Share this:

 Dr Bouchon’s practical exploratory interest lies in the ‘basic’ options that do not involve
· producing increased needs,
· producing counter-productive effects,
· requiring disturbing interventions – at high cost in energy, resources, and susceptibilities –,
· having to ‘keep up’ (e.g. weeding in gardening, brain stimulation or physical exertion for health)
The basic options are little researched or practiced; yet they give access to ongoing maintenance of integrity at little cost.

The term ‘basic’ refers to ‘going back to basics’.

Why ‘Basic’?

The ten year research that yielded the method of ‘nexial topology’ originally was aiming at forming an integrated view of situations, through mapping the many aspects, with both problems and the countless solutions, we invent, and the many strategies we use. This integrative approach itself also went around in circles, still not explaining the confusing ‘anomalies’, and ended up where it started: why can’t we escape the apparent necessity of the balancing act between good and bad, negative and positive, the endless series that push forward but also end up pulling backward, and ultimately seem to always come back to wasting and falling apart (or fragmentation, scattering), in countless ways that seem to correlate with coincidences, in all areas of the human world?  In medicine, all our strategies to fight micro-organisms  and be ‘strong’ have yielded very poor digestion and breathing in most people, and the spreading of auto-immune diseases and cancer. Why can human living not be simply without these constant or recurrent pressures and crises?  Why do we have to survive so much, and cannot just live  well? Many wonder this, on a daily basis, but do not dare saying it: everybody knows this is unavoidable, isn’t it? The problem of pressure remains. We have risen to the challenge, to no avail. We kick back up, only to fall even deeper. Why? There is no answer, there seems to be no way to stop this,  no way out but to forge forward and push things up one more notch. There are other situations, geometrically different, that can be approached in the same way as below, but this one is the most common in an individual and in stress-related medical conditions.

‘Arise’ and ‘fall’  are words we say of problems that arise, and solutions that fall into place, and of many other things. They are geometrically similar to talking about ‘boosting’  the immune system or  a nervous break-down. These terms and and this sort of vocabulary represent geometric properties in motion.  If we figure such a situation in gesture, we are modelling it. The animated geometry of nexial topology, allows to formalise what the gestures or mental geometry mean. With this method, the ups-and-downs, and where they are leading if they are pushed, become very obvious: a high-energy crash, or a low-energy falling apart. Where such situations come from, and where they lead , turns out to have the same topologic properties (e.g. a spin or spiralling) and, for all intents and purposes, the end is the  same as the beginning, except may be with an inverted level of energy. A number of geometric properties can be thus developed, and used, discerned and deployed into both problems and solutions, explanations and experience descriptions. This is the normal way of doing things, and eventually always lead to the same kinds of conclusions, about increasing or inducing something, or directing it, and these always end up producing unexpected and unintended effects somewhere or other, now or later, which all have the same property: they are counter-productive. Then we have to deal with a brand new problem.

There is another way. These properties do not have to keep being used and pushed again, deployed and re-deployed in one sphere or another. What if they were not discerned and fragmented into all our ways of explaining cause and effect, of representing experience in this and that sphere (e.g. physical and social), by separating body or self and world, and analysing movement and direction separately. What if they were simply kept, for example in a notion of pressure or of spinning? Emotions often feel like this. A headache or a dizzy brain can feel like this. Stress or the  mere ‘speed of life’ in urban living can feel like this. If this is unpleasant, we often wish we could simply stop the pressures, the uncontrollable spinning. The culprit of all the approaches we use is that, they always ultimately end up raising something, and increasing pressures of one sort or another, and spinning everything just that little bit faster, higher, or further. But what if we actually could, ‘simply stop’? The way to do this is what nexial-topology brings to light. It is the method that brought out this cas de figure, which cannot be represented by other methods.

From an abstract viewpoint, the key is to allow deployment but not re-deployment, and to aim away from limits rather than towards them.

From a practical viewpoint, if it already spins  and feels like pressure, don’t push it in any way, even limited, specific, local, even if it appears to bring un-limitation by expanding horizons, or extending power, even to compensate for an opposite pressure or try to reduce it, even if we can and its seems ‘like a good idea at the time’. Instead, there are ‘basic’ options that can be used, which do not ‘push’ anything, even push down (compensate for an up). The method used here models geometrically what  ‘not pushing’ or ‘not redeploying’ and ‘basic’ mean, (and other such colloquial terms and images), but practical ways to stop the spinning or pressure from going too far make it easier to apprehend it.

