Germany, a Sowohl-Als-Auch approach. Sowohl als auch means: This as well as that.

Yes, the clip is right, we are human beings and we have the right to be here. But in such a way that we do not destroy nature for our pleasure and hubris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K6Ax-AvKTQ

For further reading:

1.   Anthropocentrism

2.  Genesis 1:28

3.  Egocentrism

4.  Climate Change

5.  Demographic-Economic Paradox

6.  Sustainability

7.  Climate Summit Durban

8.  Oikos

9.  World Population

10.E.F. Schumacher

Let’s get down to some disturbing facts. The American military just pulled out of Iraq. The war there has officially ended there. But no one really knows if the supposed democratic transition will hold up in the future, or whether all the ethnic groups will be at each other throats very soon. Thus the war will continue in a different shape and form.

Still in many parts of the world armed conflicts are continuing unabated. So much for the wishful thinking that 2012 will be a peaceful year. Iran draws closer by the minute into the line of fire. Then when the sanctions against Iran, because of their nuclear ambitions, will turn into a military operation. As some politicians in America and Israel suggest. All those in favor of a show of will should keep in mind, that it is always easier to start a war, then to end it. And the distance between those two points is usually soaked in blood. One thing is clear, Iran is not as weak as Iraq was at the beginning of the second Iraq war. The implications for the global economy can’t be valued up front. The Straights of Hormuz could be closed by Iran without much difficulties. While in Iraq about 1.5 million people died, the death toll in Iran might be much higher. Just as much as the Iraq war was a miscalculation a military operation in Iran could become a full fledged war. All this because the western powers together with Israel oppose Iran to become nuclear. On the one hand Iran says it will use their nuclear capabilities for civil purposes, while the West and Israel fear that Iran will build nuclear arms. On the other hand Iran asserts, that their oil resources will eventually run dry and they will need another means to provide their people with energy. Since it is a fact, that all the oil reserves are limited and will eventually run dry, it is a viable stance of the Iranian government to look for alternatives. But why it has to be nuclear energy in a land which is prone to earthquakes is difficult to understand. Unless, of course, the nuclear energy enables to build nuclear weapons as well. Anyway a military coup against Iran will be much more difficult than the war in Iraq, with possibly many more victims.

Iran is only mentioned in this post, because the rhetoric is heating up by the Republican hopeful candidates for the presidency of the USA. All of them, except for Mr. Ron Paul, never forget to talk about all the options available. The ultimate option is the armed intervention. But this kind of war is not the war humanity is waging against nature on a daily basis. Except for the killing of human beings the other hallmark of war is the destruction caused to nature. Regarding the destruction inflicted upon nature even without a war is staggering. All this in order for the economy to grow. At this point we come to an impasse, because the economy has to grow in order to provide a growing world population with their vital needs. Otherwise people will die without a conventional war. What can be done in order to keep a viable balance between the needs of humanity and the rights of nature to remain intact?

Sustainability should be the right answer. The TOTEM System, as introduced by Nesseq, could play a decisive role in it. Recycling of used materiel should become mandatory. A reduction in consumption is the answer of the individual to this problem. It must be kept in mind, that a nature out of balance just might become the cause of new wars. If the Climate Change is kicking in, water resources might dry up, the level of the seas might rise and many other reasons might force people to migrate in masses. In a overly crowded world there is no place left where to go to. The people already living where the new comer want to go will defend their lot with every means possible. It will be a matter of survival. All this could be circumvented if humanity would start to change their ways of living.

Peace with earth is just as important as peace between the people!

For further reading:

1. Wars

I don’t want to be a killjoy, and each is granted a Merry Christmas. But must the material accumulation be so huge? Is not possible one size smaller? And after Christmas comes the New Year 2012, with all the resolutions that no one really keeps. One such resolution could easily be to reduce our consumption patterns. Do we really have to buy all the cheap stuff that hardly survives the week? And then we have to buy the same product new. A good friend of mine use to say, I am too poor to buy cheap. And you know what? He is right. Quality has it’s price. But in the long term one saves a lot of money and the environment is less polluted. One other thing worth considering is, whether it is really necessary to consume so much animal products? Be it meat, dairy or eggs. A Vegan(1) diet is the best way to rescue the environment. And as a bonus you will make your doctor happy. The German ministry of health recommends to eat only once a week meat.

Just the way it was hundreds of years ago. At that time to eat meat was a feast. Not because the people did not like it, but simply because they did not have it. With the accumulation of wealth in the modern society this has changed. People today, at least in the affluent societies, eat too much meat. As a result Obesity (2) becomes a social and health problem. But nor enough with it, the production of livestock demands unproportionally much land, water and energy. With the same efforts enough plant foodstuff could be produced and starvation could be eliminated.

