EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- The Terror Con
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
Time to End War Against the Earth
When we think of wars in our times, our minds turn to Iraq and Afghanistan. But the bigger war is the war against the planet. This war has its roots in an economy that fails to respect ecological and ethical limits - limits to inequality, limits to injustice, limits to greed and economic concentration.
A handful of corporations and of powerful countries seeks to control the earth's resources and transform the planet into a supermarket in which everything is for sale. They want to sell our water, genes, cells, organs, knowledge, cultures and future.
The continuing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and onwards are not only about "blood for oil". As they unfold, we will see that they are about blood for food, blood for genes and biodiversity and blood for water.
The war mentality underlying military-industrial agriculture is evident from the names of Monsanto's herbicides - ''Round-Up'', ''Machete'', ''Lasso''. American Home Products, which has merged with Monsanto, gives its herbicides similarly aggressive names, including ''Pentagon'' and ''Squadron''.This is the language of war. Sustainability is based on peace with the earth.
The war against the earth begins in the mind. Violent thoughts shape violent actions. Violent categories construct violent tools. And nowhere is this more vivid than in the metaphors and methods on which industrial, agricultural and food production is based. Factories that produced poisons and explosives to kill people during wars were transformed into factories producing agri-chemicals after the wars.
The year 1984 woke me up to the fact that something was terribly wrong with the way food was produced. With the violence in Punjab and the disaster in Bhopal, agriculture looked like war. That is when I wrote The Violence of the Green Revolution and why I started Navdanya as a movement for an agriculture free of poisons and toxics.
Pesticides, which started as war chemicals, have failed to control pests. Genetic engineering was supposed to provide an alternative to toxic chemicals. Instead, it has led to increased use of pesticides and herbicides and unleashed a war against farmers.
The high-cost feeds and high-cost chemicals are trapping farmers in debt - and the debt trap is pushing farmers to suicide. According to official data, more than 200,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide in India since 1997.
Making peace with the earth was always an ethical and ecological imperative. It has now become a survival imperative for our species.
Violence to the soil, to biodiversity, to water, to atmosphere, to farms and farmers produces a warlike food system that is unable to feed people. One billion people are hungry. Two billion suffer food-related diseases - obesity, diabetes, hypertension and cancers.
There are three levels of violence involved in non-sustainable development. The first is the violence against the earth, which is expressed as the ecological crisis. The second is the violence against people, which is expressed as poverty, destitution and displacement. The third is the violence of war and conflict, as the powerful reach for the resources that lie in other communities and countries for their limitless appetites.
When every aspect of life is commercialized, living becomes more costly, and people are poor, even if they earn more than a dollar a day. On the other hand, people can be affluent in material terms, even without the money economy, if they have access to land, their soils are fertile, their rivers flow clean, their cultures are rich and carry traditions of producing beautiful homes and clothing and delicious food, and there is social cohesion, solidarity and spirit of community.
The elevation of the domain of the market, and money as man-made capital, to the position of the highest organizing principle for societies and the only measure of our well-being has led to the undermining of the processes that maintain and sustain life in nature and society.
The richer we get, the poorer we become ecologically and culturally. The growth of affluence, measured in money, is leading to a growth in poverty at the material, cultural, ecological and spiritual levels.
The real currency of life is life itself and this view raises questions: how do we look at ourselves in this world? What are humans for? And are we merely a money-making and resource-guzzling machine? Or do we have a higher purpose, a higher end?
I believe that ''earth democracy'' enables us to envision and create living democracies based on the intrinsic worth of all species, all peoples, all cultures - a just and equal sharing of this earth's vital resources, and sharing the decisions about the use of the earth's resources.
Earth democracy protects the ecological processes that maintain life and the fundamental human rights that are the basis of the right to life, including the right to water, food, health, education, jobs and livelihoods.
We have to make a choice. Will we obey the market laws of corporate greed or Gaia's laws for maintenance of the earth's ecosystems and the diversity of its beings?
People's need for food and water can be met only if nature's capacity to provide food and water is protected. Dead soils and dead rivers cannot give food and water.