Basic options

A simplistic way to put it is this: Nowadays, in trying to solve global problems, everybody seems to look for ways to ‘react in time’ in facing potential disasters and looming catastrophes (this also occurs individually), without seeing that these very reactions and the extremes and increases they breed and produce are so costly in energy and resources that they end up contributing directly to bringing us closer to and bringing faster these crises. This also occurs individually in the quest to meet needs, and the human body is used as a metabolic ‘resource’ to draw upon in facing pressures. The  basic approach is to reduce urgency (the survival drive) and the need immediately and locally, and simply stop the pressure – and actually do something to change the particular behaviours driven by this mode. But this seems to always be considered a practical impossibility.

This particular case of modelling, ‘no pressure’ globally, has no equivalent in other frameworks of representation or explanation, although there are example in the cultural store. Theories and formal systems of practice cannot reduce pressure but by compensating a high with a low. Yet individuals in daily life do things to just ease the pressure and reduce need, but often without being able to justify or sometimes even understand ‘why’. These are ‘basic’ options. This method does not deal with ‘why’ explanations or existential stories. or integrating them holistically (all are re-presentations). It models such a situation as it ‘presents’, and it is practical. It brings to light these ‘basic’ options, which are not contemplated, not studied, and are systematically neglected; they are also actively suppressed or made practical impossibilities by modern lifestyles and reliance on technology and knowledge, both specialised and generalised (e.g. statistical, philosophical…). This method opens access to some basic practical means that can  stop the counter-productive effects of pressures, and yet we keep ignoring them. My work is now devoted to exploring the benefits of these physical basic options and finding the most practical ways of allowing them.

Basic options and the basic means

Some collective implications are also introduced, but this website (2010) is more dedicated to practical options in the fields of medicine and health because we keep ignoring them to the detriment of our children and the planet. The method opens access to them by modelling how the counter-productive effects of pressures can be stopped. My work is now devoted to exploring the benefits of the basic options and finding the most practical ways of allowing, enabling, and using them.

Options and Projects (2010)

• The current walkabout for proto-health project is an expression of a physical approach to the most practical of these basic options, the notion described here as ‘proto-health’, which relates to the baseline hydration level. This approach suits particularly the low-grade chronic syndromes and menopause, with their problems of ‘climacteric’ behaviour of both body (physiology, metabolism) and person, including sensitivity or reactivity, addictive tendencies (for example to particular foods) to cope with energy demands, and stress-related damage. Several spontaneous bodily behaviours constitute basic means and are studied through exploratory research projects. This project aims to be a first exploration of a notion of a human ‘rehabilitation to the wild’. (A reference to wildlife carers’ notion of rehabilitation for wild animals cared for until they can be released ‘into the wild’ in a physical condition that allows them not only to survive natural and human pressures but to also live well.)
• A second basic option is intellectual or philosophical, and relates to the cognitive activities of representation (see also the two cognitive experiments in the PhD page, and the problem of knowledge transfer between scientific and human domains,or the physical and psycho-social realms (see pages Theory).
• Another option is external, or socio-economic (see section ‘Green hands’ outdoors jobs, and the related discussion of ‘sustainability’ VS ‘sustainable development’) and related to the sticky problem of population increase and other increases that “we don’t know how stop”, say the theorists. This relates back to proto-health and to survival and the sense of being unsafe. [See page Green Hands]
• A global basic option is also suggested to deal with the problem of human population and global issues, in relation to both physical and mental conventionalised strategies are involved in this, and compound each other into a most fundamental problem of human spreading and eco-footprint that has been developing for a very long time. Trying to fight this and to ‘return’ has not succeeded since the 1970’s and brought new problems (e.g. aids, camping in national parks bound to money) [see page Station for a 3rd option]
• The Foraging Station Experiment is a  long term, exploratory field work on a small research station to work with both human and land health as well as on a new way of Societal Inclusion (as opposed to Social Integration through individual normalisation for employment). It will explore techniques to bring the body to a condition that allows a human ‘rehabilitation to the wild’, restoring the capacity to face conditions of natural origin and those compounded by humans (e.g. facing climate change and economy derived hunger, thirst, disease, and geographic displacement). This will help highlight the practical difficulties induced by the Sc-H transfer of knowledge between physical and societal domains (which leads to the exponential impact of mathematics and computerisation on our lives). It will begin to undo the  seemingly inevitable habituation that is a domestication of humans bound to agriculture and material technology, and the habitual human behaviour of spreading.

