Clive Lord
Nov 3 · 2 min read

I agree with every word, but please, Nafeez Ahmed, read my blog

www.clivelord.wordpress.com

You may dismiss it (as Rupert Read does), but like him, you come across as having a ‘normal’ mind, by which I mean you are better at details, perhaps at the expense of basic concepts.

Aperger’s was unknown when I was Greta’s age (I am 85), but I must digress first. I was brilliant at latin grammar at school. I had exam results to show that I alone in an ‘A’ form understood it. I have the same certainty re destruction of the ecosphere, but on this topic I have no credentials.

Nobody died because they did not grasp the essentials of latin grammar.

Briefly, I sidestep most of your discourse. It is valid. but (imo) misses fndamentals.

Like amphibians and birds before them, a hominid species had genetic mutations which temporarily allowed them to adopt growth strategies. Bcospherut the exponential onset suddenly made these strategies the worst possible. But this species is on course to destroy the entire ecosphere

In an earlier book Richard (Spirit Level) Wilkinson describes a tribe in New Guinea which defined ‘necessities’, which were shared unconditionally, and everythng else. Your status depended on how skilfully you played with everything else. The effect, per Wilkinson, was to

“give every individual an identity of interest when dealing with ecological limits”

This was an unconditional basic income (UBI), invented by a stone age tribe who had not invented money.

I have yet to persuade anyone that a UBI is a catalyst, or lubricant for the necessary mind set change, which could have started immediately after the 1972 MIT report Limits to Growth.

Please read my blog, and enter into a dialogue.