California Legal Desert Eagle

Curious how powerful is the strategy of "rephrase the question."

systemic face of disaster, we considered many different things can break . With the idea, sensible but perhaps not sufficient, to reinforce many of these things we are protecting the whole society.

The typical example is a sufficiently serious pandemic, or the threat of a biological attack unnatural but spread by humans, which makes many people have sickness or fear, and quit his job. The social fabric strands are broken at random, and you keep on track mentally domino effects.

is chaos. (See Dave Snowden .)

have a history of great ideas than what they achieve is to simplify a scene, changing the question.

In the case of chaos, what is what remains constant in all disaster situations?

The bottom line is we want people to stay with life until the catastrophic situation forward by itself, or until people (which is kept alive) can rebuild the necessary things.

For that, the key is that not stay in place certain systems , but continue to provide the vital services so far have provided these systems.

not the pipes, but water, you may need to be moved by truck if the pipes are broken.

far, with some layers, ideas and "conceptual tools" proposed by Vinay Gupta . (That's who, commenting on how it came about the SCIM, which I translated as SCIM told me what the invariance. That, as I say, I think a "change in question" brilliant.)

Hence

to consider that these vital services are the basis of sustainability , there is only one step, which is very natural and logical for anyone who thinks a bit about the particular . Because, as he says Gunter Pauli (and I suspect others) "Sustainability is getting what we want with what we have [indefinitely], "the disaster response is" what we need with what we have [already]. "

In the current situation in which there are many very poor and of us in real danger [never safe, but "sufficient risk"] and immediate things worse soon (by the economy / oil / geopolitics) , I think the basic is that, once we all live up to the natural limits of human life, without harming the biosphere by the very fact exist, we are still talking . :-)

What practical effect does this now? The first, a little peace:

• Did they just cheap oil? SCIM, then we'll see.
• Does it increase the price of food? SCIM, then we'll see.
• it worse the consequences of climate change? SCIM, then we'll see.
• ... Want
• develop sustainability (concept quite different from the nonsense that the sustainable development )? SCIM, then we'll see.

SCIM If you do a sweep for the Canaries, you see that the cold and heat are not a problem except for a relatively small number of "homeless" (someone find statistics, please), and that if there is anything else, roofs are everywhere. See also that there is an atmosphere of political violence, and that an increase in interpersonal aggression will in any case, anger at the lack of resources. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.) And finally, we see that food and medicines from abroad, and fuel (which also comes from abroad) for part of the water (drinkable and move).

In short, in the Canary Islands are as we are, and if you want to protect Canary shocks, intense and global and systemic, will probably have to focus on the basics, which is different from what would be needed in, say, Norway or Libya, and Haiti.

SCIM Study. They are our invariant factors. And then we'll see.