On the method

The method is useful to model certain fundamental problems that appear in many theoretical fields where ‘a new approach’ is deemed necessary. This becomes clear when all general perspectives on a situation are reviewed by using the other new method introduced, ‘perspectival mapping’, or are circumnavigated in practice, back to the not-quite-original starting point.  The ‘topology’ used in this work is a particular, basic form of topology, for example not involving knot theory and similar or derived forms of this field of mathematics. [See The use of topology in this work.] This topology is ‘nexial’ and gives access to a topology of non-deployment.  Nexial topology models how all our perspectives and general views are deployed, and redeployed, eventually into these fundamental problems under ever new reformulated guises. It does that by modelling geometrically their generic properties – what you might call their essential principles, but not their details or facts. It provides a fresh view not involving details, and which therefore applies in any field; although it can model generic ‘deployment’  to several orders in any form of ‘reality’ or space,  it models precisely processes of a certain type (problems of deployment) which therefore cannot be generalised to all fields or orders, and does not reformulate known and well understood processes. This was the main gist of the theoretical work presented in the thesis and book, which relates to culture and deployments of civilisation, to the mind and formalised practices. Here, the same work is presented in the context of daily life, because this method is also extremely practical for individual problems with global effects, and practical examples of the climacteric tendency are easier to  relate to and follow. This practical use is in the context of daily life, not of extreme danger. For example, critical instability can occur in a life threatening crash of organs  in a hospital patient, or in a temporary shut-down of brain activity in a low-grade chronic syndrome patient. The deployment is similar topologically, and emotional effects are similar and can be confused, but symptoms and physical effects are different. For example,the shut-down does not kill; a ‘sense of impending doom’  or of being unsafe is not  knowing that I will be soon dead or will die if I don’t react, although they can all feel like ‘I am dying, here’ or ‘I am in danger’. The high-grade emergency form  is  well known, but not the low-grade (or low-order) form, which is more chronically impairing for life in society, feels like a biological, chronic ‘in-dying’ that one needs urgently to stop. The latter is less deadly in the short term, but just as much of a problem both individually and collectively.

[online 2010]

‘Sustainable Development’ – How do we know?

‘Sustainability’: Tens of models of the concept, but no consensus on any precise working definition

http://computingforsustainability.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/visualising-sustainability/
Visualising sustainability – How to convey the essence of sustainability in a few sketched lines?…  I’m looking for schematics of the notion of sustainability itself rather than the details of the underlying science – greenhouse, carbon,meso climate process, ground water,  etc .

The basis of the hazy concept of ‘sustainable development’

Trying to apply at the policy level a hazy concept that can be interpreted in any individual perspective, and has no precise scientific definition means that ‘anything goes’. Like morals, ‘sustainability’ is victim of cultural perspectives, and yet, somehow, many of us do know ‘what is right’ or ‘what we need to do’ – but how to define it clearly?

‘Sustainable development’ appears to be a macro-economic notion developed fromadvanced population statistics. It appeals to‘survival need’ of humans, but does not seem to refer to individual health (human or animal) or to local peaceful living – that is,withoutpressing state of need (that causes reactive behaviours and extremes to meet needs), and preservingthe health, sanity, and safety of a peaceful community. Yet, for example, such a community of individual people, on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland (Australia), is known to want to preserve a peacefully happy lifestyle ‘at ease’, with a health conscious, environmentally friendly approach to preserving land, for food, water and for nature enjoyment, wildlife biodiversity, and animal and human health. It gave electoral mandate to a Council todothis, rather than for a mereconceptof hazy ‘sustainable development’ that can be used to impose exactly the opposite: increases in touristic population for ‘sustainable business’ that benefits only some, increases in resident population and real estate development for a ‘sustainable economy’ of ‘knowledge’ industry that excludes many… as well as obvious counter-productive effects on safety and health, for both humans and animals, and even the capacity of many to secure a decent home, keep domestic safety or drive safely on the road. Stress breeds anger and adrenaline, and extreme behaviours that seek its ‘highs’.

How far is it useful and safe to raise these?

The global framework of ‘development’ (connected to technological ‘progress’) was devised as a solution to  dire states of need physically threatening human life in the third world,. It rode on an observation that economic growth could curb endless population increase, and is now turned on its head, into the belief, an unproven and challenged statistical extrapolation, that population increase brings unlimited economic growth, and therefore money and jobs (and the capacity for people to meet their financial needs). No one seems to notice this inversion, or has an explanation for this inversion.

