# data[].attributes.headline
Im a bit lost of where to write my question to Wanjiku BUT....here it is:

# data[].attributes.subject
Im a bit lost of where to write my question to Wanjiku BUT....here it is:

# data[].attributes.body
Is there a follow-up to the children after a certain amount of years after leaving the ong? what are the statistics of their life quality? housing? quality of housing, like location, etc....jobs?what kind of jobs? social life? etc....AND is it different working with different cultures? A "one size fits all" fix doesn't sound quite realistic.....AND do you know Leo Razzaki? and what are your thoughts on his methods if so....

# data[].attributes.body
What do you think about Eco currency and how can it affect the enviroment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bitcoin seems to me to have two major flaws. The first flaw is its volatility. People trade bitcoins as speculative investment. This causes the value of bitcoins to fluctuate. The second flaw is that when new bitcoins stop being released, there will be less incentive for miners. As miners stop mining, the security of the network may become compromised. Luckily, there is a fairly simple solution that would address both of these problems. That solution is to periodically release new bitcoins as the value of the currency increases.

"Money is only important for what it will procure. Thus a change in the monetary unit, which is uniform in its operation and affects all transactions equally, has no consequences. If, by a change in the established standard of value, a man received and owned twice as much money as he did before in payment for all rights and for all efforts, and if he also paid out twice as much money for all acquisitions and for all satisfactions, he would be wholly unaffected.
"If follows, therefore, that a change in the value of money, that is to say in the level of prices, is important to Society only in so far as its incidence is unequal. Such changes have produced in the past, and are producing now, the vastest social consequences, because, as we all know, when the value of money changes, it does not changes equally for all persons or for all purposes. A man's receipts and his outgoings are not all modified in one uniform proportion. Thus a change in prices and rewards, as measured in money, generally affects different classes unequally, transfers wealth from one to another, bestows affluence here and embarrassment there, and redistributes Fortune's favours so as to frustrate design and disappoint expectation."―John Maynard Keynes ( A Tract on Monetary Reform)

Money does not have an inherent value. Money does not produce wealth. The value of a unit of currency results from subjective valuations by consumers and corresponds to the value of real wealth (goods and services) which people are willing to exchange for it. The value of the currency is inherent in the marketplace, in real goods and services, which people are willing to exchange for money. The value of the currency has a limit. Its limit is the real-world wealth that backs the currency, the value of the goods and services that people are willing to exchange for a given amount of money at a particular time. The value of a unit of currency cannot just increase indefinitely, unless there is perpetual economic growth and an ever-expanding availability of resources.

If a person has a mortgage and owes 500 dollars a month, that is a fixed payment amount. If the value of the currency changes, the payment amount does not automatically adjust. Similarly, if an individual makes 20 dollars per hour, the wage is relatively fixed―there's typically no guarantee that the wage will be adjusted with inflation, and it usually is not adjusted by the employer. Now, suppose that the value of the dollar doubles overnight. Suddenly, the mortgage cost has doubled. He is now paying 1,000 dollars per month in real terms, even though the nominal amount hasn't changed. However, his employer will not continue to pay him 20 dollars per hour. The employer, being motivated by self-interest and profit, will lay him off and hire someone to work for 10 dollars per hour. When the individual goes to find another job, they too will only want to pay him 10 dollars per hour, the real market value of his labor. He will still be making 20 dollars per hour in real terms, even though his nominal wage is now 10 dollars per hour. The end result is that the amount of his mortgage has doubled and his wages have remained the same. On the other hand, what would happen if the value of money decreased by 50% overnight. Suppose that the government doubles the money supply and gives the new money to some politicians. The politicians become instantly rich, but the value of all the rest of the money decreases. The cost of the mortgage is now really only 250 dollars per month, so that the total to pay back the mortgage is now really less than what was originally agreed upon. The lender is getting screwed. Furthermore, the wages of the worker have been cut in half. The price of goods and services will adjust to the inflation, but his wages will not. His wages will remain fixed by a prior agreement. The employers will all be motivated by profit, so they will not have an incentive to increase the wages just because the value of the money has decreased; furthermore, just because the value of money decreased (or the money supply increased) doesn't mean that the amount of money available to the employer to pay employees has increased. The employer may not actually have enough units of currencies to double the nominal wages in order to keep the real wages at their original place. The new money is in the hands of the politicians, or whoever the government gives it to, which means an adjustment of wages would be impossible. Fluctuations in the value of currency are terrible and must be avoided. A stable and sound currency will not have drastic fluctuations in its value.

