This Sustainable Life

Here are the notes I read from, responding to this op-ed piece and this review for a book I've talked to the author about but haven't read.Geoengineering Prologue or Epilogue for Humanity?Introduction, contextGeoengineering is becoming a more common topic as people feel more desperate. The common theme is that when things get serious, we have to put everything on the table, even things that may not work. The problem isn't if they'll work on their intended goal, but everything else. Over and over again in history, the unintended side-effects dwarf the intended ones. In fact, the story of oil, plastics, and most of our environmental problems today, since nobody chose to pollute but did try to improve people's lives despite side-effects they hoped would be small, geoengineering continues that story. Each time people thought they would solve. Each time it exacerbated and here we are.What got us into this mess won't get us out. It will get us deeper.Two recent pieces on geoengineering: Gernot Wagner book and David Keith NY Times editorial. Both results of months of just writing based on years of research and dedicated practice. I've met Gernot in person. Haven't read book but got some of it vocally. Don't know Keith but mutual friends.David Keith invited to engage by Twitter, which I think is disaster and one of our main problems today. People trying to checkmate each other in 160 characters, as he did in saying, please provide data.I will provide data, but not the kind he thinks. As you'll see, I believe history proves his approach disastrous.Both present unassailable perspective: we have to study, not dismiss out of hand, though I think they miss many have studied and out of thoughtful consideration and with difficulty but confidence reject.With 7.9 billion people, no objection to some studying. Plenty of resources.I don't say don't read the article or book. Besides that I haven't read the book, they mean well and want to save humanity from ecological catastrophe. Both value stopping emissions as primary.I'm not saying don't read them, but I recommend other works first. I'd startI may be misinterpreting, but I see them as approaching in two ways: at science and engineering level, understanding the situation, both the state of nature and the state of our technology, and innovating solutions. At the decision-making level, figuring out what we should do.I have a PhD in physics, I helped launch satellites with NASA and ESA to observe atmospheres, I've invented and patented several inventions, brought them working to the world, raising millions to do it. I also ran businesses, got an MBA, and coach executives at some of the world's largest and most prominent organizations, so I'm not a babe in the woods in these areas.How to look at itWhat data do I suggest and what do I suggest reading first, before their works?While tempting to look at it as engineering issue, I see it as high-stakes decision-making where we don't have the luxury of not responding somehow, can't possibly have all the information we want, and sections of global economy including millions to billions of lives affected, even human extinction in play.There is precedent, which is the data and history to learn from.Caveat: nothing is perfectly relevant. We are in uncharted territory. In all comparisons, more differences than similarities. But we have no alternate universes to practice on, only history of huge decisions. I don't like situation either, but agree on research.Each comparable itself could be studied forever in infinite detail. None had control groups or alternative realities. But like Gernot and Keith, I believe more study. At end I'll get to where lines of research I prefer could lead.Comparables and resourcesVietnamMcNamara and best and brightest from Harvard, etc.Data was last war. Sought numbers in kill ratio, etc.But underlying model was Domino Theory, we're huge and they're third-world, we beat HitlerJohnson focused on domestic agenda, where he was master, and just wanted this to go away. Didn't face it.Military said we have solutions. Believed they could overpower, had to overpower because of Domino Theory.Domino Theory was wrong, without basis. Numbers distracted from hearts and minds.Simple, enjoyable resource on decision-making: Path to War, "Television critic Matt Zoller Seitz in his 2016 book named Path to War as the 6th greatest American TV-movie of all time"Also Fog of War about McNamara's reflections looking backSpace shuttleSome data but not relevant so had to extrapolate. People felt desperate and scared not to act.Lots of ways to interpret. There always will be. In this case they made the wrong choice. They knew if they chose otherwise, people could always second guess and say they were wrong.Resource: One of Harvard's case studies of conflicting interests. As physicist, Richard Feynman's stories of decision-making morass.Building highways into cities, Robert Moses, Jane JacobsRobert Moses always had the data and always got the funding. But data and projections were based on a model as flawed and unfounded as the Domino Theory, that traffic implied demand and more roads would lower congestion. Opposite happened most of the time. We have to live with results for centuries, including today's climate and pollution.By contrast, look at Amsterdam, especially channel called Not Just Bikes. Amsterdam could have looked like Houston does today. Imagine Houston looked like Amsterdam and was as livable.Resources: The Power Broker and Death and Life of Great American Cities.D-Day and EisenhowerTo launch or not launch invasion where weather is difficult to predict, can make all the difference, and