Defending the rights of Mother Earth is therefore the most important human rights and social justice struggle. It is the broadest peace movement of our times.
This is an edited version of Dr Vandana Shiva's speech at the Sydney Opera House last night.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
82 Comments so far
Show AllBeautiful!
Shasta: I second that!
These wise words are also the creed of the shamans of South America. Note the Bolivian leader, Evo Morales speaks of Earth Mother as viable entity (one to consider seriously) in political discussions and forums.
This life-sutaining understanding MUST spread as antidote to the disease of man-made (Wall St.) abstractions of worth... for these negate things of lasting, inestimable value!
The rancher and corporate farmer has a motive to take land and pollute, but no economic force stands up for the natives or subsistence farmers he displaces. Yes, we're seeing a continuation of brutal, land-stealing and culture-killing Colonialism.
But the profit motive can be used two ways. A radio quote after 9-11 was 'we need a fair playing field tilted towards the environment'. A cap-and-trade with real teeth would do that, but no country wants to tax its' own polluters, raising the price of its' exports. However the Carbon tax - taxing every unit of pollution - can be made fair.
Every treaty nation agrees to tax its' own polluters at the same small (or higher) rate. Importers from non-treaty nations pay a heavy, refundable import duty when importing to a treaty nation. (This will be refunded to equal the pollution from that nation.) Each nation keeps a fraction of this as a new tax and turns the rest over to the Fund for a Cool Gaia.
A credit from this fund is divided up among all the poor, be they homeless in the US, a wandering African tribe, or hunters/gatherers/farmers in South America, or living in poverty in a camp or town.
What do these people and their ecosystem (liferaft) need? for their government to preserve their ecosystem? provide windmill-driven wells or trees? With careful science, segregated wastewater could be piped for irrigation. Solar desalinators could be given to them. When they amass enough credit, these are provided for them.
Furthermore, why not extend this to water and land pollution, or merely use? Ultimately, instead of just charging for new landuse, all users would pay a tax.
I can not express enough how much I agree with this article. It speaks right to what I personally feel the root of our problems and that IS the war on Nature and the desire to turn everything into a "commodity".
Canada blew it big time. We started off as a country in a partnership with the First nations peoples adopting many of their ideals as we weaned ourselves from the mentality of an expansionist and Imperialist Europe.
We then abandoned those peoples and their ideals in a mad pursuit of monetary wealth at any cost.
The language of war is one of the first things I noticed when I moved to America.
Everything is a battle or war.
People battle hunger, they battle disease, they make war on drugs and obesity and poverty. While these are ostensibly good actions they speak to a mindset.
It is a language of destruction, not of creation.
And other cultures do not speak like this, not even Europe or the Commonwealth.
Thank you, thank you Vandana Shiva.
'There is only one value, the life and health of the World.' Wendell Berry
Money and greed are powerful things but how can it make sense to destroy the Earth? It doesn't matter what your spiritual beliefs or lack thereof, it makes no sense.
I consider myself a follower of Christ and even though I believe that my ultimate home is with my Lord and Savior, I also believe that if you disrespect the Creation, you disrespect the Creator.
http://tokeepit.com/
Too bad that your fellow "followers of Christ" are determined to destroy the Earth in their great "Armageddon" so that sweet baby Jesus can rule over the ruins. Your religion is one of the main reasons that western "civilization" has used Earth as a disposable product for the last few millennia.
I wish that you all would go home to your "Lord and Savior" and quit wrecking the planet.
No need to be so nasty. Not all Christians are dangerous.
Yes, they are. All religions are inherently trans-historical and, thereby, in effect, dangerous.
An unloaded and secured pistol is not dangerous, but all guns are a danger. Likewise with those willing to suspend reason and forsake science as they make wild and inexplicable leaps of faith. Regardless of the creed - there is danger in them thar hymnals.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger ...... is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself to us as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of all true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of devoutly religious men." - Albert Einstein
Don't confuse the teachings of the spiritual masters with those of their "followers" .....
That was beautiful. That was absolutely beautiful.
