[HACC] Naming discussions

[Michal Stefanow]

"sustainable" is the word that makes me cringe.

Do we really want to sustain current state? (the answer is HELL NO)

"Drawdown"
"Regenerative"

Climate change is an enemy, I am against it, simple message.

Plus it is good to have a common enemy - in that way various people can
unite:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Greens
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Parties_International
* https://www.democracy.earth/ - using technology to make better decisions
on the planetary and interplanetary level.

Plus it looks good on the logo (each word roughly the same width).

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 11:45 AM Kolossos <tim at alder-digital.de> wrote:

> Hello,
> I'm against a name change from HACC.
>
> Yes "Hackers for sustainability" would include also people that are
> working on ecology, which would be nice.
> But "sustainability" is a so often misused word. Is it sustainable if I
> use a mouse pad with recycled plastics but give each year 10t CO2 to the
> atmosphere?
> I learn that the best and easiest way to measure sustainability is after
> a collapse, but than it's too late for a slow running, global disaster
> like climate change.
>
> We have absolutely to concentrate on the fight against climate change.
> There are so many problems to solve (electricity, transport, heating).
> And the timescale is now so crazy short after going 30 years in the
> wrong direction, where we increase the carbon emissions by 50% at a time
> where we know enough about climate change. So we have to change the
> direction of carbon emissions measurable until 2025[1]. It's hard if you
> know how long it takes for industries to grow and long unefficient
> products will stay in the market.
>
> So in respecting this timeframe we have to scale up and further develop
> existing technologies (PV and Wind).  So we have the technologies but we
> have hard politically resistant from old mens with big money.
> A strong statement would by in my eyes good that we are against climate
> change.
>
> In my eyes we have also to talk about the level of consumption and this
> means a bad word "recession". But is it really so bad or is the system
> wrong? We need also a relocation of our effort to build up a new energy
> system, change the transport system and optimize our houses in such a
> short time and that's for me similar to what the US did as it decided to
> go in WW2 and change there complete industry.
>
> Also in WW2 it works for Americans to fight against Nazis, so it's not
> in each case wrong to be against something.
>
> If we don't solve the climate crises, we change so much, that it will be
> an disaster for a lot of specimens. So for me the fight against climate
> change is the best I can do for ecology. That doesn't mean that we
> should not cooperated with ecology hackers and people tackling
> unsustainablity.
>
> Best regards
> Tim
>
> [1]
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%C3%A4rmung#/media/File:Emission_paths_for_reaching_the_Paris_Agreement.jpg
>
>
> Am 05.01.19 um 14:24 schrieb Zaphod:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I would like to propose to switch from "Hackers against climate change"
> > to something more positive. For me, it feels a bit meager, if you can
> > only define yourself by what you reject.
> >
> > Alternatives, that make a more positive statement: "Hackers for
> > sustainability", "2030 and still hacking" (the year 2030 being attached
> > to the EU climate goals).
> >
> > Best, Zaphod
>
>
> --
> HACC mailing list
> HACC at hacc.uber.space
> https://hacc.uber.space/mailman/listinfo/hacc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hacc.uber.space/pipermail/hacc/attachments/20190106/68973dad/attachment.html>