Currently, Bitcoin isn't the standard currency. The U.S. dollar is relatively stable in value, and all prices and contracts are negotiated in U.S. dollars. When we exchange bitcoins for goods or services, we generally make the trade in bitcoin valued in terms of U.S. dollars. I may trade 300- dollars-worth of bitcoin for a new computer. We are still using the dollar as our unit of measurement, even though we are exchanging bitcoins. If Bitcoin were ever to become the standard currency, we would no longer have this option. If crypto-currency ever replaces government currencies, then we will no longer be able to measure the value of crypto-currencies in terms of government monetary units―we won't be able to speak of "such-and-such- dollars-worth of bitcoin." At this point, the fluctuation of the value of bitcoins will be disastrous for the system. Our designs will be frustrated and our expectations will be disappointed, and rational economic calculation and planning will break down.

Many people think that supply is the only thing that determines price, so once they stop releasing new bitcoins the value will stabilize. This simply isn't the case. Price is determined by supply and demand! Supply is just one factor, among many, in the determination of prices. Speculative investment can drive up prices or cause them to crash. Thus, fluctuations in the value of a currency can, and will, happen even if the amount of the currency is fixed. In a free market, when there is greater demand for a particular good, the manufacturers boost production in order to increase supply. The free market adjusts supply in accordance with shifts in demand. While it is desirable to remove the power to create money from the hands of the State, it is not a good idea to have a fixed amount of currency that cannot be increased when demand increases. When the demand for automobiles increases, the automobile manufacturer increases production to make more cars. When the demand for money increases, the manufacturer of money ought to produce more money.

My proposal is to have a crypto-currency system that initially releases a fixed number of coins, just like Bitcoin, but after the fixed number is released, the system should focus on self-regulating to guard against fluctuation in value. Incorporate an algorithm into the crypto-currency system, which will not become active until after the pre-determined amount of fixed coins is released. Set that algorithm to automatically releases new coins in direct proportion to any increase in value of the currency that occurs. This will not confiscated any wealth from anyone in the system. The value of each unit of currency will remain the same, but the value will not increase. The creation of new coins will counteract deflation (or rising value of the unit of currency) and cause the price level to remain relatively stable or constant. Speculative investment will stop because there won't be any incentive in it, since the value of the currency can't really increase much. This will cause the price level to stabilize and create a sound currency. Since the creation of new coins will by determined by an algorithm to be in proportion to increase in demand, the creation of new money will not cause any devaluation of the currency. The system would be self-regulating, with no need for a central bank or treasury department. Since deflation will be rendered impossible by the algorithm, there will be no booms. Without booms, there is no bust. There will be no substantial risk of the value crashing.

This algorithmic release of new coins to counteract deflation will also solve the second major problem with Bitcoin.

"After 21 million coins are mined, no one will generate new blocks

"When operating costs can't be covered by the block creation bounty, which will happen sometime before the total amount of BTC is reached, miners will earn some profit from transaction fees. However unlike the block reward, there is no coupling between transaction fees and the need for security, so there is less of a guarantee that the amount of mining being performed will be sufficient to maintain the network's security."― Bitcoin Made Easy (2013 Edition)

This problem is solved by the periodic release of new coins to counteract deflationary pressure. Since new coins will be release periodically, miners will still receive a reward for mining. This will guarantee that there is always enough mining going on to maintain the network's security.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thoughts on Crypto-Currency Stability & Sustainability - Steemit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bitcoin seems to me to have two major flaws. The first flaw is its volatility. People trade bitcoins as speculative investment. This causes the value of bitcoins to fluctuate. The second flaw is that when new bitcoins stop being released, there will be less incentive for miners.

# data[].attributes.body
I have noticed very few pop songs about the climate change and social change phenomena. But like John Lennon and Bob Dylan, among others, in the 60's wrote about political issues, it seems the pressing topic of today lend themselves very well to such song-writer as well.

Do you agree there are very little songs in the popular music scene on todays pressing political issues? And if so, why do you think this is? What do you think the possibilities are with political songs, or other popular art forms for that matter with regards to mitigating climate change?

