I'd like to add two ideas. Firstly, I think we need to mimic nature by moving from a fast growing forest to a climax forest that uses low amounts to energy and materials. Exploring the functioning of a mature forest could add to your list. Secondly, I think we need to move from a domination society to a partnership society. Thus, to be a goldilock technology it would have to involve non-violence and caring for people and the wider ecology. By using these two concepts as an additional guide to goldilock investment we could move to better functioning societies. Cheers, ME
Just a quick comment on your mud bricks or what are called SCEB's (stabilized compressed earth blocks). There's a company in Colo that is making what they call ecoblocks. I've used them in a construction project and they are holding up well. https://www.coloradoearth.com
Nate, I love your work and all the points on the checklist are valid, but sorry to say I think (a) your energy bias has clouded your vision on priorities and; (b) your approach is backwards. I turned 11 years of research into a 32 page Blueprint when covid hit. It covers this very topic and is the basis for all our work at www.curagaia.com It's called The Environmental Impact Nursery®
Number one on the list should be a combined Selection Criteria and Critical Litmus Test (CLT) that's wrapped around humanities connection to nature (then apply the others on your list). This does a few critical things in (a) it helps us think about what we are creating relative to the natural world, right across the spectrum from hard externalities to if it feels right and; (b) if done right it eliminates greenwashing and; (c) -most importantly- it sets up a thought process that helps bring modern and Indigenous beliefs and values together! The last one is the key to a truly sustainable planet.
The Selection Criteria and Critical Litmus Test must be applied together to work.
The Selection Criteria we use are:
1. The best care of Natural Capital
2. Global scalability with a competitive advantage
3. Potential Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of +20%
There are 3 questions to ask in the Critical Litmus Test:
1. Does the potential solution aim to “provide the best care and management of” or “extract more from” any form of Natural Capital?;
2. Does the solution aim to provide a “business-as-usual” advance in productivity to support growth demands and/or capitalise on population growth and consumerism or does it have, at its core, a new approach to Natural Capital?; and
3. Does the solution support humanity’s connection or disconnection (spiritual, cultural or ecological) to Natural Capital?
The correct answers to these questions are (1) it provides the best care and management, (2) it has a new approach and (3) it supports a human connection to nature.
I also believe your approach of starting with the financial elements is backwards. Yes, it's important and high on the list (paradoxically, our top - of 7 - impact theme is market based solutions).
Why?...the current system of venture development (in the "green space) is an ad hoc system that relies on a random connection between the product and the capital, which is then shoved into a particular green box that fits the best. (the path of greenwashing). With the VC model leading the conversation, it get twisted.
I believe a better way to do it is to start with the problem, then fund the solution all the way to the end of the valley of death. Just like the USA did when the decision was made to stand on the Moon.
Applying this Moonshot approach with The Environmental Impact Nursery® model also clarifies the impact themes of our business. For us these are Environmental Markets & Services (Market Based Solutions), Remediation & Management of Natural Capital (Environmental stability), Asset Recovery & Recycling Circular economy), Clean Technology & Efficiency (Clean planet), Agribusiness & Natural Capital (Regenerative economy), Green Chemistry & Materials Science (Bio products) and Education & Media (Generational change)
Oh, and feel free to check out my Substack on this very topic and subscribe. I'd love to have you as a Founding Member and join the conversation. https://rodholden.substack.com/ - please share too if you like it.
Keep up the great work. Your poddy helps me think. You have my deepest gratitude for that.
thanks Rod - I think this is too many steps ahead from where 'business' is today. This Frankly on Goldilocks was a first pass Overton window to share w technologists/innovators becoming aware of metacrisis. I agree that 'the best care of natural capital' is the strong form goal - but we are eons away from that at moment - but thank you for sharing the framework - I'll have a closer look at curagai.com.
