13:45:09 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	We tend to forget deforestation in Canada -- there is more carbon/ha in west coast rain forests than in tropical forests.  Then there is the boreal forest....

13:52:40 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Isn't the driver of  all these things, including climate  change, "overshoot."  = too many people consuming and polluting too much?

13:53:40 From  Peter Bulkowski  to  Everyone:
	And in the rush to eliminate fossil fuels, "we" have encouraged biofuels, including pelletizing slash & forests, and sending them halfway across the world to feed power plants, with this the lowest BTU fuel, and the belief that this is "saving the planet".

13:53:53 From  Dieter Meissner  to  Everyone:
	Fully agree with you, Bill!

13:54:51 From  Richard van der Jagt  to  Everyone:
	However, as outlined in last week’s talk, growing organically is much more environmentally friendly

13:55:55 From  Andrew Welch  to  Everyone:
	Populations of any species running off the scale are normally controlled by negative feedback from nature.  Could climate change be that negative feedback that will ultimately address the population problem?

14:00:16 From  Gabriela Gref Innes  to  Everyone:
	Indeed Andrew

14:00:36 From  Richard van der Jagt  to  Everyone:
	On the issue of chemical toxins, see the talk by Meg Sears and I last year

14:04:47 From  John Meyer  to  Everyone:
	Question:  It seems to me that the modeling framework which would be useful in this application would be the WhatIf Technoloies approach developed by Bert McGinnis and Rob Hoffman.   Is there an accessible biophysical economics model you know of which will do the job of illuminating the physical interactions at play here?
14:05:28 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Peter, don't you think these boundary 'models' are an extremely simplistic, even reductionist way to represent complex systems dynamics?

14:10:00 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	I think  we have a good example of human cognitive obsolescence in these static representations: https://www.whp-journals.co.uk/JPS/article/view/855

14:10:46 From  Jon Legg  to  Everyone:
	Q: Would Peter please talk a bit about ocean acidification, and the "non-linear changes" that may come about.

14:14:55 From  Brian Czech  to  Everyone:
	Along the lines of Bill's point, the doughnut economy is a SSE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVF3vhFq9xw

14:15:50 From  Mike Nickerson  to  Everyone:
	“More Fun, Less Stuff”

14:18:27 From  John Meyer  to  Everyone:
	Sorry, I seem to be having mic connect ion issues

14:19:59 From  Lynn Oliphant  to  Everyone:
	Didn’t we get HERE by using science and technology to REMOVE LIMITS TO GROWTH?

14:20:58 From  Claude Buettner  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "Didn’t we get HERE b..."
	
	Agreed, Lynn.

14:21:55 From  Mike Nickerson  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "Didn’t we get HERE b..."
	
	Not sure what you are looking for.

14:25:32 From  John Meyer  to  Everyone:
	500,000 is good only for the economy of developers, cheap labour employers, speculators and banks.  The per capita incomes and quality of life, food security and energy security of Canadians will decline.  The real economy doesn't need population growth.

14:26:14 From  Mike Nickerson  to  Everyone:
	Not sure that it is Parliament.  It could just be Government.  They are not the same.  Has there been a discussion in the House of Commons?

14:26:18 From  Claude Buettner  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "500,000 is good only..."
	
	👍
14:26:46 From  Andrew Welch  to  Everyone:
	It's not that a message has to get through to politicians.  Their raison d'etre has no interest in that message, based on the scales we use to measure their success - and re-elect them.

14:27:35 From  Mike Nickerson  to  Everyone:
	Agreed Andrew.

14:28:27 From  Andrew Welch  to  Everyone:
	The Not Real believers are often NIMPLEs - Not In My Personal Life Expectancy.  Those who will suffer the least effects for the longest time.

14:29:18 From  Lynn Oliphant  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "Didn’t we get HERE b..."
	
	Overshoot was made possible by the fantastic power of the scientific method, especially as when used in a purely reductionist mode.Trying to solve the problems using S&T really means trying to maintain economic growth with the “tricks” we used to create the overshoot. Not likely to be successful.

14:30:01 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	We temporarily removed negative feedback using fossil fuels (to access all the food and resources needed to grow the human population) but negative feedback is now returning with a vengeance -- please see: https://www.whp-journals.co.uk/JPS/article/view/653/486

14:31:09 From  Andrew Welch  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "We temporarily remov..."
	
	Absolutely!  I put a small blog post about that here: https://thevaluecrisis.blogspot.com/2022/11/3-myth-of-self-control-and-immunity.html

14:31:33 From  Brian Czech  to  Everyone:
	Taking it to the Hill. Is that the one by D. McInnes?

14:32:05 From  Richard van der Jagt  to  Everyone:
	Yes

14:34:29 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "500,000 is good only..."
	
	https://www.whp-journals.co.uk/JPS/article/view/653/486

14:35:42 From  Richard van der Jagt  to  Everyone:
	The other book I recommend is “ How to Talk to a Science Denier” by Lee McIntyre. Conversations on how to talk to flat earthers, climate deniers, and others who defy reason

14:40:54 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "We temporarily remov..."
	