Like, hellooo. Haven't you ever heard of Star Trek? There are like a kazillion earths out there just waiting for the taking. Why do you think our leaders need so much money...to build Star Fleet, maybe?! We have evolved, matured, outgrown this little blue marble.
Now lets roll down our collars and pull up our socks, because there are evil empires in space that need a lesson, or two, on how to behave.
Absolutely essential article!
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."
–John Adams, Deist
“What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility.”
–Albert Einstein, Pantheist
"I believe in the cosmos. All of us are linked to the cosmos. So nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred. Trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals. Being at one with nature."
–Mikhail Gorbachev, Pantheist
"The heart of Pantheist philosophy is a belief in the sanctity of Nature. This means that we hold reverence for the inconceivable evolutionary processes that created us; for the unfolding of the stars in the Universe and the life on our home planet Earth. In short--we put our faith in our Creator--meaning not only all past events and shapes and patterns, but also the now, for Creation is a continuing process and exists within us and around us this very instant."
--Harold W. Wood
.
This is not a political, or economic, or cultural, or ecological, or spiritual battle we are fighting. Its and, and, and, and and... We must prevail on all these fronts, because they're all the same really – It's BIOLOGY.
Our collective health, and the biological health of the planet, whether you are atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, pantheist or Neo-Pagan, is a sacred, or incontestable cause applying to all people. When we see that biological, and spiritual vitality are hand in hand, one-in-the-same, and apply the same socio/cultural value to both, the process of creating the viable systems we need to maintain our worlds sustainability can really begin.
–SS
Well said SS.
Pantheists unite!
==We have to make a choice. Will we obey the market laws of corporate greed or Gaia's laws for maintenance of the earth's ecosystems and the diversity of its beings?==
Dinosaurs chose correctly for 260 million years but one day an immense asteroid struck Earth. When the tumult and shouting and coughing and dying had finished - some shrews began walking over the rubble, pausing occasionally to fuck. The baby shrews looked nothing like the Koch brothers but, no matter, that is the end result. As a Nihilist I believe we are long overdue for another asteroid hit. Human beings infest this planet.
Meanwhile I put out feeders and suet for birds in the throes of winter-- and stuff for squirrels.
I, too, love the birds (pigeons included) and the squirrels (and rats)! And Forest Hills' magnificent trees!
I celebrate the dinosaurs as the MOST successful living vertebrates to have evolved on planet Earth. Insects are also one of the most SUCCESSFUL little never-say-die invertebrates on Earth.
I am not an environmentalist because I find much too many environmentalists are HUMAN CENTERED. Note the human-centered references from the above article:
"This war has its roots in an economy that fails to respect ecological and ethical limits* - limits to inequality, limits to injustice, limits to greed and economic concentration.
"There are three** levels of violence involved in non-sustainable development. The first is the violence against the earth, which is expressed as the ecological crisis. The second is the violence against people, which is expressed as poverty, destitution and displacement. The third is the violence of war and conflict, as the powerful reach for the resources that lie in other communities and countries for their limitless appetites." And:
"Earth democracy protects the ecological processes that maintain life and the fundamental human rights*** that are the basis of the right to life, including the right to water, food, health, education, jobs and livelihoods. Defending the rights of Mother Earth is therefore the most important human rights**** and social justice struggle. It is the broadest peace movement of our times."
WHERE is the level of violence directed unendingly against BILLIONS of sentient nonhuman beings? In and by slaughterhouses, factory farms, ranching, cloning, genetic mutilation, vivisection labs, dehorning, castrating, hobbling, branding, debeaking, tail docking, sport hunting, angling, commercial and deep sea fishing, recreational trapping, "pest" or "varmint" extermination, culling campaigns, fashiong fun furs, bullfighing, cockfighting, rodeos, circuses, on and on and on into eternity? What of animals' rights to life, peace, joy, fulfilment? A right not to be valued as "property" or "resources"? They deserve more than to suffer and die for the lowest price!
What about limits to human behavior vis-a-vis sentient fellow earthlings who happen not to be human? Is it a crime to be unable to "strike back" the way humans do -- with weapons of mass destruction! It is counterproductive for oppressed peoples and progressives and environmentalists to denigrate animals, to blame THEM for their own oppression, to believe that is what they DESERVE!