if you don't go one day, moon and tides mean next time might be a month or never. Hundreds of thousands of men's lives at stake, or all of Europe and free world.Resource: Ike: Countdown to D-Day starring Tom Selleck for focusing on the decision-making and teamwork amid civilization-in-the-balance stress.Green Revolution and Norman BorlaugFaced with people dying immediately, he did what he could to save them. Mid-career he saw the consequences. He enabled more population growth. He used the term "population monster". If anyone knew population, the consequences of its growth, and balancing saving people now and risking bigger problems later and facing the systemic problems now, he did.He spent the latter half of his career talking about the population monster, helping the Population Media Center, for example.Resource, his own quote: The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only.Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the “Population Monster”. . . Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth…We haven't acted, his prediction is happening, and geoengineering will at least repeat the problem, more likely augment it. At least it seems a close comparison.Also, recent PBS American Experience on him.Cuban Missile CrisisJoint Chiefs of Staff said situation was serious and we had to act before missiles were armed.Even JFK thought negotiation wouldn't work. It did. We didn't invade.We learned decades later that the warheads were armed, Castro had approval. If he expected to be killed, he could have launched missiles to kill tens of millions and start WWIII.Data suggested invading was best option.Resource: Movie 13 Days. I haven't yet read the book.CVS Drugs -> HealthAll advice was to keep selling their top profit line. If they didn't, anyone could walk a few steps to another store.Within twelve months they reached former profit levels.Big case: the abolitionists pushing to end slavery in the British Empire. 1807.Their model and mineI think they see situation like we're heading to a cliff and have to stop the car. They say best solution is to take foot off gas, which is pollution and greenhouse gases, but that doesn't stop the car. Their solutions are more like putting chemical in gas tank to stop engine.I'll grant that view, but only looking at climate misses full situation. Our environmental problems are more than just temperature. If they see the cliff in front and rapidly approaching, I think they see it like the end of Thelma and Louise, broad, flat, lots of space. Not cops behind.But more than climate. It's more like we're on a thin promontory or like thin pier over since there are many other dangers. To the right might be biodiversity loss, which could doom us too. To the left, pollution. About 10 million people a year die from breathing air. But we need more dimensions we could fall off so maybe there are land mines, which represent deforestation, and huge storms representing ocean acidification, and we have to construct more things to represent overpopulation, overfishing, running out of minerals, depleting aquifers, depleting topsoil, and you've seen the headlines and know many more, few of which geoengineering would help and most of which it would exacerbate, not buy us time.So geoengineering is more like we're headed toward a cliff, already with cliffs immediately to our left and right, and more, and geoengineering is like slashing the tires or causing the engine to seize violently, which might possibly keep us from the cliff in front, but first causing us to lose control. Here the analogy is too small because it could cause us to fall off both the left, right, and other dimensions, hit a land mine, get hit by lightning, roll over and crash, and so on.But their version of the Domino Theory and self-confidence blinds them from seeing anything other than one problem and all the other side-effects and the line of thinking that got us here.LessonsActing out of desperation, helplessness, and hopelessness, even when desperate, produces poor decisions.Don't have to ignore long-term to act on short-term. We can regret wrong decisionsStudy leadership and decision-making. Rarely do technical solutions to social problems solve them.Look for social solutions to social problems. Look at Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, Population Media Center.Expect unintended side-effects to be greater than effects, as Norman Borlaug eventually realized.Then there's how to learn any performance-based skill: practice. Want to get to Carnegie Hall, Wimbledon, or NBA finals? Practice. If you haven't practiced, you haven't developed the skills. Want to live sustainably? Try! If you pollute more than the average, you probably don't know many solutions that work. Just spoke with James Rebank, a bestselling author, a farmer who started path to industrial. When he tried regenerative things he couldn't have imagined worked.Watch Fog of War to see how McNamara saw how flawed their process was. For that matter, the term fog of war comes from Von Clausewitz. I'm in the middle of reading his work, but listen to my episode with Marine Corps General Von Riper, who cleaned up the floor with the US military in the millennium challenge, playing a woefully under-resourced red team.Solutions?My goal here is not to be comprehensive, just some quick thoughts since I don't want to take too long to respond to David Keith's tweets.There is a solution that works. Not full solution but major part: live sustainably, as humans have for about 300,000 years. The knee-jerk response is, "but we live differently today." Yes, how we live is what we have to change. The longer we wait, the harder.I just