Social scientists have justified the notion of ‘sustainable development’ by appealing to scientific notions of ‘natural survival’ driven physical need, applying them to societal humans. ‘Natural survival’ is the perfect notion to invoke for a world created by and for ‘developers’ (based on ‘possibles’ and urgent timing) rather than for the people of a peacefully happy community without state of need. The use of notions from both social and scientific domains suits self-centered proponents of economic development because this framework does meet their socio-professional and material needs for a ‘vibrant’ life, social or intellectual. Their ungrounded view of what the laid back ‘Sunshine Coast lifestyle’ actually means to locals who do not need much money or technological advancement to live peacefully happy close to nature, stems from a lack of direct awareness that ‘living’ means different things to different people. For many locals, it does not mean busy agitation to meet material and cultural needs but peaceful, happy, healthy, sane living in a healthy, safe and peaceful environment. Without a precise definition or agreed model Australia will sadly keep reproducing the mistakes of Europe and America – only, our continent does not have the same physical resources or ‘carrying capacity’.

The hazy concept of ‘sustainable development’ has three flaws

-Sustainable development as a concept involves this transfer of knowledge, from the scientific domain to the human domain, that creates an inversion of evaluation of the notion of survival: from an agitated and necessarily self-centred ‘survival’  behaviour to ‘meet needs’ physically, to a busy, excited state, a state of alert, busy meeting cultural, social, and material wants, that feels like ‘vibrant life’  to many. This leads to lost restful sleep and ease of health, among other rising problems, especially in youths; they have played out on the Gold Coast and everyone knows the results. Inverting these evaluations of the survival spirit leads to conflict, and perspectival clashes, and this transfer compounds the problem  f need rather than resolve its source. Other countries are witness to this.

-The hazy nature of the concept stems from the variation of perspectives which, although they all have the same source or origin in human survival behaviour (encouraging it or reducing its negative behavioural effects to various degrees), are fundamentally irreconcilable. Each takes a different point of view, in particular on how to value survival behaviours in diverse contexts. For example, relating sustainable development to population and resource consuming-producing, or to individual living conditions, and to stress, health and security, yields conflicts of opinion about “what’s good for us” (who is ‘us’?). The implications presented in this website  are drawn from a doctoral research that produced a new method to ‘map’ all these perspectives and their relative viewpoints. [Perspectival Mapping.] It showed that perspectival conflicts cannot be resolved by integration, holism, or unitive frameworks, because their orientations are often not compatible, , geometrically as well as figuratively. More importantly, scientific and human domains, or physical and mental/cultural, keep inverting each other’s valuations, and ultimately, when combined, increase the degree of ‘rising’, of development, both generative and degenerative.

-The counter-productive effects of development taken ‘too far’, among them the exploitation of nature and human labour, on the actual capacity of human groups to meet their physical needs, keep themselves healthy  and safe, have played out several times earlier in history and prehistory, linked to changes in sedentary settlement patterns, natural resources, and climate. Yet these counter-productive effects are still deemed ‘not well understood’, for example in medicine (particularly lifestyle related conditions) and uncontrolled in collective behaviour. These counter-productive effects have been noted in many other fields, but how they work, why they keep throwing human cultures-civilisations into stages of  crazed behaviour, tree cutting, damaged environments turning to wasteland, and states of damaged human health, is not known.

There is no recognised scientific or philosophical framework to understand these problems, which are generic and expressed in many areas. The academic literature in many fields is aware of the need for a way of modelling them without the complexities of many fragmented aspects and conflicting views, of understanding how they work and their human and environmental consequences, but this is not addressed effectively. Applied sciences and designers of frameworks for practice are not even informed about this, and are left to struggle in the field with the question:

How far can development and human pressure (ecologic and economic) go before they become counter-productive?

There is now a simple visual modelling method (using a basic form of topology) that can be used to determine systematically clear properties of a ‘development’ without counter-productive effects (therefore qualifiable of ‘sustainable’). The method of nexial topology was introduced in a recent doctorate thesis, (2008),  after ten years of research. This method bypasses endless conflicts of perspective, fine-point discussions, and produces an imaging of generic properties of developments and their known correlate distortions. It can help recognise geometrically situations that have counter-productive aspects, and thus offers an unusual but effective decision making tool. This is a means to articulate, in a practical context, ‘how far’ development can be deployed by recognising simple geometric properties in their principles (e.g. a commercial venture in a national park constitutes a circle within a circle), and to see ‘where to stop’ this to avoid these effects. It also brings to light certain ‘basic’ options that are neglected, but could reduce the need for development. 

