Talk:Sustainocene: Difference between revisions

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Top‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Top This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment: Climate change High‑importance This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Politics High‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Time Top‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles Top This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Without raising the matter on this talk page an editor has come in and deleted a large amount of referenced material from this article. That editor also added unreferenced material and material not directly focused on the topic.As a result the article appeared much more disorganised and much more the outcome of one person's thinking. I have tried to restore and improve NimbusWeb (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Perhaps this article warrants examination for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity/Editor RegistryNimbusWeb (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was in a very poor state and written with a NPOV on artificial photosynthesis and fuel cells (which you re-added). The technology is still mentioned in the article but there is no reason to have a section dedicated to the opinion on photosynthesis or that it might usher in a 1 billion years age of prosperity. The Sustainocene uses clean power to reach it's goals, therefore sustainable energy, and renewable energy are part of the article, but without quoting people working in the industry. Please discuss your edits here first and i will try to be constructive when implementing them. Prokaryotes (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very destructive editor and do not appear to have read any of the references in the article. The reason for a section on AP and teh Sustainocne ios that articles (referenced here) have mentioned exactly that. for example: Faunce, T 2012, 'Towards a global solar fuels project - Artificial photosynthesis and the transition from anthropocene to sustainocene', Procedia Engineering, vol. 49, no. 2012, pp. 348-356. This article also specifically mentions AP and the Sustainocene World Future Society. Powering the World with Artificial Photosynthesis. The Futurist 2013; 47(3). http://www.wfs.org/futurist/2013-issues-futurist/may-june-2013-vol-47-no-3/powering-world-artificial-photosynthesis (accessed 21 April 2013). A quote from that article is: "Globalizing artificial photosynthesis technology will assist humanity to move into a “Sustainocene” epoch, where humanity is an environmental steward. We would have an ethical obligation to ensure that this epoch will last as long as the legacy that life has given us: some 2.3 billion years. " The same is true of Thomas Faunce. 'Artificial Photosynthesis Could Extend Rights to Nature. The Conversation 2 July 2013. https://theconversation.com/artificial-photosynthesis-could-extend-rights-to-nature-15380 A quote from that article is: "The Sustainocene Imagine a world where every road, vehicle and building ceases to “bludge off” nature and “pays its way” by doing photosynthesis more efficiently than plants including producing its own hydrogen fuel and making its own basic starches from absorbed carbon dioxide. This is a world ripe to allow the emergence of environmental sustainability as social virtue at the heart of legal systems, alongside the more traditional, human-centred justice and equity.Such a multimillion-year era of stewardship has been termed the Sustainocene. It may need to last for millions of years if humanity is to morally repay its debt to nature. In the Sustainocene, instead of the cargo-cult ideology of perpetual economic growth through corporate pillage of nature, globalised artificial photosynthesis will facilitate a steady state economy and further technological revolutions such as domestic nano-factories and e-democratic input to local communal and global governance structures. In such a world, humans will no longer feel economically threatened, but rather proud, that their moral growth has allowed them to uphold rights of nature." Nocera's lecture on the Sustainocne is by one of the world's foremost artificial photosynthesis scholars- Daniel Nocera. Sustainocene. Harvard Leads a New Epoch for Humankind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P232xezhRZg . Your comment "The technology is still mentioned in the article but there is no reason to have a section dedicated to the opinion on photosynthesis or that it might usher in a 1 billion years age of prosperity" ignores the fact that this is exactly what the references on AP and the Sustainocene say. Your comment "The Sustainocene uses clean power to reach it's goals, therefore sustainable energy, and renewable energy are part of the article" reflects a personal point of view by you that is not reflected in the references about the Sustainocene. The whole point of those references is that the Sustainocene is NOT the same as sustainable development and the concept is closely linked to the distributed power implicit in artificial photosynthesis.NimbusWeb (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The study from Faunce is part of the article, also please recognize that the talk page is not a forum(WP:FORUM) and to much bold text is also not a good way to communicate. The technology opinion is not within the scope of this article is your point of view, see NPOV. Further are your allegations of my edits being destructive not a constructive way to voice your opinion. Please stay substantive and try to summarize the edits and "key points" you regard as essential for the article and re-considere your assumption that clean technologies aren't part of the equation, because it is wrong. See again the sources from Furnass. This article is not about artificial photosynthesis, only because one guy said so in an interview. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faunce is a major scholar on globalising artificial photosynthesis. he has written numerous articles (cited above) that make clear there is a specific connection between globalising artificial photosynthesis as a distributed food and energy source and the Sustainocene. Nocera is one of the world's foremost artificial photosynthesis scholars. He has given major Harvard lecture (cited) linking artificial photosynthesis and the Sustainocene. The problem is that either you're not reading the references or your have some other agenda here.NimbusWeb (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find this slideshow from a Furnass presentation and check for yourself http://dea.org.au/images/general/Sustainocene_Furnass_(wth_text)_150512.ppt Furnass emphasis thermal solar energy, wind and solar, among a few other technolgies, which are already covered in the current article version. Nocera belongs into the article of artificial photosynthesis. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nocera Harvard talk on the Sustainocene (which you deleted) specifically mentions artificial photosynthesis. He belongs here And once you accept that you have to face how ignorant is your view that there is no scholarly connection between AP and the Sustainocene.NimbusWeb (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was because YouTube videos are normally not a good source, however i watch it now and maybe we can add it under external links. But your recent revert is exactly the behavior which is not helpful. The concept of the Sustainocene is not a invention which is per se regarded onyl to Furnass or Nocera or anybody else, instead it outlines the sustainable transition, the post carbon world, many people talk about. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could pay respect to people who have actually written and spoken about teh Sustainocene to understand how different it is from developmental sustainability and how closely aligned it is with globalised artificial photosynthesis as a food and energy source. Two major AP scholars (Faunce and Nocera) have developed the concept of the Sustainocene. The idea that it should last a billion years, use AP technology to create the preconditions for giving rights to nature are Faunce's ideas in the articles you deleted.NimbusWeb (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have to first justify why you removed a whole stack of references specifically mentioned artificial photosynthesis and the Sustainocne. Why you removed the picture of Furnass. Why you inserted material that was about developmental sustainability-- a completely different concept. You added setences that were unreferenced. You need to explain your editing. At the moment it seems ignorant and destructive and there would be not rational reason for leaving it up.NimbusWeb (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because "apparently" the name was coined by Furnass and he does not mention "artificial photosynthesis". Only because Nocera and Furnace "hi-jacked" the name, doesn't mean the entire article scope should evolve now around AP or sensational claims from Faunce that AP will create a 1 billion long time of prosperity, this is NPOV. We can add Nocera's video to external links, other than that the content is addressed (the study of Faunce) and the link to AP. The picture of Furnass belongs on his wikipedia article (if he gets one). The Sustainocene is a name for a sustainable world in face of global warming - as outlined by Furnass with the name and his paper and presentations and talks, but because he draws from various ideas from sustainability solutions, the epoch is shaped by much more, Sustainocene is according to Furnass a synonym for the post carbon world and this concept is not an invention which comes only from Furnass, he gets the attribution for the name. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Revert your last revert and post here the content you deem missing and then we figure out what is essential for the article. But you need to consider that the post carbon world is not a concept invented by Furnass or Nocera or Faunce. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the whole concept of Sustainocene doesn't begin and end with Furnass. That is your POV. Faunce's linking of it with a billion years was in a published articles which were cited. Faunce linked it with rights of nature. Faunce also linked it with global AP as a distributed energy and food source. That is his academic development of the concept as mentioned in cited published literature, its not NPOV. Nocera academically developed the concept in his lecture. Those concepts need to go in the article. Furnass's picture is appropriate here as he initiated the concept. You still haven't explained why you tried to link the Sustainocene to developmental sustainability. That is your POV.NimbusWeb (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Suggestion as an act of good faith given that I started this article, perhaps you could insert comments into version I have restored highlighting where you think there are deficiencies. I say this because it seems to me, with all due respect, I have probably read and understood the published material on the Sustainocene a bit better than you.NimbusWeb (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable development, because that is the principle outlined by Furnass. And as i pointed out to you, it doesn't matter who starts an article. Your framing of the article that alleges that artificial photosynthesis is the main technology driving the Sustainocene is highly misleading, because it doesn't follow the concept as outlined by Furnass. But i begin to repeat myself and you do not show any intention of being cooperative. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look friend, Furnass started the concept, but two major AP scholars have developed it, they frame AP as the main technology driving it in their published writings. It doesn't matter what you or I think, that is what they've said, here again are direct quotes from their published material:

"Globalizing artificial photosynthesis technology will assist humanity to move into a “Sustainocene” epoch, where humanity is an environmental steward. We would have an ethical obligation to ensure that this epoch will last as long as the legacy that life has given us: some 2.3 billion years." "The Sustainocene: Imagine a world where every road, vehicle and building ceases to “bludge off” nature and “pays its way” by doing photosynthesis more efficiently than plants including producing its own hydrogen fuel and making its own basic starches from absorbed carbon dioxide. This is a world ripe to allow the emergence of environmental sustainability as social virtue at the heart of legal systems, alongside the more traditional, human-centred justice and equity.Such a multimillion-year era of stewardship has been termed the Sustainocene. It may need to last for millions of years if humanity is to morally repay its debt to nature. In the Sustainocene, instead of the cargo-cult ideology of perpetual economic growth through corporate pillage of nature, globalised artificial photosynthesis will facilitate a steady state economy and further technological revolutions such as domestic nano-factories and e-democratic input to local communal and global governance structures. In such a world, humans will no longer feel economically threatened, but rather proud, that their moral growth has allowed them to uphold rights of nature."
Of course other scholars may come along and write about the Sustainocene, but at the moment AP guys are the major people writing about it. Your edits seem unwilling to let their published views on the Sustainocene be expressed. You have not explained why you are refusing to let ideas and quotes on AP and the Sustainocene, such as those quoted above, be expressed.NimbusWeb (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again NOFORUM, and if you quote something, post the source link. I guess this is Faunce in an interview. This is an opinion and only because he expressed it doesn't mean we should feature his opinion in the article, because it is a technology which is still developed as i understand. This is like a sales pitch and if you know Nocera you know that he is making speeches on AP since years. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your comments show you haven't read the material you are deleting. The quotes above are from these articles you deleted: Powering the World with Artificial Photosynthesis. The Futurist 2013; 47(3). http://www.wfs.org/futurist/2013-issues-futurist/may-june-2013-vol-47-no-3/powering-world-artificial-photosynthesis and 'Artificial Photosynthesis Could Extend Rights to Nature. The Conversation 2 July 2013. https://theconversation.com/artificial-photosynthesis-could-extend-rights-to-nature-15380. You are using emotive words like 'sales pitch' and 'opinion' to reduce the legitimacy of published material you appear to have already decided to delete. Yes, Profesor Nocera gives lots of talks on AP, but like Professor Faunce he is also developing the concept of the Sustainocene in the AP context. You just can't ignore their development of the concept and replace it with what you think the Sustainocene should be aboutNimbusWeb (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Suggestion why don't you place specific queries on aspects of the article you think could be improved.NimbusWeb (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your framing of the article that alleges that artificial photosynthesis is the main technology driving the Sustainocene is highly misleading, because it doesn't follow the concept as outlined by Furnass Prokaryotes (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say it is 'highly misleading' is vague emotivism. First, both Faunce and Nocera specifically refer to Furnass. Second both Faunce and Nocera specifically refer to the Sustainocene and artificial photosynthesis. Furnass even introduces and endorses Faunce's talk on globalising artificial photosynthesis as part of the Sustainocene vision here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ8qFS0kcbU. Really your reluctance to accept published material linking the Sustainocene and artificial photosynthesis is quite unhelpfulNimbusWeb (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion why don't you place specific queries on aspects of the article you think could be improvedNimbusWeb (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]