Consider my comments and don't think of asking me why I believe the "human spirit" sucks!
"I am not an environmentalist because I find much too many environmentalists are HUMAN CENTERED. Note the human-centered references from the above article: "
Then perhaps you should stop communicating to us humans, and just keep your discussion going with the species you'd prefer to evolve into the dominant species.
We cannot 'cure' the planet of humanity; The best bet is for us to understand the same fundamental basics that many cancer researchers are coming to theorize are behind causes of the affliction: Cancer cells 'go rogue' because the systems they inhabit no longer benefit and cater to the health of each individual cell. Many stressed cells die under the harsh conditions of a polluted environment, but in some, a switch is flipped, and they survive by consuming all others around them.
We need to convince 'rogue humans' that they can indeed be productive and valued members of a society that cares for their needs. A movement is needed that convinces the people that they are part of a bigger cause for the good – and 'the good' is synonymous with conservation awareness. Your nihilism is not going to inspire the change that is needed.
"The earth doesn't care. New species will evolve." (a common, similar sentiment to yours)
"New species will evolve" Probably one of the most pointless, predictable and thoughtless sentiments a person can utter, but they'll keep saying it as if spreading their despair isn't part of what lead us to our state of apathetic ineffectiveness in the first place. Humans have done unutterable evils upon each other, and the planet. But you cannot indict the whole of humanity for the acts of a virulent minority that threaten us all.
"I believe the "human spirit" sucks!"
Maybe, but if you're hoping for some other, more kindly organism to evolve to a civilization building, scientifically, and self-aware species, they will very likely simply repeat the same mistakes we humans have... maybe worse ones than ours.
What we're witnessing today is not 'the human spirit' in action, we're witnessing the spirit of the robber-barons of yesteryear trying to take over our country and the world, and to stomp on the majority of humanity who want real democratic representation and reform. The robber barons were defeated, if temporarily, by progressive forces who gathered, and stopped them. It can be done again, and must be. But nihilism is not a weapon of the successful, and I'm happy to state,
I believe knocking the "human spirit" sucks!
–SS
Couldn't have said it better. One might only add, "if you feel that way about humans, perhaps you should consider offing yourself?"
Salusa,
“Then perhaps you should stop communicating to us humans, and just keep your discussion going with the species you'd prefer to evolve into the dominant species.”
The reason humans “suck” is because we actually believe we ARE the “dominant species.” We think we’re so “dominant” that we can do whatever we like and damn whoever or whatever gets killed or suffers or becomes extinct in the process. When the balance of this planet gets so “dominated” by humans that it can’t sustain human life at the rate it’s going, then I bet we’ll see where domiance lies.
If we intend to be around on this planet for much longer we had all better open a discussion with other species and pay close attention to what they are telling us! We better all stop acting like spoiled rotten kids with no respect for anything and start acting like responsible (humble) adults.
"genetic mutilation"
Go to your city park, take a look at the creatures human beings have made by messing with the wild genetics of dogs. There are dogs with twice as much skin as is healthy, dogs with only a couple inches of clearance to the ground, tiny, curly white dogs with bows in their fur, dogs with smashed in, flattened muzzles - why? why do we do these things to animals?
I imagine there are geneticists today, eager to develop human characteristics in the same way. Just imagine: a breed of complacent, easily manipulated, war obsessed, obsequious humans!
oops.
Note that Ms Shiva's biographical blurb at the end of the post describes her first as a feminist.
I am a WASP male baby-boomer, but I can, and most gratefully do, recognize true feminism when I see, hear, or read it. Ms Shiva never fails to deliver an uplifting message with a call to nurture and the affirmation of life and values that sustain it.
Contrast this with the Western, and particularly American, feminist agenda, which has resulted in more than a few women in positions of power whose primary qualification is that they can be just as rapacious as the men they displace. Gender equality is a good thing regardless, but would be all the better if it brought with it some moderation of prevailing techno-capitalist values.
For that, it appears, we must look to the East.
