Sustainable Future becomes non-Sustainable

Well, Tim Gamble's blog has, apparently, "evolved" to Future Forward. There is no explanation for the change and, indeed, why all of the posts of the previous blog are now inaccessible (though it looks like many will eventually be reposted, in some form, on the new blog). I've asked a question about this in the comments of one of his first few posts on the new blog.

I wonder if he is now not focusing on sustainable solutions.

There may be some hints in his guiding principles.

"Nature and people" implies that people are separate from nature. This is not a trivial point because a lot of the problems we face derive from the notion that humans are, somehow, the pinnacle of evolution or that the earth is here purely for humans or that humans have the innate right to dominate all other life on the planet, in whatever way they see fit. Until we see ourselves as just another species, we're unlikely to solve our problems or reach sustainability. Tim still appears to champion permaculture principles but maybe that will be jettisoned too, in time.

"Facts and reason" is a good principle but we need to look at all the facts, not just the ones we like. For example, his posts on the leaked UEA emails suggests a biased view, when none of the emails disproves the climate science that goes on across the globe by hard working and, mostly, honest climate and environmental scientists. And none of the few dubious actions suggested in any of the emails were actually carried out or resulted in any cover up. But this side wasn't seen in his posts. Another example is the post on SBSP, which completely ignores any potential environmental impacts (perhaps because the impact assessments haven't been done) or the likely mult-decadal time-scale of the project.

"Optimism is preferable to negativity". Consequently, I expect only to find optimistic posts from him. This guideline can give what William Catton Jr refers to as inaccurate word maps (in his book Bottleneck). We need accurate descriptions of our situation, in order to come up with meaningful strategies. Consequently, negative views are just as important as the optimistic ones.

"Human Civilization is worth saving". This is a huge assumption and deserves a considered analysis. Books like William Catton's "Bottleneck" or John Zerzan's "Against Civilization" can provide a different perspective that open minds should be willing to take on board. If it turns out that civilization isn't worth saving, then that would make his blog less than useful. So big assumptions need to be verified rather than just taken for granted. He refers to himself as a researcher, so that should be his next research project - validate the assumptions used as his guiding principles.