This does not mean, that we will have to become full fledged and dogmatic Vegans. Still a little less of everything helps our wallet and the environment. This is a noble resolution for the new year. And let’s all hope that there will be peace on earth and no natural catastrophes. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year 2012 to the visitors of Nesseq.com!

For further reading:

1. Veganism

2. Obesity

One of the certain challenges of the future is the growing World Population. The other one would be the Climate Change. Both issues are intricately interwoven with the other, that only one solution seems feasible. Sustainable Development! This also concerns the First World countries, since the need for energy and resources in these countries is much too high and therefore not sustainable. Models for a sustainable way of live must also be developed in the affluent societies.

No one can deny the possibility of a Climate Change, Precautionary Measures must be taken. Every responsible politician must take those facts into account before making any decisions. Especially if the politician is the president of the USA! The USA is still the leading nation on earth an as such it has more responsibility as smaller countries.

But is it the really the fault of the politician to deny something as abstract as a Climate Change? What can a politician possibilly know, what scientists do not know? At least they could agree on certain facts and their possible ramifications. Now, towards the end of the year, scientists and pundits will gather to a Climate Change Summit. Again, to discuss Climate Change and Sustainable Development. While the Climate Change Summit Flying Circus is floating high in the air and the facts on the ground are lacking. Practical models, yes, also for the 1.World, are still missing. It seems, that the specialist of the Climate Change are only talking and are not able to develop a conclusive concept how to tackle the problems. How can we expect our politicians to have such a concept?

How much time do the scientists and politicians think we have until we start to move in the right direction? Today world populations is about 7 billion people, at the middle of this century it will rise, by about 30%, to 9 billion. We have no time to waste. To remain in the theoretical realm borders, just to avoid making mistakes. Mistakes will be made anyway, but they should be regarded as part of the experience.

To know, that something terrible is about to happen and not to get prepared for it borders on insanity.

Psychologists might call it Surpression and as long as it enables a person to function in the personal realm in society, it is probably necessary. But as soon as the mental condition is disturbed a therapy is called for. But how can society as a whole go to a therapist? This is not possible. The only way to make the public understand the situation is by showing practical models. Such as the TOTEM System or Ultra Light City Vehicles. When the models work it will show the public how to change their way of life to a sustainable one. But we don’t want to see it and therefore we don’t mind it at all.

The onus is on us to act, but I am afraid we are going to lose more time. Our representatives avoid seeing the problems and do not mind them. We would like to believe in sanity, but alas, insanity reigns!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYOQDz9Gt0Q&feature=related

For further reading:

1. Durban Climate Summit 

In May of this year Spain was shook by mass demonstrations. Greece, in the wake of the Euro Crisis (2) followed suit. Around the same time the Arab Spring unfolded and die hard dictators like Mubarak were toppled. In the fall the virus of social unrest came to Tel Aviv, were the protesters set up a tent city on Rothschild boulevard. Many more cities were also inflicted and the fever crossed the ocean and Wall Street was occupied (3). From there the movement became truly global. It spread out almost everywhere on earth.

The message of the movement is clear, the financial and economic system is foul to the core. The system supports the rich 1% of the population and the rest goes under. Inflation is rather low and employment is high. Inflation is, when more and more money is spilled into the market. That means, that if inflation is low the amount of money is stable. If the rich are getting richer than their money has to come from the poorer people. Which means that the Have-not have even less. This policy was called in my country the the Teapot policy. According to this theory, if the tea is poured for the rich, some of the tea will trickle down for the poor. Again it is political wishful thinking and has nothing to do with reality. The rich get the most and the poor get some drops. If at all!

Shouldn’t it be the other way round? It would be much more sensible to pour the tea for the poor and let the rich have the drops. If the poor have more money they will spend it on the goods in order to raise their standard and quality of living. They will not put their money in foreign banks as the rich do. The money remains in the local and national economy and thus jobs are created.

That is one point. The other point is, that the bail out of banks and corporations is actually anti-capitalistic. The capitalist tries to pitch their system by telling us that taking risks is part of the concept and should be rewarded. But alas, this is not so in reality. The captains of business wreck the ship and ask the government to bail them out. And the captains get a cushy compensation for their failure. While the common people are paying the bill as can be seen with the foreclosures in the USA. Mitt Romney (Clip) even asserts, that the foreclosures should be handled more aggressively. Does he really have the welfare of the people in mind or the welfare of the 1%? The answer is self evident. The big capitalists do not take any risks, the public does!