	Nice post!

14:41:45 From  Walter Knitl  to  Everyone:
	Agree science and engineering ARE tools.   They're not an end in themselves.  It's something we must manage based on our values

14:41:52 From  Andrew Welch  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "Didn’t we get HERE b..."
	
	Agreed, Lynn!  Personally, I don't believe that Science and Technology are full to balme, in and of themselves.  If they are consistently used to create MORE - that's the problem.  As Peter is saying, it is not the Tools, it is what you choose to use them for.  And THAT is determined by your value system and measurement of societal success.

14:43:49 From  Walter Knitl  to  Everyone:
	Maybe "limits to growth" is not the right term … it's really limits to depletion

4:44:32 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Thank you. Peter et al.-- good discussion but I have to go.

14:45:11 From  Walter Knitl  to  Everyone:
	How do we connect with "what to do" group

14:46:23 From  Richard van der Jagt  to  Everyone:
	Check out the CACOR website and it tells you how to join whattodo group or write Art or me

14:47:08 From  Brian Czech  to  Everyone:
	All who don’t like the current “business model” are encouraged to sign the position calling for a steady state economy at: http://www.steadystate.org/act/sign-the-position/read-the-position-statement/ .

14:47:53 From  Lynn Oliphant  to  Everyone:
	If we want political action, we need to at least improve “democracy”. The electoral systems of Canada, US and UK are far from democratic. First step: proportional representation where we would at least have a voice!

14:50:10 From  Richard van der Jagt  to  Everyone:
	That is why we rent a garden plot which is quite large

14:52:50 From  Richard van der Jagt  to  Everyone:
	There are lots of publicly available literature search engines

14:53:39 From  Claude Buettner  to  Everyone:
	Dieter, for the moment political action seems to be going very slowly. According to McKinsey & Company's Report based on the Network for Greening Financial Systems scenarios the world should be spending around 8 % of global GDP from now through 2050: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring The recent US legislation is only about 2.5% of current US GDP and a recent news item (National Observer) that Canada is struggling to commit to 2% of their GDP. So we are on the path of the Too-Little-Too-Late scenario as described by https://www.ngfs.net/en Save the chat and all these useful links (Rees', etc) for reference.

14:55:46 From  Mike Nickerson  to  Everyone:
	Limits to resources and limits to enduring pollution.

14:55:55 From  Rick Carpenter  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "Didn’t we get HERE b..."
	
	Comment:  As Peter has so effectively demonstrated, our quest for security through material consumption is ironically revealing itself to be one of the gravest threats to humanity (and other life forms).  This is not the fault of science (which as Peter says is a tool); it is at least in part, the result of our frailty and consequent quest for survival.

14:56:05 From  Claude Buettner  to  Everyone:
	https://www.iamconsortium.org/membership/members/ was identified by the AI chat recently as the consortium behind ngfs

14:59:37 From  Lynn Oliphant  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "Didn’t we get HERE b..."
	
	I agree it is not the FAULT of science, only made possible by science. We are simply doing what every species does- grow to the limits of the environment. Science allows us to exceed, at least in the short-term, these limits as Peter has shown today.

15:01:20 From  Andrew Welch  to  Everyone:
	Replying to "Didn’t we get HERE b..."
	
	Correct!  That is why I am philosophically intrigued by the idea that nature is now using those very (and powerful) tools to create the negative feedback that we have always avoided!
15:01:26 From  Lynn Oliphant  to  Everyone:
	I agree that overshoot is not the FAULT  of science only made possible by science. We are simply doing what every species does- grow to the limits of the environment. Unfortunately science allows us to exceed, at least in the short-term, these limits as Peter has shown today.

15:03:10 From  John Meyer  to  Everyone:
	Latitude counts.  Population in northern and more extreme climates have larger footprints than those in regions with more moderate temperatures.  The carbon footprint of Canada's immigration stream increases by a factor of 4.2 when they come here.  For some regions it approaches 15.  In fact, the world would be better off if northern countries shipped a substantial portion of their population down to moderate climate regions.

15:04:55 From  David Harries  Canada  to  Everyone:
	Before having to depart: There is a THREAT of the 'polycrisis' becoming a 'permacrisis' (Collins Dict word of the year) because there are so many 'boundaries' that are barriers to collective, interoperable and durable commitment and effort to deal with globally-wicked problems. The sovereign 'borders' of more than 200 states and pseudo-states; a huge component of the earth's surface is one example, and one that adds to all the other the 'space' that is not available to humanity to live, move and work safely and satisfactorily: too hot, too stormy, too damaged/polluted by natural disasters, conflict, military operations, too autocratic, too private.....                                         Thanks Peter; much enjoyed.

15:07:26 From  Walter Knitl  to  Everyone:
	Thanks Peter - great presentation … must drop off now.

15:20:25 From  Claude Buettner  to  Everyone:
	Not so great expectations in popular culture: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13821126/ "Extrapolations" series on iTV

15:22:32 From  Andrew Welch  to  Everyone:
	NIMPLEs!