Excuse me but I and other ecofeminists in the USA share the values of Vandana Shiva and we simply don't get the press liberal feminists get. There are many ecofeminists in the USA, the late great Grace Paley was part of that. Read the statement for Women for Life on Earth. These women encircled the Pentagon in the 1980s and have been working on many of the issues Shiva refers to in this article. I personally had the pleasure of throwing Ronald McDonald (a statue) into the mud in Beijing at the UN Convention on Women with Vandana following a march for food rights with women of many nations.
We don't need to divide women East vs West. No doubt there are corporate feminists in India by now. The problem is the outlook. Few are as articulate and brilliant as Vandana or as committed to activism. Yet I know quite a few women who have devoted their whole lives and energies to these issues. They come from a variety of countries and they certainly do come from the US. There are many who comment here who haven't a clue to the history of radicalism in the past 40 years. It's understandable because the media does its best to shut out the more challenging perspectives and actions. More power to Vandana Shiva for making her voice heard. And there are many women here who share her perspective.
Thank you, Vandana.
I agree. Earth Aches!
Now, how will we get from here to there? How will we honor Earth first and eliminate greed and corporate control over our lives?
Derrick Jensen is the only author I have found who is willing and able to answer these questions and others honestly. All of his books speak to his love of Earth.
However, I believe his two volume book, ENDGAME, expresses best what we must do if we are to survive as a species and stop Earth's aches. The 20 premises upon which his ideas are based are available online. Please read them and then consider reading Derrick's book(s).
http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm
EarthHugger
Jensen's premises suggest the kind of thinking Daniel Quinn used in his novels Ishmael and My Ishmael, where he idolized the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that the hunter-gatherer life is not as edenic as some people make it out to be. I once read a book by a fellow who spent some time in Greenland. In talking to an elderly Eskimo, he asked if life was better for them since Denmark took over running the place. The old guy said it was, because fewer of them starved to death anymore.
So I am not comfortable with some of Jensen's premises.
Remember this entry , S.H. Remember it, so you can be "en garde" against the darkside of the "love of nature", as it will show up, too, in THIS arena; as it always shows up in all arenas, everywhere.
"It has been one of the defects of theologians at all times to over-estimate the importance of our planet. No doubt this was natural enough in the days before Copernicus when it was thought that the heavens revolve about the earth. But since Copernicus and still more since the modern exploration of distant regions, this pre-occupation with the earth has become rather parochial. If the universe had a Creator, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that He was specially interested in our little corner. And, if He was not, His values must have been different from ours, since in the immense majority of regions life is impossible"
This is something Bertrand Russell wrote in 1952. The full article is available at
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html
Russell's article suggests that we had better take care of what we have because that is all there ever will be.
And James Lovelock's contention is that the planet will adjust to new conditions, even if those conditions are not compatible with human life.
Very well and bravo to Russell, as usual, but "overestimate the importance of this planet" to whom? It may be a speck and I a speck on a speck, but it is still my first and only, and I would just as soon those theologians were less cavalier about it than they are.
With a doff of the sombrero to the sheep,
b
There is no "war" mentality against the earth. It's the typical rapacious behavior of a species that has discovered a huge resource and then reproduced itself into overshoot.
Rail against the ag companies all you want, but they're the ones that fed your parents' when they were reproducing like rabbits.
The endgame is upon us. Peak oil will bring dieback in short order.
The Earth doesn't need you. It will do just fine after we're gone.
Obviously written by someone who has no children or doesn't care what happens to them and following generations ....
Beautiful article, says so much.
To those criticizing it, you appear to me to be a different species, which I consider highly unfortunate for us all.
Life should be the profit motive.
Ms. Vandana is Pollyannish to the extreme. No one among the powerful is listening to her.
How bad will things have to get before she realizes that only armed struggle, by right-thinking people, will save a place on this planet for humans.
People with power are not the only ones that count. Many Americans have turned their backs on this brutal society--in part, due to the efforts of Vandana. Truly revolutionary thinking will not elevate those in positions of power to a status higher than an ordinary mother, father, child, or citizen. It's changing our consciousness that is most important--and that can occur in everyone.
Most "spritual" USAns who think of themselves as "green" lay down a big carbon footprint - with all that driving in the big suburban SUV to all the new-age guru talks in air-conditioned ashrams, and trips to the Whole Foods store and the like.
I'll take these white-bourgeois spiritual-green people seriously when I start to see them taking the 51-Carrick bus into town.
Concrete action, not "feelings" or spiritual grace of some sort, are what counts.
i think part of her point was that it is such "armed struggle", among other things, that has brought so much devastation to the earth and its inhabitants, all of them ...
"armed struggle, by right-thinking people,"
Almost anyone who engages in "armed struggle" thinks of him/herself as a "right-thinking person", and then, of course, there's the question of precisely what to "arm" oneself with ...
There is the concept, that i subscribe to, that there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. Let us hope that the idea that Vandana Shiva is articulating is one of those ....
This article, IMO, is complementary to one by Maude Barlow, "Our Common Future ..." published on CD awhile ago. i don't think it got the attention it deserved.
Thank you CD, for this article. I hope to see more from Shiva (and Roy), here ....
Environmentalists are first on the FBI's watchlist.
"We have to make a choice. Will we obey the market laws of corporate greed or Gaia's laws for maintenance of the earth's ecosystems and the diversity of its beings?
People's need for food and water can be met only if nature's capacity to provide food and water is protected. Dead soils and dead rivers cannot give food and water."
~~~~~~~~
The major problem for Earth is, there are too many people - spreading (as a matter of fact) like a plague over the fair face of Earth..... What, I think, MUST be kept in mind is : Earth's resources are finite..
If we find a way to feed and bring to adulthood all the now starving poor who at this time do not reach the age of reproducing.. all over the world... we will find Earth can not cope with the ever-increasing population. We MUST use pesticides, chop down the essential-to-Earth's welfare : trees. We must use fuel to reach the far-away places to bring food and water to them. Planes, ships, rugged vehicles.
In other words, we have no alternative but to pollute. Again : *Earth's resources are finite.*
The New World Order is aware of this fact, I think. Over-loading Mother Nature with numbers of living breathing things all needing water and food and soil to grow our food... she simply can not cope with. She and we would all die. Yes.
I think that the New World Order might have some solution in mind... Like : Earth could be made a beautiful, bountiful place one more.. if she had fewer people. (Scary if you are not one of the elite of the 'New World Order'.)
I think a look at the American ex Secretary of Defence (Cohen) would be useful - where he suggests many ways are known 'by our enemies' (one would have to believe that America knows of these ways if any country does!) to - "from afar" - cause death and destruction to the many, by use of causing earthquakes, causing volcanos to erupt, altering weather patterns so that droughts or floods might be caused and, the death and destruction hurricanes can bring.
I will post one of the many sources on this delivery in the next of my posts...
Because, of course! this is not 'me' speaking.. but, as I say, the ex Sec. of Defense speaking at a Dept of Defence conferance.
So many things we do not take into consideraton, not least the collusion of the powerful elite, not of any one country, but of all powerful countries.
Thye would, naturally, rationally, like Earth and Earth's bounty for themselves.
Hmm
~sc
Ex Secretary of Defence.. Cohen.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tsunami19.htm
~sc
Yeah, and now we have the Hadron Collider ready to zap the Earth and possibly induce The Rapture???!!!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Large-Hadron-Collider-by-Elizabeth-Young-101106-848.html
This writer mirrors many of my own thoughts and feelings about the imbalances we now live with as the "normal way of life".
The soil, air, and water of this earth are all most precious elemets since all else is dependent on them. Humanity likes to speak of dominion and superiority, but without the basic elements of clean air, biodynamic soil, and clean water, life becomes impossible or at the least insufferable.
In current political discourse there is too little recognition that without a healthy and thriving ecology, without the bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds, wealth/power cannot buy one moment of lasting vitality.
How differently I can imagine a world where Nature is once again adored and appreciated for her incredible generousity of being. How wonderful if humanity could take their natural place in the system - cultivating and enhancing life for all creatures and forms.