I appreciated your song about Parachuting Cats in the Borneao, very clever!

# data[].attributes.body
Does it make sense to have green economics?

# data[].attributes.body
Whether it is resilience, sustainability (See AtKission, Sustainability is Dead, Long Live Sustainability), or other concepts coined to aid ecological systems, it seems the current political climate continues to find ways which twist or warp these concepts into something which contradicts their purpose. From your understanding – what are the forces in the current political climate that warp these concepts? Are they purely corporate/economic interests that influence? What are some of the other influencing factors?

# data[].attributes.body
Although sustainability may be for everyone, and does acknowledge a material limit on the use of natural resources, do you think that we have the ability to determine the carrying capacity of all ecosystems?
Especially given our relatively short time on earth, and then in comparison to the human-induced changes we are already seeing on these eco-systems?

# data[].attributes.body
you mentioned that the same process of sustainable development has to go on as
there was with the mobile phones. How do you think can this change take part to reach the majority?

# data[].attributes.body
In regards to this week's theme of "Sustainability is for everyone," I found the following quote of yours to be interesting: "Some people might be motivated out of passionate love of the planet, others ought to be motivated by the fact that this is an unavoidable set of hard physical facts." I strongly agree with this quote that there are various reasons that people might be motivated to lead sustainable lives. How might this apply when it comes to education on sustainability?

# data[].attributes.body
Even though I consider myself as quite familiar with the SDGs, I am still having a hard time finding concrete information about what big companies, organisations, governments and other big actors should or can do to help the world achieve these goals? I'm finding it easy to understand and find information about what I can do, as a private person, but I can't find any concrete examples of what is expected from big actors with a lot of power and influence. Do you have any concrete examples? Or can you tell us a bit about exactly what is expected from the bigger actors? Thank you

# data[].attributes.body
I have noticed that you use your name as a brand when trying to spread your work. So I was wondering what your thoughts are around this decision of making turning your name into a brand or a company?

# data[].attributes.body
I am just wondering about what do YOU think is the ideal lifestyle of people as a global citizen with good consideration of sustainability ?

Although it is difficult for all the people to be conscious of sustainable action in daily life, could every single individual finally do so?

# data[].attributes.body
What is the best educational tool that should be used for the integration of this ideas into society and how should people get to know them in deficcient systems like in numerous third world countries?

# data[].attributes.body
Is it correct to assume that you believe more in a future where (new/uninvented) technology can solve and sustain mankind on this planet, rather than advocating for lifestyle patterns (especially western) to change and adapt to limited natural capacities? If so, can you please elaborate why you would take this position? Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
Dear Alan,

What is your take on the SDGs? Do you reckon that they are contradictory and exclude each other if one is fostered and thereby it is not possible to fulfill another goal? For instance, is it possible to achieve growth, innovation and technological advances; and at the same time are able to achieve a world with more equality and equity, secure life on land and earth as well as peace justice and strong institutions? Or does the current framework constrain the fulfillment of the goals?

Thank you,
Jonas Bartke

# data[].attributes.body
Dear Alan,

What’s your view and experience with PES? Do you think it makes a difference? Do you think we can change anything staying in this neoliberal system?

Mariana Fernández

# data[].attributes.headline
Economic growth and sustainability - are they at all compatible?

# data[].attributes.subject
Economic growth and sustainability - are they at all compatible?

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Alan! Do you think we can achieve sustainability running on the current economic system? As far as I remember, "The Limits to Growth" is quite critical of the whole "growth" concept. A well known critique of the neo-liberal economy model is that economic growth just increases the gap in wealth distribution; it benefits primarily the richest of our society, while the poorest, the ones needing help the most, receive only the slight improvement in their material well-being. Moreover, not all people can afford sustainable lifestyle. What is your opinion on these issues and how shall we tackle the problems?

# data[].attributes.body
You seem to have an optimistic attitude toward our capability and progress towards sustainable development. As you in the interview with Thought Leader Global say, we are moving quickly and probably as quickly as we can. Some however argue that we are not moving quickly enough.
However you warn that a system can only change so fast before, due to stress, it breaks at the seams. Can we, humanity, not change any faster in a 'healthy' way and if not what would happen if we did?

