13:33:14 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: Hi Folks, Good that Degrowth is being discussed. I am currently working on redefining Maslow's hierarchy of needs to inspire altruistic Degrowth. Check out section 2 < https://poemsforparliament.uk/sw > 13:40:38 From Jim Carpenter - Milwaukee to Everyone: Sadly. I have Dr. appointment which requires me to leave in 1/2 hour. Simple living and no more than 2 children, on average, leads to no growth. Fewer children than 2 and even greater simplicity is needed if we want degrowth. Yes to a SSE!!!!! You are great, Brian :) 13:43:22 From John Meyer to Everyone: C: Apologies as I have guest and can't attend, but hope you can address this and I'll see your comments on the youtube. Q: I feel the real goods producing economy does not need to expand to thrive. Companies don't need to make more goods or provide more services every hear, but the money economy needs more growth to keep the asset inflation Ponzi from deflating. Can you please comment on any difference you see between the real and the money economy. 13:49:28 From Mark Robinowitz - PeakChoice.org to Everyone: C: Covid cut energy use more than anything previous. That was very unpopular. A lesson for considering voluntary and involuntary degrowth. Peak electricity was 2018. Peak oil with unconventional included was also 2018, globally. Energy decline means economic decline. As M King Hubbert said, we’d have to abandon growth and growth based money to survive on our solar budget. < www.peakchoice.org/peak-money.html > Peak Money: a permanent change 13:50:31 From Mark Robinowitz - PeakChoice.org to Everyone: “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” - Edward Abbey 13:50:58 From Olivia Jifcovici to Everyone: Agree with that 13:51:10 From David Shamala to Everyone: ++++ 13:53:23 From Jose Eustáquio Alves to Everyone: “Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist.” Kenneth Boulding (1910-1993) 13:55:57 From Laura Hoos to Everyone: C: For anyone interested in effects of growth based economy, this well researched Movie will be of interest: 'Oeconomia‘' (e.g., in this mediathek < https://www.3sat.de/film/dokumentarfilm/oeconomia-100.html > 13:57:44 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: We have been in global ecological overshoot for well over 50 years, carrying capacity was exceeded at least 50 years ago. 13:58:03 From Jonathan Miller to Everyone: Hi Brian. In 1972, Limits to Growth was focused on growth in the physical economy, rather than in GDP per se. Jorgen Randers argues that GDP can be increased without increasing physical throughput. Q: Building on John Meyer's question above, would you like to comment on this and the capacity (or not) to decouple GDP from physical throughput? 14:00:33 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: You are ignoring the fact that we are in deep chronic overshoot. 14:00:39 From Mike Nickerson to Everyone: We will be tried in the court of Natural Selection. 14:01:00 From Mark Robinowitz - PeakChoice.org to Everyone: C: Kurt Vonnegut said overshoot got going when the first oil well was drilled at Titusville, PA in 1859. Estimates of carrying capacity rarely consider how fossil fuels and mineral ores are not renewable, so we would need a LOT more than 5 Earths to provide the American Way of Life (AWOL) to everyone. Computers are not sustainable … perhaps we all know this subconsciously and that is why society is getting crazier. 14:04:33 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: Footprint data only estimates biocapacity exploited by humans, it ignores the needs of biodiversity. Along with the fact that fossil fuels are not replaceable. As Mark points out, we are in dire overshoot right now because we rely so much on industrial agriculture. 14:05:25 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: These things have been well discussed and elegantly presented by Herman Daly for the last 60 years. See: Thought and Work of Herman Daly < https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/?s=Herman+daly > 14:06:31 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: Noam Chomsky stated this succinctly and elegantly as well 30 years ago. Concluding remarks from the film "Manufacturing Consent" (1992). < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPQQZFkW2o8&list=PLr2L6TB8fh8Has2c1mrW_eUOuirod8BA5&index=1 > 14:06:54 From Martyn Riddle to Everyone: Q: Is that the Herman Daly who worked in the World Bank in the 1990s? [Yes. Ed.] 14:07:02 From Erwin Dreessen to Everyone: C: Herman Daly never talk about the trophic theory of money and has never subscribed to it. This theory is replete with non sequiturs. 