So far so good. Perhaps the Tea party does not agree with it, but I think the Occupier of Wall Street will. The question is if the complains of all the social movements is enough in itself? I think not. Now is the time to get organized and to establish an alternative, a parallel economy. The legal ground work even exists in the heart land of capitalism, the USA. Even there Co-operatives already exist. Now is the time for us, the disenchanted, to stop complaining and establish co-operatives and to become a true alternative to the piggish capitalism. Now is the time to establish a humane capitalism, where profits are not maximized but quality of life. A society where the status of the individual as a human being is secured! This website offers some ideas what could be done. Of course the ecological ramifications have to be considered as well.

One important point, which is greatly ignored in the aforementioned movements is, that Sustainability (4) is the economic concept of the future. This is the chance of the social movement to build functioning model, based on the slogan, Think Globally and Act Locally (5).

To expect the solution from the politician is moot.Why should we trust politician? The legalized the greed of the rich. Even Warren Buffet (6) feels bad about it. We should stop complaining and take matter in our own hands!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9D1uWBjh0

For further reading:

1. Tea Party Movement

2. Euro Crisis

3. Occupy Wall Street

4. Sustainability

5. Think Globally, Act Locally

6. Warren Buffet

Every major scientific discovery was first disputed by the authorities. Galileo Galilei is a fitting example. Today it is about Climate Change/Global Warming and the scientists who deny that it is caused by mankind. This can be clearly seen in the film The Great Globl Warming Swindle by Martin Durkins, which disputes global warming. (Clip at the bottom of post.)

All witnesses in the film relate only to the CO2 caused by man as a factor in the Climate Change. Professor Tim Ball, right at the beginning of the film, does not deny Global Warming, he just does not believe that it is caused by human produced CO2.

The burning of fossil fuel is simply releasing the CO2 which has been bound by plants of hundreds of million of years ago. Now those guys are scientist and I am not, still I got one question. How can a diminishing source of Photosynthesis (1), Forests and Phytoplankton (2), fight against more CO2 in the air in order to keep the balance? Not once in the film are other Greenhouse gases (3), such as Methane (4), mentioned. There is no doubt that more Methane is release into the atmosphere because of the increased livestock on earth, since everybody wants meat and dairy products every day. And a growing world population want the same luxury. This demands more landscape for agriculture and the result is that more forests are destroyed. All the while the Forests, together with the Phytoplankton in the oceans are the main resources for the Photosynthesis on earth. No one has to be a rocket scientist to understand, that an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Photosynthesis is liable to disturb a delicate balance in the atmosphere.

The scientists also relate only to the time after the last Ice Age (5). If they go that far at all, most diagrams shown are only about the last hundreds of years. This is humane, but nature measures time in a completely different scale. The history of our planet (6) is measured in millions and millions of years. Which is beyond the scope of a scientist, who gives the excuse for the politicians to do the wrong things. And the wrong is done if our politicians are neglecting the possibility of a Climate Change or the severity of it. In the film the Climate Change warners are accused of commercializing their cause, otherwise they would be out of a job. This might be so, and I personally believe it to be true in some cases, but the same holds true to the other camp as well. Who tells me that the Climate Change deniers are not only in it for the money or prestige?

Furthermore the film purtorts that Global Warming hysteria is just about hindering Africa to develope. To also become a 1. World continent, with all the negative repercussions. Perhaps some environmentalists go that far, for sure we, at Nesseq, do not agree with this. As we always assert, only economic development is the human way of reducing world population. The Economic-Demographic Paradox (7) must be applied. Every other way of reducing world population to a healthy, sustainable level would mean to take into account that millions and millions of people will have to die. This is unacceptable. The question is not whether the so called 3. World should develop or not but rather how far to develop? Perhaps the level of the 2.World would be sufficient as the first step. This should’nt be too hard a condition since this means already a huge step forward for millions of people. The justice is that the 2.World is the pivotal point between 1. and 3. World. And this is the real place were the 1.World has to descend to in order to be sustainable.

As Professor Tim Ball implied, Climate Change is perhaps not caused by mankind, still it might be happening as a natural cycle and the next Ice Age or, the opposit, a heated up period is possible shouldn’t humanity get prepared for the worst-case scenario. To fail to do so could mean that our scientists and politicians are irresponsible. Another movie, which also contest the Climate Change is called Not Evil Just Wrong (Clip 2.). All those people should ask themselfs, that if they are wrong and Climate Change is happening, if they are not evil?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K6Ax-AvKTQ

1.  Photosynthesis

2. Phytoplankton

3. Greenhouse Gases

4. Methane

5. Ice Age

6. History of Earth

7. Demographic-Economic Paradox

The picture was taken from Wikipedia.org and shows a Phytoplankton Bloom in the North Sea.