I can imagine such a wonder... and I am grateful that there are others who can as well. Perhaps if we allow ourselves the privilege to become the ones that live that way... the foolishness of temporary gains at the expense of others will fade along with the hopelessness they engender.
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live. An EXCELLENT quote.
GAIA to humans; in your face.
Where in this ecologically diverse closed system is there another creature such as you humans who think just because you have the cranial capacity to house a brain to think and reason that, as sure as my travels thru this galaxy , you do not use to any great effect. You have to ask why that is so? You have the nerve to question what is evident to any thinking entity that can see all that your heart desired from the land, sea, air has made it a growing desolation. Do you think that you can go to the Moon or Mars for sustenance after being done here? The arrogance leaves me stupefied; you have science that says, in the future we will be able to do all you wish and there is nothing wrong with wishful thinking but do not forget that this is not the future and you are destroying now what you are wishing for the future.
Is the human populace ready to see all the Sea’s rise because of the changing weather patterns and lands that are needed for food being used to grow fuel for machines, made by you of course, cant even take care of your own; who birthed you and put you here? Are there any regrets from this Creator of you? I will probably survive you but you have been a pain in my ass. Take this talk of a Northwest Passage and it sounds so good because shipping will be so much easier and cheaper to go from one part of the world to the other and so who cares if the glaciers are melting? You say that is the way things are they change; not realizing that things do change but not all at once and not with this intensity. It is not logical and not very scientific and you folks are all about science, right?
Anyway back to that passage; this is just one example, the gulf Stream which takes warm water up that place you call North America on the east coast up to and around Greenland and then comes down the east coast as cold water. Don’t want to get to “scientific” here but if the glaciers are melting where is the cold water going to come from? If you know anything about ocean currents then you will know that without them you cannot live. It is as simple as that and these currents run all over the world. It is not for me to make you believe. So much life out there that asks nothing but to be left to live. Think on that.
Tony
the occupiers of public sphere should get their priority strait
- once human life is secured by introduction to democratic participation, than all the other causes get their relevance
edweg
I'm going to open up this thread to another, but directly related topic if anyone wants to discuss:
OVERPOPULATION.
Why doesn't anyone seriously talk about this in the mainstream media, mainstream politics, mainstream economic circles etc etc.?
Its a desperately needed discussion I think, but one that never takes place with any meaningful resolutions, or agendas set in motion (other than the dubious system set up in China). A number of others have raised the issue here already, but what are the prescriptions to deal with it, other than taking the nihilist stance of hoping the entire species goes extinct like the dinosaurs, or simply waiting for such devastation to beset us that it will force us and all other species to survive by morphing into something else completely - most likely something vicious and vile in order to survive the horrid new conditions of life on the planet?
Are we doomed like voracious bacteria on a petri-dish, to consume all of our resources, and then each other before dying completely – or instead, in some last ditch effort, sending our spores out into the unknown, and seeking to inhabit distant, unsuspecting petri-dishes?
I think this issue MUST be tackled head on, and soon.
As for me, I think the answer is education, only. Period. But coercive, or surreptitious means, which I am absolutely against, will be all that we're left with if we don't discuss this topic openly and responsibly – and yet so few humans seem to be aware of the need to do so.
Anyone think they know the reasons why?
"Overpopulation" goes against just about every political, economic and religious philosophy as we know it. If mathematical equations were to be applied, or just physics, especially Laws of Thermodynamics, all of the above philosophies, including the content of this article would be meaningless. But I think that's the point. All of it is designed to give some sort of vague meaning and organization to our existence. None offer a solution in the long-term.
Buckminster Fuller found out in the 50's that the population increase of any society levels off to approximately 0 once there is universal access to electricity.
He also designed everything that would be needed to house the entire population of the earth, with more personal space each than they have now, sustainably, in a plot of land the size of Texas, while growing all the food needed for them to live healthy lives in a land mass the size of the continental US. All of this without having to rely on ANY new extracted materials, simply recycling. His work has been improved on since.
Overpopulation is not the problem, misutilization of resources is the problem.