14:08:03 From Mark Robinowitz - PeakChoice.org to Everyone: C: Compound interest = Exponential growth 14:08:35 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: The ecological basis of human economies has been long understood by anthropologists who have studied the evolution of human ecosystems over evolutionary times: “Just take the case of agriculture…” < https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/2020/05/06/just-take-the-case-of-agriculture/ > 14:10:41 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: This has matured into a new field, focusing upon the necessary transitions. I fear many of us have yet to discover the work that has been done on these problems in the last 40 years in the realm of "transition studies." Why Transition Studies? < https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/about/ > Environmental Decline and Public Policy: Pattern, Trend and Prospect (1992) < http://ecoethics.net/Papers/1992-ED&PP-00-Covers.pdf > 14:12:51 From David Dougherty (CACOR) to Everyone: C: I call it the 'cult of efficiency.' 14:13:12 From Mark Robinowitz - PeakChoice.org to Everyone: C: Jevon’s Paradox - regarding the limited role of efficiency. 14:13:17 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: I=PAT informs us that technology is part of the problem causing environmental damage. 14:13:25 From Mark Robinowitz - PeakChoice.org to Everyone: C: Fracking postponed oil and gas rationing. 14:14:16 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: Indeed the Jevons paradox warns us that improved efficiency just exacerbates more demand. 14:15:37 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: Q: Why waste time with "economics" at all? Aren't we spending too much time trying to educate economists out of their ecological ignorance? Q: Shouldn't CASSE forget the neo-classical economics vocabulary and embrace the ecological anthropologists who have been working on these things for 50 years? The trouble with Economists is that they are, for the most part, focused upon the wrong problem: making extinction “more efficient….” < https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/making-extinction-more-efficient/ > 14:16:34 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: I=PAT informs us that GDP growth will always be ecologically damaging. There is now a legal case against GDP growth because it contravenes our human right to a healthy environment. < https://poemsforparliament/uk/legal > 14:16:56 From Rachel Herrington to Everyone: Great comments and links above. We need a better overall understanding of global environmental history. We can then make the most of these analyses and apply them more wisely. (Full disclosure: I am finishing my PhD in commons enclosure and the environmental and cultural impacts on marginalized and indigenous communities, so, yes, I am biased in favor of a more environmental history knowledge base.) 14:17:37 From Ted Manning to Everyone: C: A group of Club or Rome members and associates are working to replace the concept of growth and or accumulation of wealth (or measuring success in terms of currency) as the prime directive. The group is focusing on the various descriptors of well being analyzed empirically in different societies and communities. The key measures of wellbeing seldom focus on economic measures and are perceived as measuring what is real to societies and the ecosystems upon which they depend. These lead to very different conclusions regarding what should be helped to :grow" and what should not. This is critical to the definition of acceptable futures and to the means to achieve them. 14:18:18 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: Q: Shouldn't we move beyond playing with the professional economists and trying to educate them? Why bother with them? C: We need a new paradigm from the base up...“A New Paradigm for Environmental Protection for the 21st Century” < https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/2018/10/06/rhodes-house-oxford-a-new-paradigm-for-environmental-protection-for-the-21st-century/ > 14:18:54 From Mark Robinowitz - PeakChoice.org to Everyone: C: “Making efficiency” link suggests “zero-carbon emission fuel system based on the infinite supply of throughput solar energy.” Solar power is great. I’ve used PV since 1990, but it’s not infinite supply. Capturing it requires metals and fossil inputs. Large grids can’t run solely from variable power. Living on our solar budget would power a much smaller, steady state economy (to be polite). Covid closures cut a couple percent of energy use and that almost crashed the system. 14:19:39 From Ted Manning to Everyone: C: The conclusion is that it is at our own peril that we fixate on the recommendations of a single cult or discipline. 