The fear-mongering, that ecological politics will cost us jobs is not valid. The jobs will change with the products but still people have to the the work. There is also a fundamental fault in the thinking of Mr. Perry, and Michele Bachmann as well. It is not true, that cheap energy is creating jobs. I can’t show any graphics, but common sense tells me, that if energy is cheap it is more profitable to let a machine do the job, instead of an expensive worker. If the energy price rise, the price for human beings becomes more competitive and jobs are created!

Every politicians must be aware that the industry is always adapting to new situation and that certain industries do not exist anymore. The USA and Europe had once a pretty strong steel and steam engines industries. Karl Marx reported in the 19. century about the textile industry in Manchester (1), which does not exist anymore. Textile today is produced in cheap wage countries. With the decline of this economic branch jobs were killed. But on the other hand, with the new products, new jobs were created. The question today is how to create new jobs in a society in transition?

To wait, as Mr. Perry suggest, for science to prove Climate Change is futile. The problem with science is, that it is in itself a  kind of believe. Until a couple of weeks ago it was scientific dogma, that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Now they found out in the CERN facility in Switzerland, that Neutrinos (2)  do travel faster than light. And all the physicists are at a loss how that can be. Was Albert Einstein wrong? It is one of the principles of science, that a theory is only valid as long as there is not another theory, which explains it better than the old theory. This mean, that even scientists admits, that their knowledge is only tentative. Another, more down to earth example is smoking tobacco. Every medical doctor will tell you, that smoking is not healthy and it causes cancer. This fact is not really true, since a lot of people do smoke and die of other diseases. Both my parents were heavy smokers and both died of other, unrelated, diseases. Does that mean, I can’t trust medicine? The problem is solved, if we look at it as it is. Medicine as a science does not tell us, that smoking causes diseases. It just tells us, that the probability to get sick from smoking is much higher, than if one abstains from this filthy habit. The conclusion for any responsible politician, is to take the possibility of a Climate Change very, very serious. and it does not help to, as Mr. Perry did, accuse scientists of forging their findings in order to prove that the Climate Change is happening. If the Climate is really changing, then the scientific prove might have been a little late, because only a changed climate is the proof. If the climate is not changing, at least we did not take any chances, according to the old saying; Better be careful than sorry!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2OHAuvoUkQ

 For further reading:

1. Manchester Capitalism

2. Speed of Light

Image of Mr. Perry used under the provisions of Fair Use. From thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com

After the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 (4), with about 250.000 dead, when the first aid was done and the second step set in, a Cholera epidemic broke out. I am not a scientist, but common sense tells me, that the mobile infrastructure was not adequate. Millions of people survived the total destruction and had to be taken care of. The prevailing idea is to emulate the fixed infrastructure for a area without devastation. This centralized concept is outdated. In a area recovering from, either a natural catastrophe or war only small and decentralized mobile units can ease the immediate plight and will prevent epidemics. If the centralized system is corrupted, the whole system grinds to a halt. This can’t happen to Mobile Totem’s. Every unit should serve about five thousand people. If one unit fails, the impact on the whole system is minimal. And it is not very likely, that all units will stop working at the same time. Another very important advantage of the Mobile Totem, the biomass (feces) is automatically sterilized in the process and the highest hygienic standards can be ensured!

Both infrastructure’s are expensive. And the decentralized one even more so. But the advantage of the TOTEM System, that it can be build successively In order to cut the cost, the Totem will be build locally. It is not necessary to bring all the stuff needed from the outside. In the Totem the useless cars can be salvaged and the alternator will be used to produce energy. It must be kept in mind, that it should only secure the survival, so the energy demand is small. After the situation has settled the Totems remain. After all the people built it with their own hands and with their own material. This means lots of stable jobs! The seed to shared local wealth can build that way!

It is necessary to build working models in regular times. Like right now! And it will get worse in the future, when there will be more catastrophes. We really don’t get ready for it, now that the pressure is not overwhelming.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb854zXy2IQ

For further reading:

1. Arctic Ice

2. Pakistan Flood 2010

3. Pakistan Flood 2011

4.  Haiti Earthquake 2010

If the goods demand less energy in general and will hold longer less will need to produced. Less people are needed in the production. This means that unemployment will grow and this is exactly the crux. New jobs must be created, this is undisputed. But why leave it to politicians and to business to decide about jobs. It is up to us, the common people, to help our self’s. We are so used to the government and bosses taking care of us, that we forgot our own powers. We just have to do what has already been done in the past, not so long ago. People did organize themselves and founded Co-operatives (2) and thus created jobs. Perhaps the concept sounds old fashioned and out of date, but it worked once quite successful and it can work again. Especially in times of economic uncertainties to rely on the proven and not on experiments might be just the right thing to do. Even in the heart land of capitalism, the USA, co-operatives existed and still exist.

