Saving Indra’s Net: Buddhist Tools for Tackling Climate Change and Social Inequity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We had some sort of good news last December, when government leaders met at the Bali Summit on climate change. They agreed to make deep cuts to carbon emissions, albeit without specifying how deep. They also agreed to transfer clean technologies to developing countries and reward them for protecting their forests. It looks like governments have responded to the UN's call and mustered the political will to take action. What's more, even businesses appear to have come round to the need to protect the environment: they are recycling paper, planting trees, participating in carbon trading. And citizens and NGOs, of course, have been at the forefront of the call for action. But let's put all this in perspective. The issue of climate change has been around for some time: if we go back about half a century, we would find the New York Times editorial entitled How industry may change climate, dated 24 May 1953, that environmental scientist David Keith of the University of Calgary has referred to in a talk. (1) Earth Day has been around since 1970, but if we think back to Henry David Thoreau and the Transcendentalists, then the environmental movement has been around for even longer. Unfortunately, despite the long-standing awareness of the threat and the persistent call for action, nothing much has been done, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to issue a dire warning, (2) telling us that, effectively, we now have just seven years (eight when the report came out in 2007) to sort it all out before it's too late. So now the world's suddenly woken up to carbon trading, hybrid vehicles and technological solutions that include sending some kind of sunshading device into space to cool the planet. But is it enough? Here's some food for thought: * Suppose everyone switches to energy-saving lamps, but also buys new, big plasma TVs along with various electronic gadgets. Would the outcome be an increase or decrease in energy use? * Suppose car manufacturers all start making electric hybrids to Euro V standard, but millions more take to the road. Would the outcome be an increase or decrease in oil consumption? * Suppose we switch to biofuels, would we have the land and water resources to produce enough for both our cars and us? WWF Hong Kong commissioned a survey on climate change (3) and the results are set out below: * 92% of the people interviewed state that they are or somewhat concerned about climate change; * 87% agreed that individuals share a great responsibility to act and over 90% said they would buy energy efficient lamps (94%), turn off standby appliances (91%) or adjust the temperature of air-conditioning (91%); BUT * 69% didn't agree that utility tariffs should be raised to discourage wastage. You see, the way the world economy works is predicated on an externalisation of costs that makes it possible for goods and services to be sold at remarkably low prices. And unfortunately, those of us in the developed countries have become so accustomed to this that, as much as we want to do our bit for the environment, we don't want the effort to cramp our style. We don't want, for instance, to lose the convenience of using disposable cups, chopsticks and lunchboxes, even though they create waste and pollution everywhere, not to mention the energy and resources required to make them, to be used just once before being thrown into a landfill. The market is very smart; it knows that if it can come up with disposable alternatives that are 'green', we wouldn't think about changing our habit at all. I was at an 'eco-expo' recently where someone was selling disposable lunchboxes and mugs made from corn. He was very happy about the high oil prices, because they made his products more attractive to potential buyers, but I couldn't help thinking about all the water and land that are used to make disposal lunchboxes rather than grow crops to feed people. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it