14:20:53 From Laura Hoos to Everyone: ++++ 14:21:06 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: Herman Daly wrote a book about "uneconomic growth." Perhaps we should start there... and then develop a "positive economics" of the steady state, as it has been stated by both Herman Daly and the theologians he workded with all his life: Ethical Principles for Smart Growth: Steps Toward an Ecological Ten Commandments | T.C. Weiskel < https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/ethical-principles-for-smart-growth-steps-toward-an-ecological-ten-commandments-t-c-weiskel/ > While Angels Weep… Doing Theology on a Small Planet < https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/2019/10/17/while-angels-weep-doing-theology-on-a-small-planet/ > 14:21:26 From Art Hunter to Everyone: Q: It has been suggested that "money" in economics be replaced with "energy" units (kWh). Dollars today are a manmade contract giving you the ability to expend energy and do more consumption. Don't spend the money and reduce your carbon footprint and consumption. Is this a viable suggestion? 14:22:12 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: The mindset shift Degrowth mention by Tim is already underway. I am suggesting that we need to redraw Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to focus on recovering ecological balance with altruistic Degrowth. 14:23:58 From Herbert Girardet to Everyone: Q: Can the financial system cope with degrowth? 14:25:41 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: We need to develop an ethic of limit aimed at generating "the transition"...based on a sober and full "cost-accounting" of the "carbon moment" in human history: "Needed: An Honest Cost-Benefit Analysis of Fossil Fuels to Avoid Extinction," < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gFtz0Y8zxY&list=PLr2L6TB8fh8HKnOvgb-_q9_wn2lCPFBm0&index=1 > 14:26:57 From Mark Robinowitz - PeakChoice.org to Everyone: C: Damned if we drill (pollution). Damned if we don’t (concentrated energy powers everything). Damned as it runs out (we’re not prepared logistically or psychologically) 14:26:57 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: The data from Global Footprint Network provides a measure of ecological health. Earth cannot cope with any more GDP growth so we have no option but to feel our way towards Degrowth. A sustainable global population size is about 2 billion. Just accepting that procreation is unwise will give rise to the emotional maturity required to start being sensible about consumption. 14:27:43 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: We need to start by transforming agriculture from a petro-intensive "industry" toward a solar sustainable system, which it used to be not very long ago. The mistake of petro-intensive agriculture - the UNA “Global Engagement Summit” – 22 February 2019 < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68Yfw0OxZ3k&list=PLr2L6TB8fh8HKnOvgb-_q9_wn2lCPFBm0&index=4 > 14:28:39 From John McVicker to Everyone: C: "GDP" is a number (that we make up). The impact to the earth is a different number. Ecological destruction to create GDP is the key, I would say. 14:28:56 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: We need to start from the mindset shift. No organisation will be net-zero until the staff are spending their salary in a way that has no ecological impact. 14:29:12 From David Dougherty (CACOR) to Everyone: C. What we have had is a series of COP Flops. 14:29:29 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: There is a new group emerging that CASSE should catch up with...focussed on a solar sustainable future. The Truth about the Green Revolution < https://greattransition.org/gti-forum/tech-future-weiskel > Global Balliol – T. C. Weiskel < https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/2022/05/30/global-balliol/ > 14:33:30 From Keith Akers to Everyone: C: Isn't our economy already unsustainable, and therefore don't we need degrowth before getting to a steady state? I heard this question asked but not answered. 14:34:05 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: Brian [Czech], you started out implying that we had not yet reached carrying capacity yet. That is not the case according to the data from the Global Footprint Network. If we include the diminution of fossil fuels and our reliance on them we are in a very dangerous chronic situation where we are well over carrying capacity to the tune of about 6 billion. 14:34:13 From John McVicker to Everyone: C: KA [Keith Akers], I have heard the same. That we are using "1.5 Earths" or similar number now. 14:35:50 From John McVicker to Everyone: Q: The major fear I have personally is that the light will turn on and we will be given a 30 years until oil runs out news bulletin and we will have to fix everything in a rush. Oil helped population blossom from 1B to 8B in 120 years, and this cannot be flipped in reverse easily. So, the parachute now is renewables and EVs, but can the thin parachute hold the enormous weight of the problem? 