Discover the world's scientific knowledge

Planetary boundaries of climate change, biodiversity etc. strengthen via basic improvements of civilization may be:

1. Basic education to all inhabitants as per global updates

2. Information is always precursor of social justice

3. Syntropic movement by people in adjoining area may be a unit of civil liberty

All three are intrinsic planetary boundaries

We say a finite elastic surface is expanding when points on the surface are moving apart at different times. Therefore a moving object of constant speed will take longer time to traverse between two known points on the surface than an earlier time. We read and fascinated by theories about cosmology and the universe. One of such theories is that the universe has no boundaries and is expanding, sometimes with a constant rate, other times with a faster rate than what we thought. Its expansion is observed from the observation of increased separation between known cosmological objects increases over time. 

Earth and other planets in our galaxy are cosmological objects which should obey the same law and display similar behaviors, that the time these objects take to traverse a cosmological curve on their natural path of either rotation or revolution will be longer than it took them some cosmological time ago, unless the speed of revolution or rotation speed of these objects always change accordingly so that the time length remains the same. Therefore the length of time earth takes to complete a cosmological path of revolution around the sun which we call it one year or 365 days has to change, while the time of rotation may remain the same as it looks the time of rotation is invariant of the expansion of the universe unless earth itself increases in size. My question is : 

Is it observed that the time of revolution for earth increased to be more than 365 days and we have to change what we call one year ? What is really changing and what is not and which behaviors are affected by these changes? Is such a theory justified by empirical and unchanging evidences we encounter?  

I appreciate your ideas. 

Best regards,

Dejenie Alemayehu Lakew

One of the planetary boundaries biodiversity loss transgressed due to number of unforeseen parameters and reversibility of loss may invest sustainable future in mankind.

Social factors may encourage reversibility of loss of biodiversity.

There are 10 planetary boundaries, some of which have already been breached. It is the climate change, the rate of loss of biological diversity, nitrogen cycle, weakening of the ozone layer, ocean acidity, lack of drinking water, intensive use of soil, growth of aerosols in the atmosphere, chemical pollution.

Can science and technology save the world?

At the framework of agriculture intensification and expansion, the riparian zones could have been used for crops. For repair this environmental damage; Which can be the world best experiences on riparian ecosystem restoration to emulate and why?

I assume that in some way the restoration should follow the SDGs criteria, because a destruction of riparian zones must increase the sediments, the pesticide load on freshwater, eutrophication, algae blooms and biodiversity loss (terrestrial and aquatic). Environmental impacts that go against to several SDGs and planetary boundaries.

Hey everyone,

for my master thesis I am searching for contemporary Research Questions adressing sustainable design of companies and or municipalities.

Also I am searching for a supervisor with experience in this field, interested to accompany on this journey.

I am a frelance educator, currently teaching permaculture design and Social-Ecological Systems in an adult education centre in Northern Germany. I also do a master degree in Global Change Geography, have a background in anthropology. In another study programme I studied Design for Sustainability, applying Whole-Systems Design in creating community projects using holistic design tools (such as permaculture design, ecovillage design).

Below my idea and thought.

Happy to hear any suggestions, feedback.

One question that interests me is: 'Ecology in decision making: A cultural-ecology perspective in e.g.

* small and medium-sized companies in Germany/Switzerland

* municipal politicians

What is the level of understanding on ecology and ecosystem services (regulating, supporting) in municipal decision makers / small and medium-sized company leaders and to what extend do environmental aspects of regeneration and sustainability influence their decisions?

Problem:

Decision makers are mainly grounded in law and economics. This one-sided education does not meet the necessary skills decision makers need, in times of ecological collapse and climate change. To properly address the environmental challenges (e.g. the planetary boundaries framework) more decision makers need a certain basic understanding of ecological processes and systems thinking, in order to a) better understand the complex ecological processes in landscapes and how human structures interfere with the health of ecosystems, and b) understand the far reching consequences of the interdependencies of the extractive economy and unsustainable development of munipalities on environmental processes.

Decisions that support a growth-economy and those continuing with the fragmentation of landscapes - as is the case of the federal road through the landscape reserve in the south of Hannover - show that local decisions are not made based on the scientific understanding of the severeness of a threatened biosphere integrity and its implications on climate change, water safety and other planetary boundaries.

It is known that, in terms of landscape and urban development, our society needs to make certain changes (e.g. green infrastructure, reduced fragmentation, soil protection and regeneration, protection of forests, etc.) in order to protect the biosphere integrity, which - according to Stefan et al. (2015) - is the foundation of all other 8 Planetary boundaries including climate change, and is highly at risk of collapse.

Through a questionnaire with decision makers, their understanding of regulating and supporting ecosystem services and systems thinking capacity will be acquired and one scenario concerning decisions of ecological importance will be played through.

Part of the participants will join a workshop communicating basic understandings of PBs and ecological design practices before going through a second scenario a few weeks after the education intervention.

One should never make self-propaganda – unless as a rational means to save all. I do therefore humbly apologize for my presenting the following list of highlights to you:

In my research into Sustainability Engineering, Time Use shows itself to be a very important variable. Together with ecological impacts (Ecological Footprint or Planetary Boundaries), Time Use to meet needs is a required unit of measurement. I am using both Max Neef's theory of Fundamental Human Needs, and Doyal & Gough's theory of Human Need.

In my current paper, I am wanting to make a number of statements, and I would like to know of existing publications that have made similar conclusions:

• People are, at all times, acting to meet their perceived needs

• People are generally not able to distinguish between their actual needs and their perceived needs

• People will always act to minimize the time used to meet their perceived needs, so that the time available to meet their wants are maximized

• People will generally act to maximize the portion of their perceived needs that are met

Are there sources you would recommend?

Over the last couple of years I have kept on coming back to the issue of the degree to which our framing of a question channels the specifics of what we do and therefore the extent to which outcomes are pre-ordained by the initial framing.

As an example (one which I detail a bit more in a recent blog - for the dedicated see http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/blog/index.php/2014/03/framing-the-big-picture/ ) here is my own personal journey around conservation:

1. As a PhD student, I was "only" interested in the ecology of animals in pristine systems, conservation was then about nature reserves and protected areas, and organisms in human dominated landscapes were less interesting because they weren't natural

2. When I became interested in agriculture's impact on ecology, I thought that as agriculture is the major landuse in the world, conservation was about integrating wildlife into agricultural landscapes more fully (and therefore extensive farming was "the answer")

3. Then, when I became more fully aware of the issues of growing demand for food and its impacts on natural systems, extensive agriculture could arguably be a "bad thing" as fulfilling demand under organic agriculture would require a greater land area: farming organically in one place, via the market, would lead to intensification elsewhere. With this thinking it would be more efficient to spare land for nature and farm intensively on the remaining land. Paraphrasing this argument is "Demand is God and we need to face the reality of managing in the gaps"

4. Now, when I understand even more about the food system, and how much over consumption and waste is harmful to us and the environment, I am back to thinking we should intervene to reduce global demand, and make space for more extensive farming that can exist within local and planetary boundaries.

Thus, each time my "system boundaries" have increased, what looks like the best research strategy for managing many of the "ordinary" species that co-exist with us has changed (I can manage therefore be an advocate for organic farming or against it depending how I frame the question). I can think of several other examples of not only where a systems' view and a reductionist view may point in different directions, but also where different systems' boundaries used to frame the question lead to different research strategies.

So, my question is, do we think enough about this, and do we train researchers to think enough about this? This is partly about concepts, partly about defining boundaries for inclusion of mechanisms in complex (or simple) models, but also deeply philosophical. The framing may be both science-led and consciously or unconsciously ideological (whether GM is a "good thing" depends on how you frame the question). My own journey has been based on experience, but it would perhaps have been more efficient, productive and with more impact, to have thought more deeply about this at the start of my career.

Given we all have choices of what questions to ask, should we be more thoughtful (and trained to be more thoughtful) about it? We are used to systems thinking to answer questions, but we also need systems thinking to set the question.