Natural disasters and survival

When nature’s ‘destructive power’ strikes, we see on television countless deaths on the spot. In earthquakes, mud slides, or snow avalanches, many are due to our fascination for building. In other cases, we could get away in time, but we do not feel the catastrophe coming as animals do, and are taken by surprise. The dead only require burying, but the major problem of ‘natural disasters’ comes in managing the aftermath for the survivors. Polluted waters bring disease, from the unburied dead, but also from human excrements.  There is little potable , clean and fresh water but in man-made pipes and containers. When they are destroyed, thirst sets in. Human lands have little food, but in man-made fields, and when these are destroyed, hunger sets in: we have left nothing else. The ‘nature’ we have access to no longer produces food fit for us without human intervention. Moreover, we have huge feeding/energy requirements (other non-vegetarian mammals our size do not need three large meals every day). We have a fascination for the notion of survival, which we inculcate into children, and put on a pedestal when it concerns surviving man-inflicted suffering, but we actually care for the stranger only when people die. In daily life, the great mutual help is reduced to the extremely limited social acceptance and support that leaves our children on the street, the old and the sick in poverty, all of them malnourished, and to non-assistance to person in a survival state. When survival happens in a particular  physical case, it is in the news, and we put it in the category of the extreme (or heroic or miraculous – what not everyone can do, but which children do with most ease). Adult humans in general have become incapable of actually surviving physically, when shelter, reserves of clothing, and fuel for heat have been destroyed and the weather is not at its mildest. Yet we do not study children’s ease: we go about making sure they loose it and become normal. If adults also had this ease, ‘natural disasters’ would be less catastrophic and we would cope physically better (which socio-emotional-economic coping does not help and often actually hinders).

These problems also arise under the ‘destructive power’ of ‘human pressure’ related to population increase and the material development that is pushed into ‘mental evolution’ and ‘economic development’, and reduced to ‘building’ up or increase.

The Great Builder’s view: environment, ecosystems & ‘natural’ conditions…  in the house

We reduce nature to ‘the environment’ around us, outside of ‘our world’: we appear to not be a part of it, and forget that our body make us animals too, and most people do not feel their insides.  Yet, is that  not nature inside us? 
We reduce the animal body to adaptive or reproductive ‘health’ and survival,. Is that all that animals do? Survival is a complex, very conventionalised view of what a body is and does. Mostly, we just fight, love, adapt, and work to survive…. our own world. Our climacteric inside emotional-physiological agitation is reflected in a climacteric world  of crises that we scan in detail. Is surviving what we call ‘natural conditions’ (both physical and human-made) really equivalent to living?
We  reduce nature to ‘ecosystems’: yet we think we are expanding our view, by including animals, plants and land into a ‘whole’, most often excluding humans. But integrating inside and outside of a ‘system’ leads inevitably to the necessary notion of house (another term for system, body, whole, or thing): the root eco means house. [this imaging term has a topologic meaning, as does the word landscape.] Our physical civilising practices (to raise  adaptive ‘health’, mind, and behaviour in children) and our societal and cultural systems lead to ‘eco’-nomy: managing the internal house of ‘our world’ that we call ‘the real world’.  Eco-logy is an ‘expanded’ knowledge of the external physical house we call the environment (a reduced view)… to which most of us seem to not quite feel they belong. Are nature or the planet really only like a house?   

These are the view of the Great Builder – us.  This is an ancient view of  the human project, but it is still at work  and acted out in our post-modern world. We build a ‘store of knowledge’ of complicated details, while loosing physical grounding and loosing track of human and animal suffering. We build economies that destroy peoples’ lives, we  monitor in detail the demise of ecosystems and try to re-build environments we have damaged or destroyed. We give free reign to ‘developers’ to flatten land as places to build our buildings and houses and cover the ground, while children and animals die in the wasteland we keep recreating and spreading. Our great advances in many fields have not changed this fundamental situation, except to make the troubles of finding adequate food and water more urgent  and present in daily life for more of us. Is that ‘sustainable’ for our species? Is that even ‘natural’? Are we just Great Builders, as restless as a cornered and frightened animal?