14:36:28 From Erwin Dreessen to Everyone: Q: Having read a lot of steady state economics, I have yet to come across a solution to the practical question: How a steady state economy could be implemented. It's easy to state the aggregate objective. But how could that be translated into, eventually, every economic activity? Herman Daly suggests a cap-and-trade system as one option. Can you imagine cap-and-trade for every sector of the economy, down to the firm level? 14:37:19 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: I am challenging Brian [Czech] to justify his statement at the start, that we have half the Earth still available. The Global Footprint Network tells us we are using more than 1.5 Earths, and that data does not allow any biocapacity for other life forms. 14:37:25 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: This session had several strong points, but I fear it is quite dated. Brian Czech has a nice conversational tone, but the presentation didn't really get byond the basics of ecological macro-economics. We should be able to do more than just repeating the theology of steady state economics--stated very elegantly by Herman Daly over the full course of his very rich life. A very nice start, but we should take some further steps, I feel.... One next step could be the move to the international and multi-cultural group of "Transition Studies" Let's keep in touch. < http://transition-studies.net > 14:37:35 From David Dougherty (CACOR) to Everyone: We need much more than 1.4 Earths at the moment. It is over 1.7 now. It is 5 if we all want to live like Americans. < https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/ > 14:38:46 From David Pollock to Everyone: C: I commend all to go to the < https://canadiancor.com > site and scroll to the Canadian Charter of Climate Rights and Responsibilities, then consider getting your network or organization to endorse it and indicate to your elected members of your action. This is a document supported by CACOR. It speaks to the need for major new limits from both a rights and a responsibility point of view. 14:41:07 From John McVicker to Everyone: C: I am glad to see this conversation really points to the real problem, and that is not CO2 but resource consumption without easy replacement. Whether it is over-fishing for human consumption to over-deforestation to grow beef or build more stick-built homes which themselves will be falling apart in 100 years. Brian and CASSE are about the only ones saying "hey, this is wrong and look at it" - versus politicians, state leaders, and cultures/religions who just want more population and more consumption to grow GDPs. 14:42:19 From Laura Hoos to Everyone: C: A very hope-busting movie, showing off real-life examples for implemented degrowth in small to medium big companies was for me: 'Tomorrow - Die Welt ist voller Lösungen.' Her is a trailer with english subtitles can be found < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SI-Kyam_Jk > 14:42:29 From Keith Akers to Everyone: C: Borlaug correctly saw that the real problem was population, and the Green Revolution was just buying time. 14:43:09 From Stefano Mazzanti to Everyone: C: " Perpetual Growth " is unsustainable and convincing " several billions " people addicted to consumerism is going to be the real challenge. 14:43:27 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: Denial about overpopulation has hindered progress towards Degrowth. There are now papers challenging pronatalism. If we can face up to that problem, the folly of coercive consumerism is much easier to deal with. 14:44:15 From David Dougherty (CACOR) to Everyone: FYI on Dr Weiskel. < https://greattransition.org/contributor/tim-weiskel > 14:44:42 From Dugald MacTavish to Everyone: Q: Do you agree the way to take the heat out of the perceived need for growth is to promote public services that meet basic needs, as advocated by the likes of Jason Hickel? 14:44:57 From Keith Akers to Everyone: C: As a practical matter, and I know this is hard, we need more diversity. Women, BIPOC, etc. Not just for "correctness," but so the group would work better. 14:46:10 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: Convincing people that Degrowth is necessary is much easier that we think. Most people recognise the problem. It is a combination of political correctness and our education system which are feeding the culture of pronatalism and coercive consumerism. 14:47:59 From John McVicker to Everyone: C: Degrowth is a dirty word. People feel it sounds like euthanasia, China (1 child policy, et al). China then said "forget the 1 child policy--we need GDP growth, have at it!" 14:48:32 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: This paper from the UN Commons Cluster describes the need for GDP Degrowth in the Preface, and discuss the problems within our education system < https://poemsforparliament.uk/unity-in-diversity > 14:49:05 From David Dougherty (CACOR) to Everyone: C: On China--they are about to find out just how many people can die in a pandemic. That's something they should have known as they have had tens of millions die in famines before. 