Rod - I spent time reviewing your substack (although it’s mostly locked down to “paid” subscribers so I couldn’t see much) as well as your company website. If you are truly doing this to save the world, you need to know that your website screams SCAM to me. It reads like a bunch of pie in the sky ideas that make no sense at all, hidden behind some “proprietary” blueprint. If you really care about the metacrisis and your ideas are truly revolutionary, why aren’t you willing to share them for free???
A good place to look for goldilocks tech would be in history; especially the history of how things were done before the carbon pulse. A good place for that type of research is Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/ There you can watch people get things done without electricity or oil. I used to live there and often spent a lot of time listening and talking with the historical reenactors.
Nate your TGS/Frankly’s covers so many environmental and ecological areas impacted by human behaviour (human predicament): Climate change, Loss of biodiversity, Air pollution, Ocean health, Water pollution, Overpopulation, Energy use, Weather events, which you and many of your expert/scientific guests have discussed. All of the above areas as you’ve pointed out are converging, forming the meta and polycrisis leading to humanity’s most dangerous predicament and the greatest threat to its survival. But problems have solutions, predicaments don’t.
From your earliest TGS I’ve come to believe the first to trigger the greatest threat to humanity’s survival will be humanity’s access to energy specifically FREE FINITE flammable fossils in particular Oil. But as Oil and Gas becomes more expensive, difficult to access, geologically and or geopolitically, we’ll revert to using more Coal, alongside peat and forests, so the heat and CO2 will continue to rise exponentially, with the heat continuing to raise ocean temperatures and accelerate the melting of the ice caps and glaciers. Humanity (we) are in ecological overshoot. Technology isn’t going so save humanity, majority of solutions ain’t gonna’ happen. There are just too many of us (Superorganism) we may not do anything to dramatically reduce our numbers but nature will as nature doesn’t respect human rights or any other creatures rights for that matter. Jack Alpert (of “Jack Alpert -- Civilization's “Running Out of Gas” Story”) thinks a maximum of 600 million is about what nature would reduce humanity to when we’ve run out of Oil, anyone thinking in the billions is just fooling themselves. Whilst I may not see any of these problems a child born today will🤔
I'd like to add two ideas. Firstly, I think we need to mimic nature by moving from a fast growing forest to a climax forest that uses low amounts to energy and materials. Exploring the functioning of a mature forest could add to your list. Secondly, I think we need to move from a domination society to a partnership society. Thus, to be a goldilock technology it would have to involve non-violence and caring for people and the wider ecology. By using these two concepts as an additional guide to goldilock investment we could move to better functioning societies. Cheers, ME
Just a quick comment on your mud bricks or what are called SCEB's (stabilized compressed earth blocks). There's a company in Colo that is making what they call ecoblocks. I've used them in a construction project and they are holding up well. https://www.coloradoearth.com
Nate, I love your work and all the points on the checklist are valid, but sorry to say I think (a) your energy bias has clouded your vision on priorities and; (b) your approach is backwards. I turned 11 years of research into a 32 page Blueprint when covid hit. It covers this very topic and is the basis for all our work at www.curagaia.com It's called The Environmental Impact Nursery®
Number one on the list should be a combined Selection Criteria and Critical Litmus Test (CLT) that's wrapped around humanities connection to nature (then apply the others on your list). This does a few critical things in (a) it helps us think about what we are creating relative to the natural world, right across the spectrum from hard externalities to if it feels right and; (b) if done right it eliminates greenwashing and; (c) -most importantly- it sets up a thought process that helps bring modern and Indigenous beliefs and values together! The last one is the key to a truly sustainable planet.
The Selection Criteria and Critical Litmus Test must be applied together to work.
The Selection Criteria we use are:
1. The best care of Natural Capital
2. Global scalability with a competitive advantage
3. Potential Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of +20%
There are 3 questions to ask in the Critical Litmus Test:
1. Does the potential solution aim to “provide the best care and management of” or “extract more from” any form of Natural Capital?;
2. Does the solution aim to provide a “business-as-usual” advance in productivity to support growth demands and/or capitalise on population growth and consumerism or does it have, at its core, a new approach to Natural Capital?; and
3. Does the solution support humanity’s connection or disconnection (spiritual, cultural or ecological) to Natural Capital?
