Helge Christie's - Sustainable neuro strategy
Look at the whole economic system! Economic, material and consumption growth can not continue as long as climate and nature have boundaries. Solutions exist as potential outside of the box. Create a better system! What could it look like in Ecological Solidarity Economy, article 10? Here are 9 think/feel ingrediences?
Building trust in common climate solutions is crucial. Trust is an underrated, undervaluated part of United Nation's Sustainable Development Goal no 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions. An institution is strong when it obtains trust from the people. You win trust step by step: Truth, flexible, include, respect. For each step leaders need to use compassionate, empatic listening and communication. This is lacking too often. The result is mistrust. Here are 8 examples on how to build trust for common solutions: (Ecologic Solidarity Economy article number 7):
What do you think by the end of Madrid climate summit? Here is Ecological Solidarity Economy article number 6 - with 18 proposed basic values for an alternative economy. Economy may be defined as how we organise the system of circulation of matter and flow of energy between human and nature. How is this in the current and future economic system?: Value basis of alternative economic systems – shift brain network!
Nature is the basis of society. The illustration shows that nature is the basis of society. There are planetary boundaries for human consumption. Nature and ecosystem are the basis for people, society and economy. Total consumption of material things and goods have to be reduced. Too much material consumption is both individual and system failure. Consumption is in infrastructure and transport. Consumption is in production, distribution, sales and marketing. Here are 7 beliefs to reflect on:
There are planetary boundaries for human consumption. Nature and ecosystem are the basis for people, society and economy. Total consumption of material things and goods have to be reduced. What brain network may you shift into to accept alternative values and beliefs - to material growth and consumer society?
This is article 3 about Ecological Solidarity Economy.
What mental frames do you have about «sustainable growth»? Is it a sleeping pill that confuses and hinders honest climate action? The MIT report «Limits to growth» came in 1972. Already in 1978 came «The world commission on environment and development» (Brundtland report). It launched the concept of «sustainable growth». This seems still 41 years after 1978 to be the mental frame of most «green shift» economy. Is «sustainable growth» still dominating over «limits to growth» thinking pattern? Is that good enough? No! We need alternative thoughts/feelings to material growth. Here are 6 steps, from personal to system change:
How may you use your brain networks to create ecological solidarity economy? How is the mindset to put nature and people before profit – while going bankrupt is no alternative? Do we need to shift to value, respect, attitude? Do we need to shift from thinking and imagination brain networks to the balancing wholeness brain network? Do we need tripple brain networks to reach tripple bottom line?
Are some in your team using treaths? This is toxic communication number 8 of 8. The other articles have described the toxic technics of: Ignore you. Make to laughter. Keep back information. Always criticise. Blame and shame on you. «We or them»-polarisation. Pressure you. All toxic communications may hurt your work for sustainable development. VIII: Violence, threat of violence and terror, punishing
Are you victim of the «either-or»-rhetorics in the climate debate? Does some in your team split and rule - in "we and them"-rhetorics? Maybe you use it yourself? In the climate debate this is one of 8 toxic communication technics we may look for, avoid and go beyond. In the debate on climate, biological diversity, food and other sustainable development issues, we may see toxic communication, based on myths about the one and the majority. The normal distribution in the Gauss curve shows the majority - and the minorities on both side, that also should be respected.
Sometimes «Shame on you» is said to an airplane passenger. It may be to blame the guilt on a wrong person. Maybe it’s a system guilt. At the same time, every small step taken by many, will make a huge change. We have to start somewhere! This is toxic communication within climate debate number 5 of 8:
Always criticise regardless – double punishment. When Greta Thunberg sails with ship to New York - she is “extreme, hopeless!”. If she had taken airplane only one travel - that would have been “too much!” “Too much is wrong - and too little is wrong.” This is toxic communication technics in the climate debate, number 4 out of 8. Are you victim of this - or using it?
In the debate on climate, biological diversity, food and other sustainable development issues, we may see toxic communication. Here are 8 toxic technics we may look for, avoid and go beyond:
I: Make invisible, ignore you
II: Make you to laughter, discounting you
III: Keep back information
IV: Always criticise regardless – double punishment
V: Blame guilt, shame and bad conscience on you
VI: Objectify, overgeneralise – «we and them» polarisation, split and rule
VII: Pressure, stalking, forcing, narrow frames, coup over time
VIII: Violence, threat of violence, punishing
From we are born, we create cognitive distortions. That is childish unprecise thinking patterns. Hopefully we improve our thought patterns when we grow up. We feel the childish perspective is raspy, cracky, something is lacking and we improve thinking pattern. However we live our lives often with more or less cognitive biases or tendencies, misunderstandings and myths. The cognitive distortions are there still as cognitive biases and may be used unconscious or conscious as power techniques to create toxic communications. When what we think and what we do ar in conflict, we get brain chaos, cognitive dissonance. That is an unpleasant feeling we often have in the climate debate.
More about the 8 toxic technics will follow as a row of blog articles.
Bra at kapital endelig flyter til bærekraft. Men hvordan kan vi unngå «enøyd bærekraft», "grønnvasking", "falsk forkledd bærekraft", at storstilt investering i ett bærekraftsmål ødelegger for andre bærekraftsmål. FN definerer at bærekraft skal være både sosial, økologisk og økonomisk. Hvis stor kapital definerer bærekraft økonomisk og kun enkeltdeler av økologisk bærekraft og overser sosial bærekraft – fører det til usikkerhet, frykt, mistillit, sinne, motvilje mot bærekraft, sorg, avmakt og mangel på klimahandling hos berørte befolkningsgrupper. Stor kapital trenger å bli kompetent på bærekraft. Helheten av sosial og solidarisk. Helheten av økologisk tåleevne og balanse. En økonomi som er både økologisk, solidarisk med folk i eget og andre land, og dekker alle økologiske og sosiale og kostnader.
7: Ren energi (eks. vindturbiner må unngå å ødelegge for de andre bærekraftsmålene:)
16: Fred, rettferdighet, sterke institusjoner med lyttende dialog som skaper tillit
15: Livet på land, biologisk mangfold, urørt natur
14: Livet under vann, biologisk mangfold
1: Redusere fattigdom
12: Ansvarlig produksjon og forbruk
2: Fjerne sult
3: God helse
Les mer i e24:
In the debate of climate action – people feel both fear, rage, grief and shame. How helpful are these negative feelings? What will happen if we focus on alternative positive feelings like seeking, lust, care and play?
In this article I sort our feelings in:
1.Primary emotions
2.Reptile responses
3.Micro face expressions
4.Values
5.Trust