14:50:02 From John McVicker to Everyone: C: In my opinion, China is basically large-scale people-farming by a leadership group. 14:50:31 From Keith Akers to Everyone: C: I like "degrowth" and it is exactly and precisely what we need, at least in the West. Eventually Mother Nature will drag us into degrowth, and that day may be closer than we think. 14:51:25 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: We are not showing any worthy leadership in the Western world at the moment. We need to think outside the ballot box. We need emergency governments in every democracy implementing Degrowth objectives. 14:51:29 From Stefano Mazzanti to Everyone: C: Barbara are hope your are right. What I fear is the Big Corporations' greed to maintain the current system and all their power to make sure nothing changes till is too late. 14:52:19 From John McVicker to Everyone: C: On western leadership: jobs growth, economic growth, financial growth. That's it, and right now, the renewables energy push is a "jobs program", right? Nobody will lead with "let's slow things down." 14:53:44 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: It is the professional classes that are failing to show leadership. Educational institutions are perpetuating business-as-usual rather than thinking outside the box. Brian himself did not come up front and point out the Degrowth is a prerequisite to sustainability. 14:55:08 From Laura Hoos to Everyone: Q: Up to which depth do you feel the 'Doughnut Economy,' formulated by Kate Raworth, as a well/intuitive understandable system, be taken as a structure/frame for development of sustainable economic thinking in economic institutions? 14:55:23 From Erwin Dreessen to Everyone: C: I urge everyone to sign CASSE's statement. However, it is unfortunate that their work is bogged down by its insistence (including in this talk) on the so-called trophic theory of money. (Too big a topic to discuss here.) 14:55:24 From David Pollock to Everyone: C: I am not sure that the appeal to de-growth works as well as calling for growth in genuine well-being. Then we define well-being. 14:56:01 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: Degrowth is a fully developed ideology which aspires to voluntary, equitable, altruistic Degrowth. It makes it quite clear that we need to decrease our GDP. 14:56:47 From John McVicker to Everyone: C: Finance folks, as well, look at de-growth as destructive to economic growth (fewer buyers of goods) thus leading to negatives like deflation, et al. 14:57:35 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: If needs to be a collective effort, it requires a united aspiration to shrink our global footprint to a level which is once again within the biocapacity of our planet. We need to accept that only 2 billion is likely to be viable. 14:58:50 From julia to Everyone: The term Circular Economy is getting a lot of traction here in UK and Europe - how much of an overlap do you see between Circular Economy and Steady State - what are the gaps/differences in your view? How might the Concept of Circular Economy be improved to meet up with Steady State? 14:59:09 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: We are currently engineering our own extinction every minute of every day. An emotional maturity is required. 15:00:00 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: Brian, you are right: "Smart Growth" is an oxymoron. We have been on the "same page" for the last 30 years + Ethical Principles for Smart Growth: Steps Toward an Ecological Ten Commandments < http://ecojustice.net/2005-ENVRE120/PDF/20020000-Smart-Growth-10-Commandments.pdf > But we should move on to the next page, don't you think? 15:00:31 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: Julia the WeAll.org were inspired by Kate Raworth's doughnut economy. I am helping them to upgrade their vision to include the need for Degrowth. See this link < https://poemsforparliament.uk/weall > 15:01:13 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: The Wellbeing economy Alliance is likely to evolve into a Degrowth movement during 2023. 15:02:44 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: Check out my roadmap towards ecological justice, we need altruistic aspirations if we are to avoid a meltdown in WWIII https://poemsforparliament.uk/sw 15:03:47 From Rachel Herrington to Everyone: C: The challenge is convincing the people who benefit from the growth model to back Degrowth and to put these measures into gov’t policy. It is similar to convincing colonialists to abandon colonialism when they are the beneficiaries. 15:04:57 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: This is where we need to redraw our Hierarchy of Needs, and open our minds to very different altruistic aspirations. Where Gaia is more important that our personal fulfilment. 