# data[].attributes.body
In the vimeo clip 'Alan AtKinsson at Framtanker by Thought Leader Global,' you argue that "everybody knows what it (sustainable development) is: Sustainable Development, 17 clear statements, there it is" and "We know exactly what sustainable development means for the planet." These statements imply that the meaning of sustainable development is set and defined by the SDGs. Yet, a vast body of literature still discusses the meaning of the concept sustainable development, concluding that there is not one true definition (yet). I therefore wonder how you would justify that sustainable development "is" the SDGs, rather than another interpretation of the concept?

By arguing that there is only one interpretation of the concept, one could exclude many factors that could be of importance. Should the variety of interpretations/meanings not be acknowledged?

# data[].attributes.body
Last thursday I was on a lecture about sustainability in the "finance industry". They talked about green investments and the posibility in making money on sustainability. What are you´re thoughts on using captalism and the banking sector as a platform for both a sustainable future and at the same time making money out of it? Both from an environmental perspective but also the ethical aspects of it.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-oslo-launched-new-design-revolution

# data[].attributes.body
With the political climate as it is, do you believe that private sector actors (e.g. social entrepreneurs and CSR) are capable of creating a sustainable society with no aid from (and potentially working against) government? Is capitalism (and thus, SDG #8) even compatible with sustainable development as these concepts (growing GDP) promote growing consumption? Some argue that this is a systems trap of "seeking the wrong goal" (Meadows). Do "underdeveloped" countries truly need a higher GDP to be happy? What are your thoughts on this?

# data[].attributes.body
As time progresses and more people around the world (particularly those in developing nations) are going to begin living increasingly consumer-based, "first world" lives, how can this coexist with sustainable development, especially for the environment? It's been said that it would be impossible for every single person in the world to live like an average American citizen, yet in the next hundred years, it is hard to not envision most everyone leading such lives due to the astounding speed and intensity of human advancement that is now being coupled with social justice concepts. As even the "average" American lives a life nowhere close to the lives of the well-off, how much personal sacrifice will each human have to make in the future in order to avoid the utter destruction of our planet? In the future will ANYONE even be able to live like a modern-day American?

# data[].attributes.body
“The SDGs address the most pressing global challenges of our time, calling upon collaborative partnerships across and between countries to balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic growth, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion.” link

I believe there is a huge challenge in unifying economic growth with environmental stability/social inclusion/in general: the SDGs. How do you see this challenge and the possibilities for our growth-based economies to work in harmony with the SDGs (ie. sustainable use of natural resources). Is it possible?

# data[].attributes.headline
Your education about sustainable development

# data[].attributes.subject
Your education about sustainable development

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Alan, I was just wondering if sustainable development was something that you had heard of from a young age (maybe your parents influenced you ), or if there was a turning point in your life where you heard about it and was educated on it?

# data[].attributes.body
My question is, apart from what you've mentioned- what do you do to live a more sustainable life? And which sustainability actions do you think (whether you do them or not), have the most impact or are the most important on helping the environment/world or creating change?

# data[].attributes.body
I admire the vision and I am completely in support of the comprehensive list of 17 goals. But, how do you expect all of these goals to be achieved by 2030? For example, the declaration states “We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere”, what makes you think that by 2030, suddenly we will have figured out the solution to this problem, and all the others?

Furthermore, how do you define the success of such goals? Take, for example, #5 - gender equality: This is a complex issue that varies culturally. At what point can you say we have reached gender equality? Doesn’t this differ depending where you are in the world? And, if we do not have gender equality by 2030, surely our hard work up until then should nonetheless be acknowledged, celebrated even?

Finally, why did you feel the need to put a deadline on these goals? Shouldn’t the goals be open-ended, so that it is seen as a continuous fight for progress?

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Alan! I’m wondering about the success of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). I’m quite sure that in 15 years, the 17 goals of sustainable development goals will be better from today, however, how can they measure that it is already success? Since, most of them looks so abstract to me. Also, how can they know that their success is accurate?

# data[].attributes.body
Another comment already mentioned the transformers from the amoeba model and I agree with that comment that they seem to have quite an important role. What are in your opinion the clearest example of transformers in society? Journalists? Youtubers? Bloggers? How would you suggest one go about trying to become more of a transformer?

