The Butterfly Effect #42 #cong23 #reality


We must ‘regress’ back to nature to address climate change but what does that mean for the human race, and can we actually achieve the required homeostasis?

Total Words


Reading Time in Minutes


Key Takeaways:

  1. ‘As you were’ is how we need to be. We need once again to reach equilibrium with nature.
  2. We, as people, are interconnected and our actions impact one another. Will our efforts at just transition in the face of climate change be for the greater good.
  3. We cannot predict all unintended consequences.
  4. We need less people.

About Angela Duffy:

I think too much and write too little.

I am a child of three who asked too many questions and turned into a scientist.

I am a generalist; I keep asking why about new things. I moved from science to business.

I escape through life drawing and see the world beyond the day-to-day through my camera lens. I am visual.

I am an inventor, investor and Mammy.

Contacting Angela Duffy:

You can contact Angela by email.

By Angela Duffy


The Butterfly Effect

The reality is we have to reverse and go back to nature and balance in the way that our ancestors maintained homeostasis between man and our environment. To our modern knowing, to the way of Indian tribes, Aborigines, African tribes. However, doing this in the stepwise progression required, or rather stepwise regression, will take too long; we have expended natural resources and increased industrial momentum to a place where reversal at the pace which supposed progress came about will not save our species nor many others.

The reality is that we will build more machines, we will introduce more technology and accelerated means of reversal. These machines and this forced reversal will solve problems but will the approach have unpredictable outcomes? Even with AI we cannot predict infinite scenarios, nor can we map all interdependencies and associated consequences. When we solve one problem, we may well compromise reversal and restoration elsewhere. We may also do the opposite.

The new machines, technology, intelligence can only be based upon the past and presents unpredictable future consequences that may well leave us is another state that requires fixing. The reality is that this is a risk that we have to take.

Can we restore nature across the world in order to bring balance per the population we have and how do we maintain this balance without getting to the same place again? Stuffing all peoples into urban centres might allow nature take its course in sufficient areas of land. Would urban centres sustain, grow, have technology, social structure and mindset to maintain the desired status quo? Our scientific knowledge and medical advancements have enabled population growth. Should we cease progress in these areas to ‘allow nature take its course’? Perhaps the reality is that we simply need less people. This ethical dilemma is rarely spoken about in the context of climate change.

We already know that the action of peoples in one geography has a nature-based impact on people elsewhere in the globe and we face the ethical dilemma of just transition. However, is this a stepwise regression that will have insufficient impact in the time required?

Interconnectedness now appears to be our enemy, when once our interconnectedness with nature was our hidden strength.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *