Beyond Terra, 2022 and onwards
Absolute Truths:
Capitalism incentivizes the need to economically profit
Systemic change is the only long-term change
The largest carbon emitters and “ecological destroyers” are countries and for-profit companies
We aim to define environmentally sustainable practices that provide a direct economic incentive for countries, cities, and for-profit companies and push the groups to adopt them. This means closing the gap that stymies the shift away from ecologically-destructive practices.
With the Seedball and SeedDrone projects, maximum success would mean that best case, millions of acres of land would have high levels of biodiversity. Despite this, the global decline in biodiversity will still happen. Deforestation would continue to occur in the Amazon, and carbon emissions would not change. Our educational initiatives—awareness campaigns, in-person events, curricula, and more—do not reverse the decline in biodiversity either. Even though students may be more “environmentally-conscious,” the Earth’s species will continue to die out. It will be too late when the students we are teaching are old enough to spur systemic change (35 years old at the earliest, most likely). Instead of creating mitigative measures, like afforestation, prevention is critical. It is like picking up plastic from the ocean versus stopping plastic production. Prevention is the best choice. Harmful practices will continue to happen without prevention.
We think the most long-term impact is made by leveraging the economic incentive structures built into capitalism. Instead of thinking into the next 20 years, we’re planning for the next 100.
First, let’s define the problem: global biodiversity is in decline. Why is this bad? Declining biodiversity would kill all species on the Earth. That should be enough to convince us. What is the best way to stop this? By thinking of who drives the decline in biodiversity. Governments and for-profit companies are the primary agents. Governments do this to increase the quality of life for citizens, make money and extend the life of the government. They have free will over large amounts of land that harbor resources directly tied to the environment. Clearcutting a forest creates ground for agriculture to feed people, but it also kills off all the species in the area and increases carbon emissions. For-profit companies do this to increase profitability to make money, and show shareholders that they are still growing. Creating products in the Global South with the cheapest materials and shipping them across the world at hyper rates increases profit margins and sales volumes, but it also fuels carbon emissions and mining, which hurt the ecosystem at the macroscale. These are the incentives.
The value of these groups to humanity will not change anytime soon, but the practices can change to maximize sustainability. These groups will not change for environmental reasons alone; the world is driven by money, and it must be in the groups’ economic interest to make the shift. Companies demonstrate “environmental consciousness” to increase social standing, ultimately increasing their sales. People will buy more “green” water bottles than polluting water bottles because they are “green,” not because they are a better product. To convince the groups to shift to sustainable practices, we must give them an economic interest. If domestic bottle production is cheaper than production halfway across the Earth, companies would locally produce bottles. A side effect is less carbon released into the atmosphere because of less shipping. Stimulating the green shift can also be done by changing consumer behaviors, like the example above: if consumers favor “green” water bottles, more companies will produce that kind of bottle. But what is “green?” The metal is still being mined, and the bottle is still being shipped across the Earth to overseas customers. The entire life cycle and purpose of products must be rethought to minimize carbon emissions, land use, and other forms of environmental degradation.
We must show these groups that the sustainable choice is the economically viable choice for truly sustainable change.
Many nonprofits and for-profits are working on afforestation, climate policy, environmental education, and every problem under the Sun, but the best way to tackle the problem is by targeting the source of the problem. We think defining sustainable practices and technologies that provide a direct economic incentive for groups and pushing the groups to adopt them is the best solution to the climate and ecological crisis. There is no point in committing time to a mitigative strategy that—in the end—will have no net impacts. This mission would allow Beyond Terra to do work to cause a real-world systemic impact that prevents—not mitigates—environmental degradation.
Countries, cities, and for-profits can change in a variety of ways. We must avoid bureaucracy. Cities can shift to renewables that lower their energy expenditure. Solar is cheaper than coal and gas in many countries, but why isn’t this change made? Several alternatives to plastic are more inexpensive and renewable, but no significant for-profit has adopted them. Why? There must be a fix to these problems, and Beyond Terra must be a stimulus for this change. These are two out of a million ways that these groups can shift, and that shift would reduce the biggest drivers of environmental destruction in the world.
Despite our revised goals, our mission is the same: to restore and preserve biodiversity by advancing the future of conservation.
If you’d like to be a part of our mission, please apply here