15:05:44 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: We have "perpetual war" for "permanent peace." This is the manifestation of the limits, as you have stated quite well, Brian. This is the logic of perpetual growth. Thanks very much. Keep in touch. tweiskel@gmail.com 15:07:30 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: < http://canadiancor.com > 15:09:08 From John McVicker to Everyone: Green Growth is using different energy to produce the same demand of the Earth. 15:13:25 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: Barbara, thanks very much. Great comments. What is your website? 15:14:00 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: < https://poemsforparliament.uk > 15:16:51 From julia to Everyone: C: It is not just Oxford. [This was referring to Barbara Williams' verbal comment about academia in Oxford. It is academia in England (and perhaps everywhere) failing in its social duties. Ed.] 15:19:01 From David Hunter to Everyone: Q: What are thoughts on a using something like the Doughnut Model to measure progress on this topic. "What gets measured gets watched, and what gets watched gets done." 15:20:02 From Rosalie Bull to Everyone: C: A positive language of limit. Might “release” be a signpost? 15:20:30 From Keith Akers to Everyone: I think it's < https://weall.org/ >. 15:21:24 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: Wellbeing Economy Alliance are using the Doughnut model, they are currently reframing their vision. I am assisting them to upgrade from circular to Degrowth to achieve sustainability. Check out my suggestions < https://poemsforparliament.uk/weall > 15:22:42 From Mike Nickerson to Everyone: C: “More Fun, Less Stuff” < http://www.sustainwellbeing.net/Getting-From-Here-to-There.html > 15:23:09 From Kriss Avery to Everyone: C: I wish that whenever people hear the word “growth” they automatically flip through a mental rolodex: plants, children, GDP, cancer tumors… Then they ask: Which kind of growth are you talking about? In what phase of the growth trajectory? There’s a reason we don’t grow to 10,000 ft tall. 15:25:15 From Barbara Williams to Everyone: C: Well described. We need to reverse many things. The benefits are solely the health of Gaia. 15:26:40 From Vegar Carlson to Everyone: C: A thought shared: People do not naturally aggregate their human condition / welfare outside immediate family. So, for instance, in a room of x people where aggregate weight imply weight loss for the group as a whole (being the world), the avg weight and "hungry" part of the group will be the driving force for further unwanted growth for the group as a whole. Is there a point in this way of thinking? 15:26:47 From John McVicker to Everyone: C: I kind of hear benedict talking about relaxing the land during a cycle, in Jewish terms, that is the smita. 7th year the land rests. 15:27:28 From John McVicker to Everyone: C: I spelled it wrong, it is shmita. 15:27:50 From julia to Everyone: C: I think that is very well said and I completely agree. I'm sure we have all to a certain extent participated in where weve got to--that was very well said. 15:28:12 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: We need a positive vocabulary of limit. We definitely need the kind of cultural transformation that Barbara has been talking about. It has begun at Balliol College in Oxford. [Not all of Oxford is devoted to mindless growth.] Through ITS (ie. the "Institute of Transition Studies). < http://ecoethics.net/2014-ENVRE120/20220912-Global-Balliol-Link.html > < https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/2023/01/04/its-balliol/ > 15:29:04 From Mike Nickerson to Everyone: C: As Einstein said: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” There is a fundamental difference between cutting back on material consumption and expanding the fulfillment one gets from living. There comes a point where one doesn’t have time, or much interest, in material consumption. They both describe the same thing, but one speaks from the old way of thinking and the other from the new. 15:33:07 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: C: Bobby Rae, my classmate at Balliol, when we were both Rhodes Scholars together. Is someone who could take this discussion forward. He is now Canada's Ambassador to the U.N. Why don't we write to him? 15:34:39 From Kriss Avery to Everyone: C: Regarding agriculture, do check out the development of perennial polyculture at The Land Institute. They have partners around the world. < https://landinstitute.org/ > 15:36:31 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: Mike Nickerson: We could set this up as an internation "Zoominar" on these themes, don't you think? 15:36:42 From Tim Weiskel to Everyone: Thank you Brian. Let's keep it going.