The following slide is a global portrait of the material world of humans that most see as ‘the real world’ – a landscape that is a wasteland for physical life. Our ‘vibrant’ cultures, great technology and architectures , and the food wastes that feed only the most resilient of animals in our suburbs do not make up, by far, for what was there without us. This landscape is correlated to the physical baseline of ‘health’, which involves consumption of both bodily and natural resources to fuel all our energy-hungry restlessness and hyperactive brain-mind in order to ‘survive’ in ‘the real world’, while we plunder  and exhaust what actually allows our bodies to both survive and live. This landscape occurs and appears as we destroy what works well without human  intervention, ‘to build’,  and  this  activity  warrants ‘danger’ signs.

Figure 44. Trading undifferentiated ‘ease’ for generalised ‘wasting’

 (Reproduced from <PPT7- 3 geometric rules\ slide 7> –  See also Conclusions in the PhD thesis.)

Ultimately, the question is, WHAT is it that ‘sustainable development’ sustains?

It certainly sustains itself. This is a buillt-in topologic property in high deployment: it is auto-reinforcing.

If we gauge what life altogether is like for the majority of people on a daily basis, mentally, socially, spiritually, materially,  physically, and materially, financially… if that is honestly what we want to keep up and keep recreating, in all times and places and for all, let’s keep it up. But do we actually want to have to keep  up all the time, in countless ways, and keep up with ‘it’, others, ‘The System” of organised civilised society?

Is this auto-reinforcing ‘World’ of ‘Human’ Organised Society (WHOS) of large numbers and crowds, actually sustaining the biology of life, the biosphere, or even just the biology of the Homo sapiens species? It is actually toxic for increasing numbers of individuals, and this stress-state was called “maladaptation to” stress or the distress called “social maladaptation”; now it is  called ‘syndromes’.

[online 2010]

The ‘Slow’ or ‘Return’ frameworks: differences

There are various approaches to ways of preventing situations from being auto-reinforcing and getting out of hand. Some are specific problem-solving tactics. Others involve a general change in certain human behaviours, focusing on one area or another, many of them have in common an approach to reducing, returning or  slowing down.

The ‘slow movement’ is a particular such framework, and many similar frameworks in other fields have adopted the term, although some use other terms. However, all these frameworks
• still involve the same fundamental parameters of representation in perspective,
• make the same fundamental assumptions and presuppositions, still unexamined
• use valuations, which introduces bias
• have the same built-in baseline in practice,
and still ignore the ‘basic options’.

Although it can map these representations, topologic ecology is not a ‘slow movement’ framework, nor a ‘return’ framework. It uses a modelling method, not a fixed framing.  The difference is in the basic options that do not exclude the use of ‘advanced’ or ‘fast’ options if basic options cannot resolve the situation, and sometimes the combination is necessary. But is prioritises basic options used very early, way before any sign of any crisis possibility. It is a very practical approach without rigid principles.

Why are these models not accepted and implemented?

They appear as trends ‘down’,  opposite to current trends ‘up’, just like the two images of the drop above or below [see Theory pages]. In this way they appear to force giving up what all the survival energy can produce. The problem is one of overall modelling, and not seeing the need for these frameworks to collaborate.

Pr Kate Raworth (2018): A more recent view of the same idea of no-growth economy

[update 2020]
Video  https://youtu.be/Rhcrbcg8HBw
“A healthy economy should be designed to thrive, not grow | Kate Raworth” on YouTube (15 mn)

2 lectures:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?
tab=wm#inbox/QgrcJHrhxnlCbbPlbKVrSlNHcPflMvcfGwL?projector=1

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/QgrcJHrhxnlCbbPlbKVrSlNHcPflMvcfGwL?projector=1

Note on geometry:
Her 2D « donut model » is wholistic integration into a circle with a 2-circumference that signifies physicalised and anthropomorphic boundaries, in  the same way as David Attenborough’s physical “earth boundaries”.
Transferring this shape into a 3D model corresponds to the the 3D topologic notion of the donut, which is a topologic space with a whole that ‘breaks the fabric’ of that space.
In Topologic Ecology terms, this situation remains “at Boundary”, whether we break the physical and anthropomorphic limits or not. Topologic Situation Modelling shows visually that there is the option of not staying always at boundary, and therefore not pushing the limits of either the planet or humans in daily life and as an ongoing way of existence.

Tim Jackson (2009) – Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet 

Tim Jackson:  Video conference (video part 1and video part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe3pZdY-mdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDuPpr43srI

The book:  Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (Dec. 2009, Earthscan Publications, UK, hardcover, 286 pages)
https://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-Without-Growth-Economics-Finite/dp/1844078949/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281500094&sr=8-1

Article from The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/23/properity-without-growth-tim-jackson

Book review and critiques
http://theoildrum.com/node/5382

[online 2010]