# data[].attributes.body
Why do you think are SDGs 14 and 15 separated? I mean life below water and life on land. I think they can be categorized just life. Although it really doesn't matter, I'm a bit curious about the reason.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Alan! In the video you mention buying an electric car and making sure to get electricity from wind power as some of the choices you and your family made. You also dedicated most of your life in the attempt to communicate and elaborate the concept of sustainability with others. I'm wondering which other ways -or life choices- do you see that could be taken by students like us to help reach the common goal of sustainable development? Can you guide us for a little bit and suggest a few things which are most needed to redirect society towards a more sustainable future?

# data[].attributes.body
In efforts to be environmentally friendly (on an individual scale), one can essentially never be ”good enough” – there are almost always further measures one can take. Do you think you can or should be able to ever settle with what one has done and be satisfied with, say, being on a vegetarian diet even if one still travels by airplane? Can you justify actions that are bad for the environment through doing other things that are good? Or is the ambition of a sustainable future accompanied by an endless amount of necessary actions and steps one must take in order to be considered ”good enough”? In relation to this, how do you get people to act in a more environmentally friendly manner when they know that, if they were to acknowledge the need for sustainable development, they too would have to embark upon a path of never being good enough?

# data[].attributes.body
The SDGs are goals set to put us on the right path towards a sustainable future. The goals are "universal goals", applying to all countries, involving the entire world, both developed and developing countries. On paper, it is a great idea, and hopefully it will help changing the world to the better.
But could these changes result in any negative consequences? And what could they be? (Economically, environmentally and/or socially.) Considering changes always has both positive and negative effects, big or small.

# data[].attributes.headline
Compatibility of economic growth/prosperity for all and environmental protection

# data[].attributes.subject
Compatibility of economic growth/prosperity for all and environmental protection

# data[].attributes.body
In the SDGs, it is stated that economic growth and prosperous lives for everybody should be made possible in harmony with nature and the protection of natural resources. Looking at the world as it is today and seeing that the environmental problems we face today are mainly caused by this economic growth, the boom of the population, and them striving towards prosperity, I am wondering how these two concepts, economic growth respectively prosperity and environmental protection can be reached at the same time. In the SDGs, it is stated that there needs to be a shift to more sustainable production and consumption patterns, but I am just wondering how exactly that could work - shifting and growing at the same time and also fast enough.
Furthermore, I would like to know your position on how the responsibility for reaching these goals can be shared across the countries, especially given different forms of government, culture, and belief systems. I think an already mentioned example would be how gender equality can be approached in a deeply patriarchal country.
And my thirst question is related to the goal of uniting the global community. I have the impression that we, right now, experience a driving apart of countries, rather than a coming together. Which measurements can be taken to unite people?

# data[].attributes.headline
Leadership in sustainable dev. and the amoeba model

# data[].attributes.subject
Leadership in sustainable dev. and the amoeba model

# data[].attributes.body
It seems to me that the amoeba model used to describe societal changes towards sustainability heavily relies on the presence of strong leaders, called Transformers. I think it is quite clear that these leaders have an immense impact on the success rates of our long-term goals.

Now knowing this, I would like to know the way to deal with problematics that could arise from this situation of power given to these leaders? What can be done to ensure the goals we strive for will be reached with minimal friction between different parties within our organisation, such as the leaders and the "people"? Such friction can be explained by different opinions on sustainable, ethical or moral questions arising from our work.

# data[].attributes.body
In the introduction to your book "Sustainability is for everyone" you point out that "sustainability itself is still not easy to communicate — and not everyone knows they need it". So my question is, how can we convince people of the fact they need sustainability?
And what would you recommend to anyone, who's already convinced about the urge of sustainability, in terms of taking action for it?
What should be the first step or best thing to do, to engage and accelerate the trend we're already experiencing?

# data[].attributes.body
It is often mentioned that the global goals (SDGs) will unite countries in a common strive. Do you think it can have the opposite effect at some areas? Can you see a risk for conflicts between countries?

The SDG guide says that economic growth is one part of a sustainable development. Do you think an endless economic growth is possible from a sustainable perspective? What do you think about circular economy?

# data[].attributes.headline
Sustainable education + Resilience thinking.

# data[].attributes.subject
Sustainable education + Resilience thinking.

# data[].attributes.body
It seems that one of the challenges towards sustainability is to shift our way of thinking and live, and the most appropriate way to do that is probably through education.
So I wonder how sustainable development issues can be linked to educational issues? How we should rethink education models (most of all in schools) towards sustainability?