The correct answers to these questions are (1) it provides the best care and management, (2) it has a new approach and (3) it supports a human connection to nature.
I also believe your approach of starting with the financial elements is backwards. Yes, it's important and high on the list (paradoxically, our top - of 7 - impact theme is market based solutions).
Why?...the current system of venture development (in the "green space) is an ad hoc system that relies on a random connection between the product and the capital, which is then shoved into a particular green box that fits the best. (the path of greenwashing). With the VC model leading the conversation, it get twisted.
I believe a better way to do it is to start with the problem, then fund the solution all the way to the end of the valley of death. Just like the USA did when the decision was made to stand on the Moon.
Applying this Moonshot approach with The Environmental Impact Nursery® model also clarifies the impact themes of our business. For us these are Environmental Markets & Services (Market Based Solutions), Remediation & Management of Natural Capital (Environmental stability), Asset Recovery & Recycling Circular economy), Clean Technology & Efficiency (Clean planet), Agribusiness & Natural Capital (Regenerative economy), Green Chemistry & Materials Science (Bio products) and Education & Media (Generational change)
Oh, and feel free to check out my Substack on this very topic and subscribe. I'd love to have you as a Founding Member and join the conversation. https://rodholden.substack.com/ - please share too if you like it.
Keep up the great work. Your poddy helps me think. You have my deepest gratitude for that.
Cheers Rod
thanks Rod - I think this is too many steps ahead from where 'business' is today. This Frankly on Goldilocks was a first pass Overton window to share w technologists/innovators becoming aware of metacrisis. I agree that 'the best care of natural capital' is the strong form goal - but we are eons away from that at moment - but thank you for sharing the framework - I'll have a closer look at curagai.com.
Rod - I spent time reviewing your substack (although it’s mostly locked down to “paid” subscribers so I couldn’t see much) as well as your company website. If you are truly doing this to save the world, you need to know that your website screams SCAM to me. It reads like a bunch of pie in the sky ideas that make no sense at all, hidden behind some “proprietary” blueprint. If you really care about the metacrisis and your ideas are truly revolutionary, why aren’t you willing to share them for free???
A good place to look for goldilocks tech would be in history; especially the history of how things were done before the carbon pulse. A good place for that type of research is Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/ There you can watch people get things done without electricity or oil. I used to live there and often spent a lot of time listening and talking with the historical reenactors.
cool! thank you.. never heard of that before
Nate your TGS/Frankly’s covers so many environmental and ecological areas impacted by human behaviour (human predicament): Climate change, Loss of biodiversity, Air pollution, Ocean health, Water pollution, Overpopulation, Energy use, Weather events, which you and many of your expert/scientific guests have discussed. All of the above areas as you’ve pointed out are converging, forming the meta and polycrisis leading to humanity’s most dangerous predicament and the greatest threat to its survival. But problems have solutions, predicaments don’t.
From your earliest TGS I’ve come to believe the first to trigger the greatest threat to humanity’s survival will be humanity’s access to energy specifically FREE FINITE flammable fossils in particular Oil. But as Oil and Gas becomes more expensive, difficult to access, geologically and or geopolitically, we’ll revert to using more Coal, alongside peat and forests, so the heat and CO2 will continue to rise exponentially, with the heat continuing to raise ocean temperatures and accelerate the melting of the ice caps and glaciers. Humanity (we) are in ecological overshoot. Technology isn’t going so save humanity, majority of solutions ain’t gonna’ happen. There are just too many of us (Superorganism) we may not do anything to dramatically reduce our numbers but nature will as nature doesn’t respect human rights or any other creatures rights for that matter. Jack Alpert (of “Jack Alpert -- Civilization's “Running Out of Gas” Story”) thinks a maximum of 600 million is about what nature would reduce humanity to when we’ve run out of Oil, anyone thinking in the billions is just fooling themselves. Whilst I may not see any of these problems a child born today will🤔