recorded a conversation with a guy who lost his legs to flesh-eating disease. Would you rather live sustainably or lose both legs? Because if you prefer living sustainably, well he was minutes from death, but just returned from Tokyo with a silver medal and shared how lucky his life and great he's made it. He points out everyone suffers and we all face challenges often we didn't ask for. If he can with the choice you don't want, we can do so with the preferable choice. Only we'll eat more vegetables and live closer to family. Mostly life improvements.They downplay the possibility. Listeners to this podcast know I lived like the average American, probably polluting more, but dropped 90 percent. It was as hard for me as everyone, but once committed, doable. Once done, fun, freedom, joy, and better, because living by universal values. Actually, still going as skills develop.Engaging people we disagree with, who think there's no problem, who see population as impossible to changePope and evangelicalsFollowing domination to stewardship transformation (and Earth not center), grains of sand prophecy interpretation.Contraception: I haven't had vasectomy, but if you can imagine colonizing Mars, I can imagine an implant that can stop and start flow of sperm. Nearly half of pregnancies accidental. Nearly 300,000 years of human history was replacement level and endured. I can imagine a similar device for women. I can even imagine Popes endorsing.When we change our values we innovate just as much, but in direction of new values, which I propose to be stewardship and increasing Earth's ability to sustain life.We can come up with more solutions if we try. Few people are innovating by those values, certainly not in Silicon Valley, Washington DC, or academia. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our conversation in this episode starts by covering his commitment from last time. After a few minutes, it becomes apparent he picked a commitment based on feeling he had to fix the world---that is, extrinsic motivation disconnected from his heart.We revisited his intrinsic motivations and came up with a new commitment. Acting on intrinsic motivation is leadership. Your emotions create meaning or not. If you've been acting halfheartedly on stewardship, you may have fallen into a trap of feeling you have to act because the media or whoever warned you that you have to but the warnings didn't connect with you. So you feel you have to act for abstract, impersonal reasons.No wonder anyone would fall into that trap. Nearly all loud voices on the environment push them. We feel if we don't do enough to save the world, there's no point in trying.Chad changed his commitment to something more aligned with his connection to nature. See if you can pick up the shift. You'll hear he prefers acting for personal reasons. I predict you'll also hear his motivation increase, even become inspiring. I predict he'll do more and, more importantly, influence more people also to change, by starting where he is, not where others think he should be.If you've felt obliged to act but not inspired, Chad's experience and our conversation may help distance yourself from that burden Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

First, I'm so used to talking to people who don't act and try to convince themselves and others that individual actions don't matter, I loved talking to someone inspiring a movement to change international law, making progress, and enjoying the process. If you like meeting people improving the world, you'll love this episode.If lowering Earth's ability to sustain life is such a problem, why not just make it illegal? Problem solved, right?It sounds too easy, or simplistic, too naive. Or does it? Genocide wasn't once a crime and now is. Slavery wasn't a crime and now is. Land mines were made illegal and the group to make it happen won a Nobel prize.Making something illegal doesn't end it. People still commit genocide. Slavery exists today, as do land mines. But so do theft and murder and I don't hear anyone proposing making them legal. We want institutions of law enforcement and justice to help reduce them as much as possible.I went from thinking the concept was a crazy distraction to supporting it quickly, which led me to find Jojo Mehta, co-founded Stop Ecocide in 2017, alongside barrister and legal pioneer the late Polly Higgins, to support the establishment of ecocide as a crime at the International Criminal Court. Today she's the Executive Director and speaks on it internationally. I hope you also heard about it recently as the media have picked up on it.In this episode, Jojo goes far beyond the history and goals of making ecocide globally illegal. She laughs within seconds of the episode starting and doesn't let up. She shares her ebullient energy to act, to share her motivation and goals. You'll feel motivated to act, beyond for yourself.I love her leadership tip to start: find what outrages you most and act with what you love to do. Listen for her full explanation and examples.Incidentally, the root eco- comes from the Greek, meaning home. Ecocide means destroying our home. Destroying our home is crazy. Or ignorant.Stop Ecocide International Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jon and I start by talking about his book, You're Invited: The Art and Science of Cultivating Influence. Some of the celebrities he's met and researched come up.Then we started talking about this podcast and how I could apply his work to cultivate influence among my podcast guests, building community. You get to hear him coaching me on his expertise. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"Unearned suffering is redemptive," said Martin Luther King.In today's episode I share what I learned today recording with Blake Haxton, a guest whose episode will appear soon. He lost two legs to flesh-eating disease in 2009.Tragedy? Yes. Reason to give up? On the contrary, according to him, his one unlucky event in life.I contend that his outlook on life and message that we all face setbacks, we can still live to our potential can help us learn to live sustainably than any number of windmills and solar panels.After all, which would you prefer, to live without fossil fuels and take others into account for all you do or to lose both your legs. If you prefer to live sustainably, then his life of fun and reward says you can attain as much fun and reward living sustainably.The Advantage of Adversity: Blake Haxton at TEDxOhioStateUniversity Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last time Joe committed to organizing and participating in a beach clean-up as part of his campaign. In today's episode he shares the state of the region, including the extent of homelessness, drugs, and violence, which made acting so far impossible.We revisit the commitment as well as personal thoughts on what's happening to America, at least in its major cities of New York City and Los Angeles.Then Joe recommits and shares his new expectations of success.Joe's campaign page Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jonathan and I continue practicing the Spodek Method. Since last recording, he practiced it with his wife. This time he shares how it went. I picked up on a nuance, that she picked a commitment disconnected from her intrinsic motivation and ended up not finding the task meaningful.What we covered relates to leadership and relationships in general. The major theme we covered is uncovering people's intrinsic motivations. People often suppress them, sometimes consciously often unconsciously. They make us vulnerable.We also talked about art. I find Jonathan's explanations and insights fascinating for revealing what artists do and how they represent more than what we see, to what we feel.If you want to motivate yourself and others to act more sustainably, this episode reveals a lot. I can't think of anything more valuable for humanity this lifetime. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Coming from a background in science but realizing that sharing numbers and data didn't influence, Joe had to unlearn a lifetime of mainstream science education. He recognized that the best known scientists, like Darwin and Einstein, were great writers. He followed in their footsteps to learn what works while maintaining scientific integrity, which he shares in this episode.In a world of storytellers and would-be leaders who don't know science and scientists who don't know how to influence, I found talking to Joe relieving. The job ahead is hard, but he shares with us the basics and it's not just avoiding plastic, however important.He's written books on effective communication. He's worked in government and more to see the communication devoid of science we have to face. He's worked with James Cameron, David Letterman, Harrison Ford, and more.If you're unsure about how to communicate keeping emotion in mind, staying consistent with scientific results, listen.Joe's page, with links to all his worksHis books:How to Go Viral and Reach MillionsClimate Change: What Everyone Needs to KnowLanguage Intelligence Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since Eric's last time here, he formally declared he is running for office. Now he's reporting back months into his campaign.Did Trump not being in office slow him down? Or did our environmental problems motivate him even more?How about his commitment to avoid flying? Surely he gave it up to campaign, right? Or did he? Whichever way he went on that commitment, the decision must have been difficult, so we'll get to hear about his values.We talked about half about running for office, the challenge of choosing, consulting with people from President Biden to his wife, raising funds, handling his job as a tenured professor, considering travel across a large state and to Washington DC, and more.This podcast was one of Eric's first public statements of considering to run. Now he returns to share the experience, with an election looming.Eric's campaign page, including his policies and many videos Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today's episode explores a subtle but potentially meaningful and large shift, considering focusing on sustainability teamwork more than sustainability leadership.The main difference is that I think people feel taking a leadership role makes them vulnerable and means lots of work. Joining a team is fun. If enough people join it feels natural and odd not to.You're hearing me develop an idea in real time.Here are the notes I read from:Switch to team?Leadership stick neck outSports, business, military, music, drama, family, indigenous tribes, small communitiesPlaying Beethoven: no one but everyoneEveryone matters, bench player, fans, home court advantageImprov exerciseEveryone can join team. Not to messes it up for everyone. Imagine fan blocking. Some can lead, many leadership roles: coach, outstanding player, biggest fanInternet search: nothing relevantKicks in tribalismCompetition two meanings: winning versus finding and reaching their potentialOpponent is the old values and complacencyDifference between parent and babysitterChamber quartet with tuba or clown horn is SUVLinks I referred to:Teamwork will elevate us to victoryMichael CarlinoThe Two Meanings of Competition Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.