Moreover, in the article “Resilience Thinking meets Social Theory”, it is mentioned that socio-ecological systems grow, adapt, transform and collapse in a cycle, and that we need to allow that change to happen and adapt instead of controlling it. In a greater scale, does this view may apply to climate change? Can we consider that human disturbance is part of the system that needs to adapt and change by itself; and that, for instance, SDGs are a way to control it that should be avoid?

# data[].attributes.headline
Alan at the seminar - Forward Thinking: Summiting with Sustainability.

# data[].attributes.subject
Alan at the seminar - Forward Thinking: Summiting with Sustainability.

# data[].attributes.body
https://vimeo.com/192632686

# data[].attributes.headline
Alan describing seven principles of sustainability!

# data[].attributes.subject
Alan describing seven principles of sustainability!

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3f7QkHTZxM

# data[].attributes.body
Alan AtKisson talks a lot about agents of change and how to move towards sustainability. My questions are therefore related to responsibility:  1. Should agents of change simply be individuals that are taking matters into their own hands or is there more of a collective responsibility?
2. What roles should nation states play in the endeavor of sustainability?
3. Who is responsible for the state of the world and who is obligated to "fix" it?

# data[].attributes.headline
How to be a more effective agent of change

# data[].attributes.subject
How to be a more effective agent of change

# data[].attributes.body
Really good TEDx-talk by Alan AtKisson. Halfway in he also explains the amoeba of cultural change!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to be a more effective agent of change | Alan AtKisson | TEDxUppsalaUniversity

# data[].attributes.headline
Easy-to-understand introduction to systems thinking 

# data[].attributes.subject
Easy-to-understand introduction to systems thinking 

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/A_BtS008J0k

# data[].attributes.headline
The doe-eyed environmentalist strikes again!

# data[].attributes.subject
The doe-eyed environmentalist strikes again!

# data[].attributes.body
Of course is wonderful and hopeful that a set of global goals have been created to make a more sustainable world and to better the economic, social and environmental statuses of individual nations and communities. Better yet, having a practical approach and design to lead us there! But still, I find these goals very lofty, lacking nuance and sometimes even in conflict with each other. There is an emphasis in the SDGs on an equal worth of goals rather than a prioritisation, but I see this as problematic. Here are a couple of examples:

Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing at all ages

This goal can be interpreted very differently to different people. To some people “healthy” can mean “happy” as they see it, and to others it is a higher crave of all around wellness identified by specific aspects (or pillars), ex. spiritual, physical, social, educational, emotional and environmental wellness. So, this goal differs based on different groups understanding of health and wellness. Who’s perspective of health is most important? And how can that perspective be justified while there are other goals that emphasise peace and inclusion of all societies? Lastly, how do you address that in a global perspective?

Goal 7: ensure access to affordable and clean energy for all
Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse lad degradation and halt biodiversity loss

These goals are largely left to the political domain and lately thats been shaky and even regressive when it comes to global superpowers (thinking namely of our home country, the good old USA). Rather than architecture and design, the first steps are political organisation, action and demands—which is already happening. How do you assign a practical design to a goal that is directly in conflict with the interests of powerful national governments?

# data[].attributes.body
A theme, or message, that I found prevalent in “Parachuting cats into Borneo”, was that if the interrelatedness of a collection of issues is ignored, and a solution that only addresses one particular issue is put in place, the results may be devastating. In this particular example, the use of DDT pesticide to kill malaria-carrying mosquitos led to a whole new range of issues, including collapsing roofs and the plague spread by infected rats.

Alan, you have spoken about and highlighted the importance of giving each sustainable development goal equal importance and equal priority. The goals have been described as ‘integrated and indivisible’, and the 17th goal itself relates to building partnerships for all the goals.

Which kind of (negative) effects could be seen if focus is placed on a few particular goals rather than all in combination?

That is to say, if as a global community we concentrate too much time on gender equality and climate action and not enough on peace and justice, for example.

In a general sense, do you think that would cause a halt in the progress of all goals, or maybe worsened conditions within the goals that are not given as much  attention?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Systems thinking: a cautionary tale (cats in Borneo)