The principle difference to the classical capitalist concept, one investor – big investment and the idea of the co-operative, many investors – little investment is fundamental. The investment for the individual is small and so is the profit and this is exactly the point. The co-operatives should rely more on investing less in technology and let people work!

It’s saves energy and makes a lot of people happy because they got a job! It does not mean, that this principle should replace the classical capitalist concept. It is rather meant as a supplement, as a addition to the Diversity. Of course it should be that also capitalist-minded people will invest in co-operatives. As mentioned, the investment is small and should not be a problem for wealthy people. Nevertheless, such an investment should also be interesting for wealthy. The goal is not to make financial profit but to strengthen society and it will enable us to meet the challenge of the Climate Change.

The first co-operative could be a Vegan restaurant (3) in in your neighborhood. Again we do not preach against an occasional steak, but if one is serious about fighting the Climate Change it would be advisable to eat more vegan food. The restaurant should be open for everyone, but members of the co-op will get a deduction in price. Ideally the members would regard the restaurant as a sort of canteen. If it is used frequently a lot of energy is being saved. One would not have to go to buy food, prepare it and cook it and then to quarrel with your partner who does the washing and who gets the garbage down. As I said a lot of energy could be saved. It does not mean, that people should not cook for them self, but sometimes a good meal in the canteen will be more convenient. The second co-operative could be a farming enterprise or to produce Ultra Light City Vehicles (4) and run with them a taxi company and a car rental.

The idea is to build enough co-operatives to lay the ground work for a truly ecological neighborhood.  This would create a lot of jobs and would help the environment as well!

 httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KLyYKJGk0

For further reading:

1. Planned Obsolescence

2. Co-operatives

3. Vegan Diet and Climate Change

4. Ultra Light City Vehicles

Photos used according to the Fair Use provisions.

1. Wikipedia.

2. Tuvie.com

The author is not questioning the traditional infrastructure and the car in itself. It seems that Mr. Fuerth is dwelling on cosmetics and is not offering in long-term solutions. The proposed measures talk about the need to modernize infrastructure and to change present cars to electric cars. Although, some paragraphs previously the author talked about chaos which might reign the world if the climate really should change. In areas where the conditions are chaotic due to floods, earthquakes, storms, etc., the centralized infrastructure will not suffice. Roads for car traffic and the sewage system are to a big part destroyed. We talk here about a temporary state, after a disaster the situation calms down and some sort of normality is regained. Should the climate actually be changing, then a disaster can turn into a permanent state.

The failure of such influential people as Prof. Fuerth to provide an unbiased view of all the possibilities and to come up with a viable alternative to the dominant concept of how we conduct our lives will ultimately lead to a catastrophe. Fuerth’s paper should be a strategy for the political level, and yet it is not, since it is not outside our the dominant idea of how our lifestyle is or should be. No alternative life style is mentioned.

Our idea of a standard of living decides our quality of life. If our standard of living is based on a credit we take from future generations and it is foreseeable that, beside a Climate Change, we can’t provide a growing world population with the same standard of living as the First World than our quality of living might become strongly disturbed. That is the weakness in the argument of the theorists, such as Leon Fruerth, Thomas Friedmann and, YES!, Al Gore. Although Al Gore is another case, since he was a professional politician for decades and he was also the vice-president of the United States for eight years. He should be more pragmatic but, alas, he did not succeed to present a viable alternative to the present state of mind. Not as a Vice President and ever since. Therefore all the money needed for a conventional infrastructure is actually wasted money. Not to mention the damage done to nature.

It is difficult to build an alternative where a infrastructure already exists, although it would be quite possible. But where an infrastructure does not exist yet, as in large parts of the Third World, it is essential to apply a decentralized concept. If the powers to be would adopt the concept of the TOTEM System the neighborhoods even in the First World could be detached from the infrastructure and a lot of energy could be saved. But until this will happen, many more papers will be written and unless we are struck by catastrophes nothing new will be done. Still people like Prof. Fuerth have special responsibility, they have to think in completely new ways to find either a solution to Climate Change or how to get prepared for a worst-case scenario.