You raise a very important point, one that is key to this concern. I am myself a fan of many of Fuller's ideas, and he's undeniably made numerous valuable contributions. Sadly, the world we live in hasn't panned out the way he had optimistically hoped. In spite of a there being *theoretically enough resources on Earth* to sustain a human population over 7 billion, I am convinced we *are* facing a capacity dilemma, as someone previously noted.
Obviously this is not only a touchy subject, its a very dangerous one for anyone to bring up, for the obvious reasons. But in my opinion, and based off of the scientific data which shows that at our current consumption rates, regardless of what top efficiency rates may allow, we are killing this planet. Quickly or slowly, we're not so sure, but that we are killing our host is a certainty. If we don't honestly address this, it will be an even more daunting concern in the future.
I believe a multi-tiered international education program, accompanied by the foreign aid necessary to support it, is the best way to confront this issue. And the focus of the education should primarily be based on
1. *Empowerment of Women*. It has been shown time and time again that women who have the capability to choose their own career paths, and pursue higher, or even basic education in some cases, choose to have fewer children, and generally raise these children in more healthful conditions (for themselves, and their children). On top of supporting educational programs, progressives should also be fighting ceaselessly to pressure countries that downplay womens' rights to get with the modern era, and end their misogynist ways – or risk whatever sanctions we are able to levy against them (it would help for progressives to actually have some power first).
2. Strengthen social infrastructure. It is also very true what herdpoisoning mentioned (what a nym/nick for this conversation!) about electricity. Development and improved social infrastructure generally result in a population decrease, so this in another important factor in how educating a populace in the classroom can result in profound paradigm shifts outside. We should also be giving foreign aid to specifically support such infrastructure programs. As Robert Fisk pointed out clearly from a recent article, if we want them to be our friends, lets send bricks and mortar, instead of bombs and mortars into these countries.
3. Destigmatize birth-control. Part of the education program that will be necessary is to teach reproductive health. For cultural reasons, this can be a touchy subject in certain countries, so obviously sensitivity to cultural norms must be adhered to, but avoiding the uncomfortable on this issue is no longer an option imo.
4. Fight to maintain access to legal, safe abortion. Importantly, I think the progressive platform here should be similar to what Hillary Clinton has been stating: 'Clean, safe, and rare' (not intending to give her too many kudos, mind you). The emphasis being that abortion is something to avoid if possible, and not because an embryo has died, but because we recognize the pain the mother and family must endure when going through such a difficult decision. The support of Roe vs Wade in America is so important because abortion should be understood as a medical and social need in some cases, moreso than simply a choice. In cases of rape, incest, or situations of obvious incapacity to adequately parent a child, or in cases where the threat to the health of the mother or child is so acute that abortion is the only reasonable option, if the legal avenue is blocked, an illegal alternative will be found.
I will add that I think its important to avoid the similar pitfall faced by the Democrats of supporting, or wanting to promote abortions as a standard solution to unexpected pregnancy. I know this is mythologizing by the right, but its a baggage we wont need as progressives attempt to court the morally conscious from all backgrounds and ethnicities of Americans.
Final note: "Overpopulation is not the problem, misutilization of resources is the problem."
The above 4 approaches deal with the problem whether its 'overpopulation' or 'mis-utilization' - I guess 'over-capacity' is the term that serves us best. One way or the other, this problem won't just go away until we as a species collectively determine to do something about it. And my ultimate fear is that our collective avoidance will only lead down the road to less and less acceptable solutions.
Would agree with much of what you say with a couple of tweaks/exceptions. E.g.;
"if we want them to be our friends, lets send bricks and mortar, instead of bombs and mortars into these countries."
I would suggest that instead of sending bricks and mortar, we help them to produce their own sustainable building materials based on the resources of their own particular habitats. Gift only what they absolutely need according to their own definition of need ....
"I will add that I think its important to avoid the similar pitfall faced by the Democrats of supporting, or wanting to promote abortions as a standard solution to unexpected pregnancy.
Do you know of folks who actually want to "promote" abortion? The only ones i can think of who might want to are those for whom this "overpopulation" thing is paramount in their thinking processes ....