This is the third in line of three posts about “worldly” problems, with the diplomacy one here and the diversity one here. I will probably also write one on freedom of expression at another point, which is a different topic important to me, but you know, this entire site is an exercise in speaking my mind on whatever I want. Needless to say, this is different from mathematics in that the problems are often trivially solved, but the implementation often comes with resistance. I mean, outside of alphabet agencies, a mathematical theorem rarely endangers your life. Well commutative algebra does. And you know, having both in your life is kind of nice 😉
In a small update to this post, I remember visiting a spring next to Jerusalem, in Lifta, with a dear friend. It is small and beautiful, and close to one of my favorite works of architecture, that impressively greets you once you enter my favorite place in the world.
But of Lifta, I mostly remember one thing: The ungodly amounts of trash that were littered in and around the spring. There is a clear issue in that once it reaches a level of visibility, people tend to loose all morals and just add to it.
And, more importantly, we produce too much. I think in the near future we have to think how to realign our economy in order to be fine with less growth, less production and less waste. And, in the spirit of the previous post, that will be quite difficult. Because less production will mean less work, which means less jobs; every other form of ‘sustainable production’ that simply keeps production at the current level is a momentary illusion that will encounter difficulties. But let me be active first:
Don’t get me wrong, I am the first to think and be excited about ideas that could make our life more sustainable. These can be simple: and greener cities are more temperate (and waste less energy on temperature regulation), more equal (because public transport is a natural conclusion, and because greener surroundings provide an environment of relaxation that otherwise only rich can afford; I think electric cars are only a modicum better than those running on gasoline because noone needs a ton moving around with them), are more sustainable and increase air quality. See, there was not even any innovation needed.
But I also think we need a change of thinking on the waste, and reduce the amount we produce. Which does not mean we should not do it, but it means that not only do we have to reinvent the things we produce, but also the amount we produce. Anyway, the previous post made me think about how such an economy could work, whether it is by universal income or more available public services.
This, on a personal level, also requires a change of mindset, in the sense that we need to value our surroundings more, including the waste we produce, and reevaluating how we personally encounter the things we do not use anymore. However, on a larger scale, I am stuck on the problem of greed; what is to prevent marketing from telling us we need ever more? Because no matter how ecologically friendly something is produced, if it is in large quantities then it becomes unsustainable. How would you solve this issue, then? Tax the use of public and environmental resources more strictly? Sanction predatory marketing? We probably need a combination of the two, and more measures.
For a cup of coffee more 
